In weeks past POTUS has emphasized the need to cut our dependency on Chinese goods, especially medicines.

If Biden is elected that dependency will only grow.

But if Trump is re-elected he will have an uphill battle with big pharma to bring the production of medicines home. Cheap Chinese labor is so inviting to them and other large US corporations.

If Trump is elected and the Republicans control both houses of congress, do you think he can get the disconnection accomplished?

(07-05-2020 08:11 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  In weeks past POTUS has emphasized the need to cut our dependency on Chinese goods, especially medicines.

If Biden is elected that dependency will only grow.

But if Trump is re-elected he will have an uphill battle with big pharma to bring the production of medicines home. Cheap Chinese labor is so inviting to them and other large US corporations.

If Trump is elected and the Republicans control both houses of congress, do you think he can get the disconnection accomplished?

After pharmaceutical supply and personal protective equipment shortages, as well as a shortage of basic screws, nails, bolts and washers, I suspect that that all of these companies will have to be more compliant. Mexico is still an option for cheap labor and it has no supply line problems. Canada may be an option for pharmaceutical production as well. And quite frankly if we wanted to be advanced it may be time to ask Cuba if they want to help with the pharmaceutical supply. 60 years of isolation hasn't worked so perhaps we could make inroads toward normal relations there. It would be in our best interest. Besides they would jump at the opportunity for a major league baseball franchise.

The bottom line is that we are in Cold War II and the enemy this time is China. We need to end our dependence on China for any essential products. As far as the cheap labor, cheap labor is also available in Mexico (and Cuba, as JR notes) and in a number of places included in what is known as the first island chain (Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Taiwan, Japan). What we could do to beat China in Cold War II is analogous to how we beat the Soviets in Cold War I. Bribe up an alliance around the first island chain using transfer of manufacturing from China as a huge carrot. That will help contain China's ambitions, and also constitutes a significant threat to China's vital export and oil supply sea lines of communication (SLOC).

Do like Truman and bribe up an alliance to contain China. Then do like Reagan and put their economy under pressure to defeat them.

(07-05-2020 08:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The bottom line is that we are in Cold War II and the enemy this time is China. We need to end our dependence on China for any essential products. As far as the cheap labor, cheap labor is also available in Mexico (and Cuba, as JR notes) and in a number of places included in what is known as the first island chain (Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Taiwan, Japan). What we could do to beat China in Cold War II is analogous to how we beat the Soviets in Cold War I. Bribe up an alliance around the first island chain using transfer of manufacturing from China as a huge carrot. That will help contain China's ambitions, and also constitutes a significant threat to China's vital export and oil supply sea lines of communication (SLOC).

Do like Truman and bribe up an alliance to contain China. Then do like Reagan and put their economy under pressure to defeat them.

Taking the trade to the First Island Chain would also help them build their defensive capabilities, not that any of them would be formidable, perhaps Japan and Taiwan's would be significant, but that with the economic build up would pressure the Chinese as well.

Cuba has a truly solid cancer research facility. We really need to find a way to crack the ice there. Tourism from the U.S. would benefit them greatly and locating some industry there wouldn't be that risky.

(07-05-2020 08:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 08:11 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  In weeks past POTUS has emphasized the need to cut our dependency on Chinese goods, especially medicines.

If Biden is elected that dependency will only grow.

But if Trump is re-elected he will have an uphill battle with big pharma to bring the production of medicines home. Cheap Chinese labor is so inviting to them and other large US corporations.

If Trump is elected and the Republicans control both houses of congress, do you think he can get the disconnection accomplished?

After pharmaceutical supply and personal protective equipment shortages, as well as a shortage of basic screws, nails, bolts and washers, I suspect that that all of these companies will have to be more compliant. Mexico is still an option for cheap labor and it has no supply line problems. Canada may be an option for pharmaceutical production as well. And quite frankly if we wanted to be advanced it may be time to ask Cuba if they want to help with the pharmaceutical supply. 60 years of isolation hasn't worked so perhaps we could make inroads toward normal relations there. It would be in our best interest. Besides they would jump at the opportunity for a major league baseball franchise.

