We are using their optics

Build quality is one thing. Innovation is another.  

They are really good thieves for a reason.

It’s standing on a wobbling pedestal at the moment.

In a brief clash? Yes.

However I'm not sure if the U.S. or any other Western country would be able to sustain a bloody effort requiring mass mobilization like the war in Ukraine, or even something like Vietnam, given the shortcomings of Gen Z.

Then there's the issue of low weapons inventories, where even the peak Reagan Buildup U.S. military of the '80s only had a month's worth of ammunition when expended at WW3 rates.

Today, after Ukraine?

Our Navy is more powerful than the rest of the world's combined. One of our ten carrier task forces would be enough to defeat the navy of any other country in the world.

Our federal government has many flaws. Commitment to funding their frontline military assets is not one of them.

I agree our Navy does still lead the world in power. But we are losing the edge in infantry. And let's not forget recruiting is down in most - if not all - of the branches. Lastly, we have not been able to keep up with the drain our quasi war in The Ukraine has caused. Unfortunately we have a senile diaper wearing POTUS who fires off rhetoric that we may be forced, at some point, to back up.

I'm not aware of any scientific, economic, or strategic indicator that suggests China even has the ability to build a navy capable of projecting power beyond the first island chain, let alone challenging the deep water US Navy. They import half of their food and energy. 2 attack subs parked off Sri Lanka can turn off every civilian lightbulb in China if they wanted, and 18 months later half a billion of their populations starves to death.

We aren’t losing any edge in infantry or leadership as others have mentioned here. Sure in political leadership but not in actual military leadership or competency of the actual troops themselves. One on one we can defeat any country mainly due to one thing and one thing only.

Supply chain.

Without a good supply chain, you cannot keep the fighting going. We are seeing this with Russia. It’s not that Ukranian troops are better than Russian troops. It’s that Russia does not have a sustainable supply chain.

A close second is equipment but supply chain is the main factor. If Russia or China had better jets, carriers, rifles, etc than we did and invaded us or we fought in islands like we did in WW2 with Japan, and we only had AKs and older tanks, ships, and missiles, we would still beat them due to our supply chain being massive.

I would be shocked to learn if the current U.S. military budget could be sustained for even 10 more years, when its effectively being paid for by Elroy Jetson's tax dollars as is.

IMO the U.S. is in the same boat as the late stage British Empire and the Soviet Union, where it still has enormous military assets but they are becoming less usable for many reasons, and no way to sustain them to the same level going forward.

GD thinks in ships. Congress and China thinks in missiles.

GD hasn’t had its military and FP software updated in over a decade

Now do LRASMs

True but Europe is providing innovation for them in the last decade.

True.

They aren't too picky. They get it where ever and how ever they can.

I have doubts.
As a young troop almost fifty years ago, in the days of 24/7/365 airborne nuclear alerts, constant ground troop alerts if you were deployed overseas, constant training on NBC I was pretty certain my life expectancy should the Soviets drive through the Fulda Gap was measured in minutes if not seconds. That timeframe could be extended depending on how fast/well my unit did it's job.

I got my first ed-U-kashun during those early years in the difference betwixt OCS leadership and Academy Graduates, namely, West Point. I also got 'splained to, personally in up close-in-yer-face style in the difference between "peacetime soldiers" and Combat Vets. Most of the NCO's in that first Company I went to were combat vets from the "last war", Vietnam. Interestingly enough, those "firsts" pretty much can set the tone for those early formative years of a soldier/sailor/marine.

While my squad leader, an E-6 didn't go to RVN, his assistant squad leader, MY section leader, was. First Marine Division. To say that his overseas service colored his thinking and leadership would be an understatement. Once I understood the difference, I'd gladly have gone to war with either or both of them. Willingly. Gladly. Happily. Others I saw, not so much. As I progressed in my career, eventually ETS'ing to a Cee-villian job matching my meager skills(lack of, LOL) I spent the remainder of forty-something years in a satisfyingly rewarding career. Those people skills I learned at the knee of those combat vets pretty much colored my thinking forevermore. They came in handy, too.

Except for the period from oh, about 1975 to 1990, our Country has been at war. Many of the veterans who had a part of those wars are combat vets. Those who served farther from the sharp end, their service is just as important because they too, saw firsthand the difference between "peacetime" and....not. an Army, an Air Force, a Navy is the sum of it's individuals. ALL of them are required for the job to get done. Ain't no fucking "I" in TEAM.

