Posted on 02/15/2020 12:53:14 PM PST by daniel1212
Over the past two decades, China's People's Liberation Army has transformed itself from a large but antiquated force into a capable, modern military. Although China continues to lag the United States in terms of aggregate military hardware and operational skills, it has improved its relative capabilities in many critical areas. To advance the public debate, RAND used open, unclassified sources to compile The U.S.-China Military Scorecard: Forces, Geography, and the Evolving Balance of Power. This comprehensive report examines U.S. and Chinese military capabilities in ten operational areas, and presents a "scorecard" for each.
Each scorecard assesses the relative advantage or disadvantage of U.S. and Chinese forces in diverse types of conflict, at varying distances from the Chinese mainland, at different points in time from 1996 to 2017. Advantage means that one side is able to achieve its primary objectives in an operationally relevant time period while the other side would have trouble in doing so. The chart below collects the scorecards for each evaluated operational area.
To prevail in either of the scenarios below, China’s offensive goals would require it to hold advantages in nearly all operational categories simultaneously. U.S. defensive goals could be achieved by holding the advantage in only a few areas. Nevertheless, China’s improved performance could raise costs, lengthen the conflict, and increase risks to the United States.
2. U.S. vs. Chinese air superiority
In virtually any East Asian scenario, U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy aircraft would play a critical role in blunting Chinese attacks. Since 1996, the United States has improved existing aircraft and introduced so-called fifth-generation aircraft, including the F-22 and F-35. China, meanwhile, has replaced many of its obsolete second-generation aircraft, which made up an overwhelming proportion of its force in 1996, with modern fourth-generation designs. These fourth-generation aircraft now constitute roughly half of the PLA Air Force's fighter inventory. The net effect of these changes has been to narrow, but not close, the qualitative gap between the U.S. and Chinese air forces.
To evaluate the impact of this change on the two scenarios considered, we employed tactical and operational air combat models, using the appropriate basing, flight distances, and force structure data. The models evaluate the number of fighter aircraft that the United States would need to maintain in the Western Pacific to defeat a Chinese air campaign. The results suggest that U.S. requirements have increased by several hundred percent since 1996. In the 2017 Taiwan case, U.S. commanders would probably be unable to find the basing required for U.S. forces to prevail in a seven-day campaign. They could relax their time requirement and prevail in a more extended campaign, but this would entail leaving ground and naval forces vulnerable to Chinese air operations for a correspondingly longer period. The Spratly Islands scenario would be easier, requiring roughly half the forces of the Taiwan scenario.
U.S. commanders are equally concerned by the development of Chinese air defenses, which would make it more difficult to operate in or near Chinese airspace in the event of a conflict. In 1996, the vast majority of China's 500+ long-range surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems were Chinese duplicates of the obsolete Russian SA-2 missile (with a range of roughly 35 km). By 2010, China had deployed roughly 200 launchers for “double-digit SAMs.” The newer missiles have more sophisticated seekers and ranges of up to 200 km. Combined with more capable fighter aircraft and the addition of new airborne warning and control system–equipped aircraft, the Chinese integrated air defense system (IADS) has become a formidable obstacle.
We used a target coverage model to evaluate the ability of U.S. strike aircraft to penetrate Chinese defenses in the Taiwan and Spratly scenarios. The results show net gains for China, with its improved IADS reducing the ability of even the improved U.S. forces to penetrate Chinese airspace at moderate risk. Our airspace penetration model shows that although standoff attack capabilities, stealth, and SEAD mitigate the impact of Chinese defenses, the ability to penetrate and strike targets opposite Taiwan with minimal risk to the U.S. aircraft involved declines significantly between 1996 and 2017...
4. U.S. air base attack
In all four snapshot years, U.S. air forces could effectively close all of China's air bases opposite the Spratly Islands for the first week of operations. While ground attack represents a rare bright spot for relative U.S. performance, it is important to note that the inventory of standoff weapons is finite, and performance in a longer conflict would depend on a wider range of factors.
