Overall a good discussion, and the details regarding air strike capability and range are certainly valid. I do with these sorts of discussions would delve into a little more depth regarding the actual capability and range of the Chinese PLAN, rather than just quoting total numbers. Yes, the Chinese are making advancements and adding to their blue-water capabilities, but that is still a small percentage of their overall fleet. The gap may not be as wide as it was 10 years ago, but it is still a significant difference in global capability between the USN and PLAN.
I remember when the A-12 got canceled; I was working for a NASA contractor, and we hired one of the "surplus engineering talent" from that cancellation. The movie "Falling Down" was very appropriate for the zeitgiest of that era.
Good discussion. However, I'm not too sure the number of ships is a good comparison. You have to look at what the strategies and tactical picture will be. For instance, how many submarines will it take to sink x number of enemy ships or subs. I'm thinking about like the kill ratio that was sited in air to air combat scenarios. What's the kill ratio for a Virginia class submarine or a Burke DDG? This is the real metric. Next who has more experience in combat situations. How will each side utilize drones? How would each side defend against drones? I think these are the questions that need to be answers. Ukraine is opening several eyes in the command structure, and I'm sure they are changing doctrine to reflect this.
@@yamoto1833 I'm confused; I thought you said the future is "unmanned". I.e. you see that as the direction in which future wars will occur. I agree that to some extent, they certainly will, but I'd caution against the notion that it will go very far. Israel's outposts were "unmanned" as well, relying on cameras and radar to surveil Hamas against an attack. They went up in flames real fast.
He’s completely wrong, USA naval dominance is 2 hundred years above the combined navies off the World. This guy is way off and knows nothing of the military buildout and technology
Yeah, this seems like a bit of a clickbait title. U.S. naval dominance remains, without question - we just may be more selective about how it is applied going forward. And, as just one result, significant parts of the world who have grown very accustomed to the benefits of globalization and secure global shipping, courtesy of the U.S. Navy, might be facing a reality check.
The Zionists want to see us lob missiles at each other forever. A war without end until technology consumes us and we are turned to dust. Read Christopher Jon Bjerknes.@@camdencapps6894
The US ran out of people to sail the oceans (the baby boomers have all retired). The Chinese dont have the port structure (worldwide) to be any kind of threat to our country. The big issue is whether Europe can get on without Russian oil and gas, not whether the US can stand for globalization.
@@campbellpaul That's "a" question, I wouldn't say it's the most important one, unless you happen to live in Europe. Then again, as harsh as it may sound, poor choices have consequences.
I was thinking the same thing. The reality is that the U.S. Navy still has far more real-world experience than any other navy on the planet since WWII. Which, not coincidentally and in a testament to the effectiveness of the U.S. Navy, is why other navies don't have experience.
@@szahmad2416 Highly doubtful. Russia's navy is an archaic, poorly maintained joke, as we have clearly been seeing. And 90% of China's navy isn't blue water capable. True, they are spending lots of money to improve that, but at this point, it's money they barely have. Given the long-term trends in China, I don't expect them to achieve a navy on par with the U.S, without running their own economy further into the ground.