The hottest hotshit aircraft, ship, rifle, howitzer is no better than whoever runs it. Got a top flight fifth gen whiz-bang fighter? Ain't worth diddly if the pilots suck. Ain't worth nuttin' if the maintenance people don't do THEIR jobs. The military-industrial complex does great at producing the latest rifle but the ammunition production doesn't keep up or, let some fucked up old dude give away all your good munitions that you can't easily replace....you can also lose wars because you ain't got enough bullets.

Quite frankly, I felt better served and SAFER during the 80-90's with that leadership. Going forward from there it became apparent that the leadership at the top progressively held to values most soldiers and sailors don't have time for. (They're too busy doing their jobs to kiss much ass...mostly) Those top leaders spent more time getting their selves on TV and on the promotion list. Oh, there were some good ones, still are, but I'm quite a bit out of the loop. However, when I see what passes for a SecDef or CJCS...man. I'm fuggin' glad I don't work for'em.

When I see a Marine LTC thaaattt close to getting his twenty flush his career and walk away because he asked HIS command, politely I thought, of why for we fucked up the end of Afghanistan and pretty much got told to STFU...well, considering all the OTHER stuff going on in the military, I don't see that that fallout has finished falling yet.

No. I have no confidence in either the civilian leadership or the military leadership -->> As A Whole<<-- to conduct and win the next war. Not even our nukes, what little we have left, will save us should our adversaries choose to go that direction.

I'd put our people against anyone else's, any day of the week.

I also think we are failing them.  We need to take a hard look at how we train at all levels.  We have tremendous capacity to train, but that training needs to be frequent, relevant, and realistic.  Too many people are seeing training as a check in the box, or they are afraid to make mistakes

Which is why all the “but Russia is losing” posts aren’t relevant. The bigger questions are China’s leadership. Is it as mediocre as Moscow on the battlefield? How are China’s logistics? What commitments will our Allie’s provide? A Philippines style fear of China or a Singapore style neutrality or actual participation? Lot of bigger questions than comparing ships and numbers. https://nationalinterest.org/feature/china   Attached File

My take is that the US has hurt it's credibility recently, so initially the region will not want to get on Xis bad side, as he is more likely to be around in the region going forward.

Once it's a fight, they will only stay neutral until one side starts to win.   Anyone that was going to pick a side before it kicks off, has.

After that everyone wants to be a winner.

I wouldn't expect China to have logistics issues like Russia, they are paying attention to that goat rope, and they do scale better than anyone on the planet.

Thailand has a history of neutrality and despite the recent election there I’m sure it will continue to be neutral. Much of Asia already picked a side. China naval base in Cambodia, China’s coco island investment in Burma, USA desperately trying to convince Laos to turn back from China. The only countries outside of China short range missiles are Indonesia and Malaysia and GD already had a thread about USN coming to Malaysia’s rescue de deal years ago. Neither of those countries have a notable Air Force or Navy and both are currently kowtowing to Beijing. Only India which I have a thread about and Vietnam remain on the possible anti China table and both are rated subpar air and naval powers. India in the National Interest article is mentioned as unlikely to aid the USA over Taiwan. We are the cavalry and this current hope that Allie’s will do the heavy lifting is unlikely. Until D.C. motivates Europe and Japan lives up to its 2028 defense goal I doubt we’ll see more than token contributions during the toughest period of fighting so your idea requires us to be winning in the hardest part of a war. Will be interesting to see all the future GD threads in that time frame                           Attached File

With out a doubt. But only off used correctly

Yep. It's always been s US vs China War. Allies might impact around the edges with their own military but it's mostly basing for US assets. Japan does have some real capabilities.

I could see Japan or Austalia handling the low intensity stuff outside the islands but we'll probably all be wrong about how this will be fought.  I can't see the US military playing to China's strengths. That's not how we do things.

China is trying to catch up, but the US is still at the top.

lol @ that retarded website though

Then they need to step aside and let others who ARE willing to risk their careers, and more, for this country.

China is leaning into drones, cyber, space, etc. and we clipped their wings on AI but they’re claiming to move forward with domestic microchips {I doubt there’s truth in that claim} but they keep waving the Korea wildcard probably hoping to scare us on “never fight a land war in Asia” meme                                     Attached File
                               

“Diversity is our strength”

The Chinese can’t invade the United States with an army, and then march that army across deserts and mountains, and then onto the plains. Not happening. Ever.