If I remember right, we removed a tax break for pharmaceuticals in Puerto Rico so those jobs all left the island like a half million residents in the last 10 years. So we exported the jobs, imported the people, and created a failed commonwealth.

(07-05-2020 08:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The bottom line is that we are in Cold War II and the enemy this time is China. We need to end our dependence on China for any essential products. As far as the cheap labor, cheap labor is also available in Mexico (and Cuba, as JR notes) and in a number of places included in what is known as the first island chain (Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Taiwan, Japan). What we could do to beat China in Cold War II is analogous to how we beat the Soviets in Cold War I. Bribe up an alliance around the first island chain using transfer of manufacturing from China as a huge carrot. That will help contain China's ambitions, and also constitutes a significant threat to China's vital export and oil supply sea lines of communication (SLOC).

Do like Truman and bribe up an alliance to contain China. Then do like Reagan and put their economy under pressure to defeat them.

How are we in a Cold War with a country that can barely feed and power itself and requires an export economy just to maintain the semblance of functionality? The mind boggles at the decision making of the hawks from 2001-2010.

is it democratic to bring the production home?

(07-06-2020 04:08 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 08:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The bottom line is that we are in Cold War II and the enemy this time is China. We need to end our dependence on China for any essential products. As far as the cheap labor, cheap labor is also available in Mexico (and Cuba, as JR notes) and in a number of places included in what is known as the first island chain (Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Taiwan, Japan). What we could do to beat China in Cold War II is analogous to how we beat the Soviets in Cold War I. Bribe up an alliance around the first island chain using transfer of manufacturing from China as a huge carrot. That will help contain China's ambitions, and also constitutes a significant threat to China's vital export and oil supply sea lines of communication (SLOC).
Do like Truman and bribe up an alliance to contain China. Then do like Reagan and put their economy under pressure to defeat them.

How are we in a Cold War with a country that can barely feed and power itself and requires an export economy just to maintain the semblance of functionality? The mind boggles at the decision making of the hawks from 2001-2010.

Never fight a war that you don't intend to win. We've had our heads in the sand fighting two or now three of them in the Mideast, and China has taken advantage of distraction. I think Obama had the right idea with the Pacific Pivot, but we never actually did anything with it.

When you think about it, it's not that much different from getting into Cold War I with another country that could barely feed and power itself.

(07-06-2020 08:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 04:08 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 08:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The bottom line is that we are in Cold War II and the enemy this time is China. We need to end our dependence on China for any essential products. As far as the cheap labor, cheap labor is also available in Mexico (and Cuba, as JR notes) and in a number of places included in what is known as the first island chain (Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Taiwan, Japan). What we could do to beat China in Cold War II is analogous to how we beat the Soviets in Cold War I. Bribe up an alliance around the first island chain using transfer of manufacturing from China as a huge carrot. That will help contain China's ambitions, and also constitutes a significant threat to China's vital export and oil supply sea lines of communication (SLOC).
Do like Truman and bribe up an alliance to contain China. Then do like Reagan and put their economy under pressure to defeat them.

How are we in a Cold War with a country that can barely feed and power itself and requires an export economy just to maintain the semblance of functionality? The mind boggles at the decision making of the hawks from 2001-2010.

Never fight a war that you don't intend to win. We've had our heads in the sand fighting two or now three of them in the Mideast, and China has taken advantage of distraction. I think Obama had the right idea with the Pacific Pivot, but we never actually did anything with it.

When you think about it, it's not that much different from getting into Cold War I with another country that could barely feed and power itself.

Unlike the last time around, I’m not content on waiting 50 years for a resolution.

(07-07-2020 06:36 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Unlike the last time around, I’m not content on waiting 50 years for a resolution.

