Top Chinese diplomat tells US to 'shut up' on arms spending

Fine, the second best in the Pacific, are you happy now?

There is not much difference, actually. First of all, there is no aparent conflict in Atlantic, so the Pacific is what matters. Secondly, none of the NATO countries has clearly better navy. UK and France have a couple of carriers, but their destroyers and subs are not as good nor as many as Japanese. Russia has very few surfact vessels. Russia does have a respectable submarine fleet, but the best of it is ballistic subs which are of little use in a traditional war.

So tell me other than US who has better Navy than Japan and explain why you think so.

 

I hope this is helpful, and clears up some misconceptions some of you have:


Britain............ 46 8.11% 510 102 90%
Canada.............. 7 1.17% 78 20 85%
China............. 16 2.75% 346 219 45%
France............ 14 2.43% 197 43 70%
Germany............... 9 1.59% 120 110 75%
Greece.................. 6 1.03% 73 37 80%
India.............. 10 1.73% 164 57 60%
Indonesia......... 2 0.29% 33 22 50%
Iran................. 1 0.16% 16 16 60%
Israel................. 1 0.2% 13 15 90%
Japan...............26 4.65% 310 124 85%
Korea, North...... 3 0.59% 56 103 60%
Korea, South..... 6 0.97% 85 65 65%
Pakistan.............2 0.41% 39 21 60%
Philippines .........1 0.12% 12 13 60%
Russia .............45 8.02% 908 187 50%
Taiwan............. 10 1.73% 140 99 70%
United States 302 53.46% 3024 201 100%

NATION is the nation of the ships displayed. The figures include coast guard ships if they have a war time combat capability. Amphibious shipping is included.

COMBAT VALUE is the numerical combat value of the nation's fleet. This value reflects the overall quantity and quality of ships and crew when used only for naval combat. Included is the effectiveness of support and the fleet's system of bases. Aside from the known quantities of ship numbers, tonnages and manpower, less firm data on quality have been taken in consideration. To put it more crudely, it comes down to who is more capable of doing what they say they can do. The quality factor was derived from historical experience, a less-than-perfect guide.

% OF TOTAL is the percentage of the world's total combat value each fleet represents. 1000 TONS is the weight of the nation's fleet in thousands of tons' full load displacement.

1000 TONS is the tonnage of the combat fleet, in thousands of tons.

SHIPS is the total number of ships.

QUAL is the quality of crews and equipment for that fleet, using the U.S. Navy as a baseline.

http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/databases/navy/navalforcesoftheworld.asp


The first number is the ranking of "combat power." (they use combat value) The percentage is the percent of total world naval combat power that nation has. Hey, don't shoot the messenger, (it was a pain to do this!) and I suggest looking at the chart on the link provided, as it's easier to read.

How I read it? Britain and Russia currently have navies about on par in effectiveness, with Russia having a serious problem manning their navy with good crews and training. Britain has the second higher quality of personel behind the US, something of great value, IMO. China's navy clearly outclasses that of Taiwan, but is significantly less powerful than Japan's. I would add that the shore provided power projections are not included. Japan, China, and Taiwan all have air forces and shore deployed systems that would play a significant role in any potential conflict. The United States has a truly overwhelming superiority in Naval power over other nations in the world, as well as potential combinations of different nation's naval power. And some of the most powerful are US allies.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

^^
Dekerd, so considering Russia has trouble maintaining its ships, is it fair to say that Japan has argubly the 3rd best navy in the world? OK, it is not the 2nd best, but the 3rd. I underestimated UK. Largely because I think UK will be out of major conflicts which are most likely happen in the Pacific.

Is it also fair to say that it is paranoid to cry about China's modernization of military forces or hype its threat to neighboring countries? I don't see the point of Japanese and Pentagon crying about Chinese military threat every year.

Is it also fair to say that Japanese navy is capable of much more than just defend itself? Judging by its force, I'd say Japan military force pose a serious threat to neighboring countries.

 

Honestly, I was surprised at how low China's score was in the chart. Japan clearly outclasses China and Taiwan, combined, in naval power, imo. The biggest surprise to me regarding China was the quality of crews and equipment for the fleet. That is where Britain and Japan excel, with only Israel's tiny fleet having comparable scores, and it makes a tremendous difference in effectiveness. China is buying a great deal of Soviet-era equipment from Russia (and perhaps other countries of the former Soviet Union and it's East European allies), but apparently has a long way to go to learn how to use and maintain it effectively, which shouldn't be a surprise, I guess. Britain and Japan both have a long naval tradition, and I suspect that those services tend to draw some of the best candidates available as volunteers. This stuff has always been an interest of mine.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

More charts and graphs to add to the flame...
There is a reason the US military is profoundly worried...

http://community.middlebury.edu/~sc... January 2006/Derek_Poon/Site/comparison.html

The cream of China's power projection capabilities lies in their vast air force and NBC-capable ballistic missile forces. Since the beginning of last year, China has had de facto dominance of the skies over Asia. Their first-line SU-27s and SU-31s, backed up by Russian AWACs, and sporting advanced Russian/Israeli munitions, easily outclass the F-15s/F-16s flown by Japan, America, Taiwan, Korea in the Pacific theatre. In simulations run by Israel, a comparably equipped and supported SU-27 will shoot down a F-15 14 out of 15 times. China has opened up a huge quantitative and qualitative edge over the combined US/Japan/Taiwanese air forces. Japan and Taiwan have negligible ballistic missile forces, though both are working on building that now. China has easily the 2nd or 3rd largest missile arsenal in the world. The only thing propping up the balance has been the vast air defence networks (East Asia has the densest AA networks in the world) present in Korea/Japan/Taiwan, and the presence of the US pacific fleet. China already has means to neutralize these thru electromagnetic pulse (EMP - i.e. tactical nukes) weaponry and ever more accurate missiles.