5. Chinese anti-surface warfare...
The PLA has placed as much emphasis on putting U.S. aircraft carrier strike groups (CSGs) at risk as it has into efforts to neutralize U.S. ground-based airpower. China has developed a credible and increasingly robust over-the-horizon (OTH) intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capability. It launched its first operational military imaging satellites in 2000 and deployed its first OTH skywave radar system in 2007. The skywave system can detect targets and provide a general, though not precise, location out to 2,000 km beyond China's coastline. The development of China's space and electronics sectors has enabled it to increase the pace of satellite launches and deploy a wider range of sophisticated ISR satellites.
China's development of anti-ship ballistic missiles—the first of their kind anywhere in the world—presents a new threat dimension for U.S. naval commanders....the ongoing modernization of Chinese air and, especially, submarine capabilities represents a more certain and challenging threat to CSGs. Between 1996 and 2015, the number of modern diesel submarines in China's inventory rose from two to 41, and all but four of theses boats are armed with cruise missiles (as well as torpedoes).
6. U.S. anti-surface warfare...
China's total amphibious ship capacity is on track to double between 1996 and 2017. China has also deployed larger numbers of more sophisticated anti-submarine warfare helicopters and ships. Largely as a function of the greater number of target ships, RAND modeling suggests that the expected damage that U.S. submarines might inflict has declined since 1996. ..
7. U.S. counterspace
The United States, with 526 operational satellites, has a far more extensive orbital infrastructure than does China, with 132 satellites (as of January 2015). However, China has been accelerating its space efforts. Its average rate of satellite launches in 2009–2014 was more than double that of 2003-2008, and more than triple that in 1997–2002.
8. Chinese counterspace
China has pursued an extensive range of counterspace capabilities. It demonstrated a kinetic anti-satellite capability in 2007 with a missile test against a nonoperational Chinese weather satellite at an altitude of 850 km. At that altitude, many U.S. satellites in low earth orbit (LEO) would be vulnerable. China has also announced three tests of ballistic missile defense interceptors, the latest in July 2014. These tests apparently took place at similar altitudes to the ASAT test and almost certainly employed technologies that could also be employed in anti-satellite weapons or roles. Ultimately, political considerations, the fear of escalation, and the vulnerability of Chinese systems to debris may deter the PLA from employing kinetic attacks. Arguably more worrisome are the PLA's Russian-made jamming systems and high-powered dual-use radio transmitters, which might be used against U.S. communication and ISR satellites. Like the United States, China operates laser-ranging stations, which might be able to dazzle U.S. satellites or track their orbits to facilitate other forms of attack...
9. U.S. vs. China cyberwar
The PLA has maintained organized cyber units since at least the late-1990s, while the U.S. Cyber Command was only formed in 2009. Nevertheless, under wartime conditions, the United States might not fare as poorly in the cyber domain as many assume...
10. Nuclear Stability
In April 2015, the U.S. Department of Defense said that China has added multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles to some of its DF-5 missiles, and China is currently developing next-generation road-mobile ICBMs, SSBNs, and SLBMs. The United States has committed major funding to modernize its nuclear arsenal but, in keeping with both START and New START commitments and in contrast to China, is reducing the number of operationally deployed warheads and strategic delivery systems (Heavy Bombers, ICBMs, SSBNs)...
[More]China's Military Modernization Increasingly Challenges U.S. Defense Capabilities in Asia
Copyright © 1994-2020 RAND Corporation.
Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. (Matthew 7:24-25)
Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain. (Psalms 127:1)
What does the thread you posted have to do with your post???
You’re all over the place man.
You wanna talk about the 2 military powers? Great.
Wanna talk about religion? Great
It’s a purely analytical article for an interesting fact based conversation.
And then you detract..
Those who have not fought like you and I see things in a different light, FRiend.
Firstly, the PLA has zero experience projecting power in any land/air battle against anyone except their own (disarmed) people since they lost to Vietnam years ago.