I am if we are winning. Last time, we were always winning, it was just a matter of time. This time, I'm not sure. Right now, we enjoy considerable military superiority over the Chinese. As long as that's the case, we should be directing the action, not responding to them. Or, in this case, not not responding to them.

(07-07-2020 07:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-07-2020 06:36 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Unlike the last time around, I’m not content on waiting 50 years for a resolution.

I am if we are winning. Last time, we were always winning, it was just a matter of time. This time, I'm not sure. Right now, we enjoy considerable military superiority over the Chinese. As long as that's the case, we should be directing the action, not responding to them. Or, in this case, not not responding to them.

I don't want an actual war, but neither do I want to sit back and see America covertly subverted by nefarious means. We need to ramp up the Energy independence and by local campaigns until multi-nations either relocate factories to more agreeable locales or support home grown start ups. Let China prove their greatness without tacit U.S. support.

I'm just going to drop this here:

"Thanks for all the 'help' Harry Truman."

- Chiang Kai Shek

(07-07-2020 07:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-07-2020 06:36 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Unlike the last time around, I’m not content on waiting 50 years for a resolution.

I am if we are winning. Last time, we were always winning, it was just a matter of time. This time, I'm not sure. Right now, we enjoy considerable military superiority over the Chinese. As long as that's the case, we should be directing the action, not responding to them. Or, in this case, not not responding to them.

This time I’m not sure it’s worth it. Unlike last time, we don’t need the world. We don’t need the oil. We dont need foreign markets. We are self sufficient in food, energy, and raw materials. In terms of national security, if they come over here—-then all the advantages they enjoy with area denial become our advantages—-which gives our superior fleet even more of an upper hand. Furthermore, we can interdict their oil supplies at any point along its long supply route and starve them of energy.

We need to stay ahead technologically. We need to stay vigilant—but I’m not convinced Chinese domination in the Far East matters and is worth spending the money required to stop it. I have a feeling it’s a problem that is going to solve itself over time as their own natural rivalries from within and without operate as they always have to keep China in check.

That said, if you want to start locking China's expansion down, the first step would be to buy the claims to some of the S China ring islands from nations like Vietnam and the Philippines (just like we bought Alaska). It’s one thing to just unilaterally take a disputed island from a Vietnam or the Philippines, it’s another thing entirely to take a disputed island from a nuclear super power.

(07-07-2020 09:24 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-07-2020 07:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-07-2020 06:36 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Unlike the last time around, I’m not content on waiting 50 years for a resolution.

I am if we are winning. Last time, we were always winning, it was just a matter of time. This time, I'm not sure. Right now, we enjoy considerable military superiority over the Chinese. As long as that's the case, we should be directing the action, not responding to them. Or, in this case, not not responding to them.

I don't want an actual war, but neither do I want to sit back and see America covertly subverted by nefarious means. We need to ramp up the Energy independence and by local campaigns until multi-nations either relocate factories to more agreeable locales or support home grown start ups. Let China prove their greatness without tacit U.S. support.

The biggest weakness China has is that their whole system is propped up by exporting cheap consumer goods and using the revenues to finance non-economically-viable make-work projects (like the empty cities) to keep the population too busy to have time to revolt.

China hasn't been a single country with current borders for much of its existence, and there is a reason. They don't like each other. The warlike north and the commercial Shanghai and the Yangtze Valley hate each other. And Hong Kong and the south are more focused internationally than nationally. Not to mention the Muslims and Tibet in the west.

So the whole thing is dependent on an export economy, that requires as one of its basic tenets freedom of the seas. And that comes compliments of the US Navy. Without freedom of the seas, they can't export. Perhaps more critically, they can't import the oil from the Mideast that their economy relies heavily on. China consumes 13 mmBbl/day of oil (and growing), and produces about 4 mmBbl/day (and declining). So they rely on imports for about 9 mmBbl/day. About 2 mmBbl/day comes from Russia, and they have just opened a new pipeline that potentially doubles that amount. That still leaves 5 mmBbl/day to come from somewhere over the sea. The vast majority of that comes from the Mideast, about 4 mmBbl/day. Until somebody figures out how to build a pipeline over the Himalayas, that has to come by sea--through the Straits of Hormuz, around India, through the Straits of Malacca or elsewhere through the Indonesian archipelago. That means that any one of the three I's--Iran, India, or Indonesia--or even a bunch of pirates, could shut down China's economy in about a week.