It would be awesome if they tried tho! My only fear if it happens is a bunch of Texans beating me into the fight….they would be even more insufferable.

Seems like every one of these threads it has to be restated that China will build your shit to the lowest bidder standard, but it can be guaranteed that they don't skimp on their own military.

They have far more shipbuilding capacity and possibly even expertise than we do at this point with everything except for perhaps nuclear propulsion, and it's not like they probably don't have blueprints and schematics for every western naval reactor, so its only a matter of time for that - their type 004 class supercarrier is predicted to be nuclear powered.

China in a full on war with anyone will likely have nearly nonexistent ROE and they won't give a shit what they have to wreck or who they have to sacrifice. I don't think you can say the same about us since WWII.

At some point we have to be serious about China, and right now we are not a serious people

Fastest horse in the glue factory something, something, something

China is super corrupt, I guarantee their generals steal from their military, similar to Russia.

As a Navy Veteran I find that sad .??

We typically have to suffer a bit before we hand the reigns to the guys that didn't read the ROE.

Agreed.

Everything I’ve bitched about and bitch about not being fixed and addressed means more American deaths. But yes, eventually pain is the best teacher so it’s a self correcting problem just at a big cost.

Ranked #1, yes.

Able to sustain #1, no.

Able to fully utilize #1, no.

We had all the technology and logistics, still lost Korea to a draw, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

The reason is we lack will and ambition because of our nature. Between the bleeding hearts, politicians/corporatists, and leftist communists degeneration from within, it will take a sundering of our nation’s soul to become a force of absolute terror that China would become no more.

What about the bees?  Or the hounds with bees in their mouth and when they bark, they shoot bees at you?

If you told me this stuff in the 80s or even before Obama I wouldn’t have thought it possible but apparently it’s no longer limited to San Francisco        

My only fear is that there won't be anyone like that to hand the reigns to.

Guess we’ll see what these dip shits in Congress and Biden come up with for 2024 FY budget as a prelude to priorities for .Gov

It seems there are any number of things that the US is no longer considered to be #1 in the world these days.

You can thank democrats for it. We've all spent ourselves into debt to the tune od $35Trillion and have nothing to show for it.

FJB

If you catch and shoot a few every quarter, it keeps the rest in line. Unless they think they're politically untouchable.
So you shoot some of the politically untouchable.

Kharn

I think if, a non-nuclear, conventional-only war broke out between Russia and the United States, we'd likely win.

I'm unsure about China though, but I am sure the US military has a few black projects nobody knows about that could turn the tide of the war if we got desperate.

China does not have the supply chain that we have. They don’t have bases in Europe, the Caribbean, the Persian Gulf, and everywhere else. We have 85 bases spread out throughout the world where we can launch from and get supplies from. China only has two. Djibouti and Tajikistan. Possibly Afghanistan now.

They cannot sustain a war like we can. They would have to bomb 85 countries to stop us. Some of those countries have their own armies that would respond if bombed. We could easily cut their supply lines since there aren’t many and relegated them from only getting supplies from China itself.

We have the ability to get so much fuel, food, and munitions from multiple places. Their reach wouldn’t be very far since our sea power would stop them.

If that decides the kind of people we will have making decisions we're probably fucked.

China does logistics in a big way.  They kinda do everything big. I see what your saying about bases but that's not the same as supply chain.

The CCP's logistic strategy meeting is basically 3 guys sitting in a room and praying that Iran and Saudi Arabia don't get into a hot shooting war.

What are you defining as bases?

I’ll wait to find out what definition is being used for bases

Bases are how our troops get resupply. It’s like if you had stashes all throughout the state in different friends’s houses while conducting a guerilla war. You can get food and ammo from anywhere from whithin the state rather than going back to your home to get supplies.

In Afghanistan we got stuff from Kuwait, Qatar, Iraq, Turkey, and many places. Even Europe. China would have to get stuff from home. If they landed here, they would be a long ways from home.

https://www.aninews.in/news/world/asia/china-seeks-to-use-gwadar-port-as-military-base-report20220118125246/                   Attached File

There’s plenty of discussion already on these topics. It’s not like it’s some mystery only discussed on AR15.com https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/chinas-port-power                                       Attached File