They can run exercises all they want, no one is bleeding or watching their buddy vaporize next to them. Plans change right about then, the games are over, and it gets really ugly.
The PLA hasn’t fought a real war in a long time. Only the US and Israel have vanquished enemies on a very regular basis. Sorry Russia, your troops on the ground are great and well disciplined, but modern warfare has more levels than that.
The PLAN is all hat and no cattle.
Question is can the Chicoms project power within 1500 miles of the US west coast? The US can operate off multiple continents at the same time. It’s not fair to measure the US against China especially playing in their backyard.
Detract? Rather that is what you have done, reducing the conflict to simply being a matter of military might, which I posted on, while ignoring or denying the larger picture which I also posted on. Do you think America became a mighty nation without Divine aid and opposing His moral laws? Evidently so, since you seem to think the dangers that we face from China, etc. have nothing to do with the larger spiritual dimension and are to be dealt with without God's help and despite increasingly acting contrary to His laws.
If so then you are at odds with the Bible, and the Founders of America overall as well as being in the wrong forum.
MacArthur wanted to, likewise Patton the USSR. Though using nukes may be overboard, the principle of thoroughly defeating the opposition lest they become a continuing thorn in the flesh, of short term gain and long term loss, is sound. Seems a man names Joshua was instructed like this (though some opposition became tributaries).
They seemed to have done well in the Korean war, while we are far from the caliber of men who fought WW2, as is our industrial capacity and supply. And if liberals are in control the priority will be making sure all affirm their liberal agenda.
Judging by recent events, I thing God's kinda mad at China.
...oh, and Africa.
California might be in the on deck circle.
The virus is not contained to China.
The bug problem in Africa is bad, but no comparison to a virus, imho.
The sins found in California are surely found in every state in the US. For one example of the nationwide corrupting of minds: the NEA is in all 50 states, iirc.
Perhaps daniel is looking to show that the military strength differential is narrowing, and that, as always, God decides who is more evil. He is not at all pleased with the lukewarm (hypocrites).
And that we must choose be on His side (as Lincoln hoped) as a country far more accountable.
Yes, and in addition, it means that rather than the strict separation btwn the civil and spiritual that seems to be behind the censure of bringing in the supernatural aspect needed for honorable victory in it, even "just" a deist as Franklin advised.
I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that "except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall be become a reproach and a bye word down to future age. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human Wisdom, and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.
I therefore beg leave to move -- that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.
To which can be added more voices of the past, of Washington, of Congressional (1777), John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Samuel Adams, of John Hancock, of James Madison, Patrick Henry, Justice Joseph Story, Elias Boudinot, Abraham Baldwin, John Jay, Benjamin Rush, Abraham Lincoln, Daniel Webster and more, (Sources ) who testified of dependence upon God and debt to him.
Which they could and did do without violating the First Amendment in letter or in spirit, and such serve as the best interpreters of it. For affirmation of religion in general, and the general religion of the people, and expressing need for Divine help and gratitude to the same was not that of establishing a state religion (nor that of conveying that the country was founded as a theocracy as in Islam), the prevention of which was the immediate context out of which the First Amendment arose.
But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. (Romans 2:2)
And the context of that is obedience to the light one has. Tests of affliction and adversity - and often affluence to those who pass) - occurs to the redeemed to varying degrees, but chastisement and punishment is meted our relative to the degree of guilt, that of the type and degree of iniquity relative to the type and degree of light/Truth given. And believers are given the most.
For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator. (1 Peter 4:17-19)
Nancy Pelosi is ONLY a Congresscritter from California.
“Firstly, the PLA has zero experience projecting power in any land/air battle against anyone except their own (disarmed) people since they lost to Vietnam years ago.”
The Sino-Soviet border wars.
Also: Mali, Gulf of Aden, South Sudan.
By the way, the Sino-Soviet border wars didn’t end in 1969 - skirmishes and firefights were still going on until at least 1986, and a treaty was finally signed in 1991.
Think about that: China was fighting a sporadic small unit ‘brushfire war’ from 69-91.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.