And China can't secure those supply lines. They are building a large navy, but not a blue-water navy that can protect sea lines of communication, or for that matter contest the US Navy on the high seas. They are building a military to intimidate their neighbors--Taiwn obviously, but also Vietnam, Malaysia, and the Philippines. And as described by Churchill, those neighbors are each trying to feed the crocodile in the hope that it eats them last.

In that environment, it seems to me that we have a huge opportunity to strangle China. Conquering those neighbors in the so-called first island chain--Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Taiwan, Japan--is a stated objective of China's. Reminiscent of post-WWII Europe, when Russia threatened to expand beyond the Iron Curtain, and West Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Austria, Italy, et al, lacked the ability to stand up to them. So instead of allowing them to feed the crocodile, we bribed up an alliance to beat the Soviets. We'll protect you and your supply chains, and we'll give you one-way access into our markets, in exchange for your agreement to pick our side in the Cold War and to do what we tell you to do to help with defense. So, for example, UK dropped its power projection capability and concentrated on ASW in the GIUK gap and mine warfare in the Channel. That left them almost totally unprepared to retake he Falklands--if Argentina had only waited six months, they'd be Las Malvinas today, because every major ship used by the Royal Navy in the Falklands campaign would have been either Australian or Indian or razor blades.

That looks to me like a model for how to deal with China. Bribe up an alliance around the first island chain--we already have Japan and Australia (and sort of Taiwan) as anchors, add Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam. What we have to offer is the protection of our military so they don't have to feed the crocodile, and the economic boost that would come from moving a lot of cheap labor production out of China and into their countries. Bring what is essential manufacturing (health items, high tech) back to the US or to our NAFTA/USMCA neighbors. Divvy up the cheap consumer goods among the first island chain, and you're looking at about a 10% bump to GDP for each of them.

Now, we have to hold up our security end of that bargain to make it real. We don't have to get into a shooting war with China, but we need to make it very clear that we would shoot if necessary. The FONOPS that we have been doing are next to worthless. What we need is a carrier strike group (CSG) and an amphibious ready group (ARG) operating pretty consistently in the area. Do exercises with local navies. Make regular port calls in Subic, Sepanggar, Singapore, Cam Ranh, and even Kaohsiung. Let China complain, but make it clear that is the new normal. Right now we have two carriers operating in the South China Sea, and China is raising holy hell about it. Good.

One thing I think we have to do to execute this plan is GTFO of Iraq and Afghanistan, and stay TFO. That has one added benefit. We don't need that oil, but China does. And if they have to convoy tankers from the Mideast to get it, that pretty much uses up their navy. If we decide to look the other way when Somali or Malaccan pirates hijack a few China-bound tankers, their problem gets very complicated in a hurry.

So this would be my plan. Do like Truman and bribe up an alliance to win Cold War II. Then do like Reagan and put pressure on the Chinese economy to win.

(07-07-2020 09:50 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-07-2020 07:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-07-2020 06:36 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Unlike the last time around, I’m not content on waiting 50 years for a resolution.

I am if we are winning. Last time, we were always winning, it was just a matter of time. This time, I'm not sure. Right now, we enjoy considerable military superiority over the Chinese. As long as that's the case, we should be directing the action, not responding to them. Or, in this case, not not responding to them.

This time I’m not sure it’s worth it. Unlike last time, we don’t need the world. We don’t need the oil. We dont need foreign markets. We are self sufficient in food, energy, and raw materials. In terms of national security, if they come over here—-then all the advantages they enjoy with area denial become our advantages—-which gives our superior fleet even more of an upper hand. Furthermore, we can interdict their oil supplies at any point along its long supply route and starve them of energy.