Don't bother with the naval figures. Navies take the longest to build and with China's military aims currently at regional hegemony, a true blue-water navy isn't really necessary. They just need carrier-killers like the Sovremenny and good blockading/combat subs like the Kilos to keep the US pacific fleet at bay. So long as they have total local air superiority, China's navy is more than adequate for whatever purposes they might have in the region. That being said, China is currently building a blue water projection-oriented navy, eventually planning for carriers and dedicated amphibious task forces.

What can the US do? Send those F-22s over there ASAP and deploy them F-35s! What can Japan and Taiwan do? Nothing much really... Investing billions more in missile defense don't do crap when you're faced with 1000+ ballistic missiles and when the Chinese can build 3 ballistic missiles for the same cost US allies buys one of our surface-to-air missiles. What they need is mutually assured destruction in the forms of WMD and their own forms of ballistic delivery. Unfortunately, the US won't let them have that. So we're back to square one. Japan and Taiwan would need to double or triple their current spending to come close to maintaining the military balance in the region without resorting to WMD.

If you guys want more in-depth analysis, I encourage you guys to visit the CIA white papers and congressional reports on China's military buildup.

A point of irony I find in all this is that, you find the same Chinese blustering with pride at their growing military, and yet squirm like little girls when we question them about growing spending. If you gonna build an army, be a man about it! At least this diplomat has the ballz to own up to it.

And a sober dose for realism for my fellow Americans: If China could challenge our regional domination, they would. Right now they can't, so they traditionally they just b**** and whine. But these recent developments and the dramatic increase in the effectiveness of the PLA is beginning to give China a dangerous feeling of empowerment. This is why you start to hear all kinds of smack from Chinese diplomats.

Frankly I don't have a solution. I'm just a worried bystander, because I see a helpless Taiwan starting to be overwhelmed. Her people sense no hope whatsoever of winning a conflict with China, and have little illusions about the US coming to her aid. With Taiwan will go Japan and S. Korea and the rest of Asia. Maybe it is a good thing. Who knows. It would be refreshing to start having foreign diplomats tell the US to STFU...

 

Look at what their ships carry. Their ships are all either anti-submarine destroyers or anti-aircraft destroyers. As already pointed out they contain no offensive weapons like cruse missiles beyond relatively small caliber gun batteries. China's small frigates have larger caliber guns.

As much as you can try and spin the numbers, the ships are not designed as offensive systems. Honestly step back and look at the weapons that the ships contain. They are almost all built around anti-submarine or ant-air systems.

If any of the four major powers in the area tried to launch a naval attack, the force that they were attacking would be within the range of shore based airplanes. The last major sea conflict was the Falklands War. The British sunk Argentine ships with submarines, and the Argentines sunk British ships with shore based airplanes. The only reason the British even had destroyers in the area was to protect the aircraft carriers so that they could launch shore attacks.

Furthermore, if it ever did come to a land war against China, China's 10-1 numerical advantage in like quality tanks would crush Japan and her 4-1 numerical advantage in like quality air fighters would overwhelm Japan.

The conversation started with the claim that Japan had a strong militant military. Since then the parameters for declaring Japanese aggression have been variously shrunk and eroded so that now some sort of declaration that Japan has a strong regional navy indicates that they are out to get everybody.

In an all out conflict China would crush Japan. Japan's navy has the capability to make any Chinese land invasion of Japan too costly. They don't particularly have any ability to do anything to China itself. They could repel any North Korean, South Korean, or Taiwanese attack on Japan totally. China's navy is more suited to littoral patrol and invading Taiwan, but the total sum of military might heavily favors China and China is at the moment heavily invested in upgrading her navy.

BTW, the Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag is not going to be used by China as an amusement park. It is being refitted by the PLAN and has been confirmed for 'military uses'.

 

Sounds like China should/will attack Taiwan tomorrow. Take shelter. LOL

If sane American can't see you have your personal agenda in all your China related posts...oh well, maybe some stupid politician in the US government will believe you, enlist there as a lobbist asap.

 

Exactly. Japan's navy is primary anti-air/anti-sub crafts. China's navy is the one with Kilo hunter-killer subs, Sovremenny long-range ship killers, and a carrier in the works. Nothing in the Japanese navy shoots over 80 miles... i.e. in the absence of air dominance, their fleet is worthless outside of their territorial waters. The most potent portion of Japan's navy is their own sub force, which would pose a significant concern for any potential PLAN endeavors.