We need to stay ahead technologically. We need to stay vigilant—but I’m not convinced Chinese domination in the Far East matters and is worth spending the money required to stop it. I have a feeling it’s a problem that is going to solve itself over time as their own natural rivalries from within and without operate as they always have to keep China in check.

That said, if you want to start locking China's expansion down, the first step would be to buy the claims to some of the S China ring islands from nations like Vietnam and the Philippines (just like we bought Alaska). It’s one thing to just unilaterally take a disputed island from a Vietnam or the Philippines, it’s another thing entirely to take a disputed island from a nuclear super power.

We outspent the Soviets and they had to call uncle first. What they never knew at the time is that we almost spent ourselves into oblivion spending them into oblivion.

We can't afford to do that with China and don't need to. Isolate and reduce supplies to China is the course of action we need. If we want to know what China is we need look no further than North Korea, which is mini me to Dr. Evil. The face China gives the U.S. is a false one. What they truly are is a larger North Korea with more resources, industry, and now unfortunately an industrialized work force, all courtesy of the United States' corporations.

Unwittingly we have created in them a greater need for energy and raw materials. So they now have essentially the needs that a newly industrialized Japan had at the end of the 20's. And that's the dangerous part.

(07-07-2020 10:07 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-07-2020 09:50 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-07-2020 07:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-07-2020 06:36 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Unlike the last time around, I’m not content on waiting 50 years for a resolution.

I am if we are winning. Last time, we were always winning, it was just a matter of time. This time, I'm not sure. Right now, we enjoy considerable military superiority over the Chinese. As long as that's the case, we should be directing the action, not responding to them. Or, in this case, not not responding to them.

This time I’m not sure it’s worth it. Unlike last time, we don’t need the world. We don’t need the oil. We dont need foreign markets. We are self sufficient in food, energy, and raw materials. In terms of national security, if they come over here—-then all the advantages they enjoy with area denial become our advantages—-which gives our superior fleet even more of an upper hand. Furthermore, we can interdict their oil supplies at any point along its long supply route and starve them of energy.

We need to stay ahead technologically. We need to stay vigilant—but I’m not convinced Chinese domination in the Far East matters and is worth spending the money required to stop it. I have a feeling it’s a problem that is going to solve itself over time as their own natural rivalries from within and without operate as they always have to keep China in check.

That said, if you want to start locking China's expansion down, the first step would be to buy the claims to some of the S China ring islands from nations like Vietnam and the Philippines (just like we bought Alaska). It’s one thing to just unilaterally take a disputed island from a Vietnam or the Philippines, it’s another thing entirely to take a disputed island from a nuclear super power.

We outspent the Soviets and they had to call uncle first. What they never knew at the time is that we almost spent ourselves into oblivion spending them into oblivion.

We can't afford to that with China and don't need to. Isolate and reduce supplies to China is the course of action we need. If we want to know what China is we need look no further than North Korea, which is mini me to Dr. Evil. The face China gives the U.S. is a false one. What they truly are is a larger North Korea with more resources, industry and now unfortunately an industrialized work force, all courtesy of the United States' corporations.

Unwittingly we have created in them a greater need for energy and raw materials. So they now have essentially the needs that a newly industrialized Japan had at the end of the 20's. And that's the dangerous part.

Yup. We created our monster to an extent. lol...capitalism at its worst.

Still, we dont need them---probably never did. We thought they would become more like us if we engaged---not sure thats true for the leadership---though I suspect it actually is true for their population. Either way--I agree with you---we dont need to spend ourselves silly this time. We just need to maintain our tech advantage and enjoy being self sufficient. They wont come to our hemisphere to make trouble because our ability to cause them trouble there is greater than their ability to make trouble here.

Like I said---I think China's ambitions will be blunted by the same factors that always blunt their ambitions. We dont need to spend a bunch of extra money to hasten what is likely to happen anyway.