If you guys want details about Japan's navy, feel free to read:
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200522521.asp

 

If you can't understand the logic and can't face the facts, just stay out of my way.

Thankfully, I already have a couple of nice lobbiests on my side, namely the Pentagon, the CIA, the US congress, and good ol' Mr. Sha who started this thread here.

 

I think we've established that Japan is not a military threat.

However, China is more of a military threat to other nations....it has threatned Taiwan with an invasion if Taiwan declares independence.

So with China being more a of a military threat - this is why everyone worries about China's arms spending. What is China going to do with a nice big ole army? Hmmmmm......

It's not for self-defense......against who?

 

So...

I make a dog reference and after learning of particular cultural connotations I am forced (rightly so) to recant, but the next day a Chinese poster comes back with a derogatory dog reference to Japan despite being from the culture where dog references are apparently so heinous and it is ok? What does this say?

Someone please tell me what this means?

 

I've read countless of these debates and I've seen Taiwanese independence supporters being called dogs despite the CCP claim of being their supposed brothers. Then again, there's heavy usages of the negative connotation of nationalism being flung around with ease.

I can't find too much offense. But I like mindless action movies with no real plot and a demand for a strong suspension of belief.

 

What facts and logic? LOL. China is about to attack Japan and Taiwan? Or China isn't allowed to mordernize its military?

US defense industry has enough of their own lobbiest, so that career move may not work out for you.

 

Did you forget that the 18 world class subs are perfectly capable of offense? And how hard is it to replace some of those anti-aircraft missles to surface-to-surface missles?

I was under the impression that Japan has more than 300 F-15 and F-2 combined, far more than the Su-27 and Su-30 China has. Since when China had 4-1 advantage on advance fighters?

 

Maybe he thought Deckard's verdict makes it OK? I don't know. After all, that picture is still there in that thread. What make your comment particularly insultful is the photoshop of Hu in there, which implies Chinese posters are all blind followers of Hu. Help a bit?

 

So it had nothing to do, contrary what is written there, with the fact that I called the Chinese posters barking dogs? If I replaced Hu's photo with a photo of the map of China it would be OK?

 

Well it's both. Barking dogs is insulting enough. For illustration purpose, If I put Bush's picture with a dog picture, and call you the barking dog, it means you are a "walking dog" of Bush, you just blindly follow bush, do and say whatever for him, for most Chinese. Maybe I should have used the word "more" rather than "particular".

 

I doubt it had anything to do with you. I don't even think it was pointed to anyone posting here. It was a rather general critics of post war Japan, and US.

I think your photoshop work offended people most because it implied that they had no independent thoughts. I can think of replacing Hu with Bush, and the puppies with Blair, or replacing Hu with Dick and Rumsfield, and the puppy with Bush. You know, that kind of implication is more insulting than calling someone barking dogs.

Of course, as someone pointed out, there is this "walk dog" thing that is unique in the sense it describes Chinese serving Japanese during the war, but not the other way around.

Maybe Panda's joke was a bit too blunt, but I think it describes the situation pretty well.

 

They have absolutely no ship-to-surface capability. The same goes for the 80+ old submarines of China.

Actually, I believe it would be very difficult. The weapons and their launch apparatus are of very different sizes, and have very different launch angles. They also have very different electronics suites, etc. One of the goals of the most modern American ship designs is to produce an ability to modularly replace ship weapons components in the way you describe it.

I would suggest that this, like the Air Carier 'simple conversion' idea is much more difficult than it would seem.

I didn't say that, I said 4-1 in like kind fighters. Japan's 300 fighters include aprox 70 F-4 Phantoms. These are more or less the same as the outdated J-7's that China still flys.

If you want to talk advanced fighters, the number is probably more like 3-1 or 2.5-1 if you include the Naval Air Wing and the JH-7's, J-9's, and J-11's which are indigenously produced variants of modern MiG's and Suhkois. The F-4's and J-7's are probably only useful for ground attack roles. Once China finishes replacing all of the J-6's, Q-5's and J-7's with modern planes (as they are doing) and Japan finishes replacing the F-4's with F-2's (as they are doing) it will be a 4-1 advantage in modern fighters.

Japan also has nothing to counter the heavy bomber wings of H-9's, H-6's, or even the crappy old H-5's. They also have no sort of attack helecopters like the WZ-10.

Once again I am not saying that Japan is a bunch of hippies or that China is out of control or that they need to cut back on defense expenditures. I am only addressing the idea that Japan has a military which is a disproportionately large or excessively agressively aranged compared to any other in the region.

 

Yeah, Lil, keep hyping the threat by using CIA numbers. How many Su-27 and SU-30 does China have? How many F-15 and F-2 does Japan have? How is Chinese army force of a threat to Japan when there is an ocean between the two countries and when China has no means to move large amount of troops by its navy?

What is wrong with China building an army to defend itself, spending less than Japan, with 10 times of population, probably 15 times longer border to protect, without the protection of an ocean?

Did CIA tell you that China may have 10-15 ballistic missles that can reach US while US has about 6000 that can reach China?