(07-07-2020 09:50 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  This time I’m not sure it’s worth it. Unlike last time, we don’t need the world. We don’t need the oil. We dont need foreign markets. We are self sufficient in food, energy, and raw materials. In terms of national security, if they come over here—-then all the advantages they enjoy with area denial become our advantages—-which gives our superior fleet even more of an upper hand. Furthermore, we can interdict their oil supplies at any point along its long supply route and starve them of energy.

No we don't need them. But China appears to have placed us squarely in their crosshairs. We need to respond somehow at some point. Forming an alliance with the first island chain to keep them confined inside of it would be useful point at which to stop them.

Quote:We need to stay ahead technologically. We need to stay vigilant—but I’m not convinced Chinese domination in the Far East matters and is worth spending the money required to stop it. I have a feeling it’s a problem that is going to solve itself over time as their own natural rivalries from within and without operate as they always have to keep China in check.

I think that will happen, but I think we can accelerate it by putting minimum pressure on them. What I'm talking about--a CVBG and an ARG deployed to the South China Sea on a regular basis--is not that hard. If we GTFO of the Mideast, it's about what we are sending there. And they've got to be somewhere, might as well be there. I can assure you that Subic, Singapore, Bangkok, and Kaohsiung are much better liberty ports than Djibouti and Doha and Bahrain and Kuwait. Not to mention Perth.

If we can establish a NATO-like relationship with that area, we would put China in a severe bind. And if we have a destroyer or two making a port visit to Kaohsiung, how likely is China to invade Taiwan?

Quote:That said, if you want to start locking China's expansion down, the first step would be to buy the claims to some of the S China ring islands from nations like Vietnam and the Philippines (just like we bought Alaska). It’s one thing to just unilaterally take a disputed island from a Vietnam or the Philippines, it’s another thing entirely to take a disputed island from a nuclear super power.

The problem with most of the disputed islands is that they are already there. They've landed and built ports and airports on most of them. There are some rumors that they threw them up in a hurry, but none of them have completely fallen apart yet. It's too late for most of them, but we could certainly say, "no mas," for the rest of them. And if we are in an alliance with the first island chain countries and make it clear that we intend to support them militarily, I think we can accomplish a lot.

(07-07-2020 11:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-07-2020 09:50 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  This time I’m not sure it’s worth it. Unlike last time, we don’t need the world. We don’t need the oil. We dont need foreign markets. We are self sufficient in food, energy, and raw materials. In terms of national security, if they come over here—-then all the advantages they enjoy with area denial become our advantages—-which gives our superior fleet even more of an upper hand. Furthermore, we can interdict their oil supplies at any point along its long supply route and starve them of energy.

No we don't need them. But China appears to have placed us squarely in their crosshairs. We need to respond somehow at some point. Forming an alliance with the first island chain to keep them confined inside of it would be useful point at which to stop them.

Quote:We need to stay ahead technologically. We need to stay vigilant—but I’m not convinced Chinese domination in the Far East matters and is worth spending the money required to stop it. I have a feeling it’s a problem that is going to solve itself over time as their own natural rivalries from within and without operate as they always have to keep China in check.

I think that will happen, but I think we can accelerate it by putting minimum pressure on them. What I'm talking about--a CVBG and an ARG deployed to the South China Sea on a regular basis--is not that hard. If we GTFO of the Mideast, it's about what we are sending there. And they've got to be somewhere, might as well be there. I can assure you that Subic, Singapore, Bangkok, and Kaohsiung are much better liberty ports than Djibouti and Doha and Bahrain and Kuwait. Not to mention Perth.

If we can establish a NATO-like relationship with that area, we would put China in a severe bind. And if we have a destroyer or two making a port visit to Kaohsiung, how likely is China to invade Taiwan?

Quote:That said, if you want to start locking China's expansion down, the first step would be to buy the claims to some of the S China ring islands from nations like Vietnam and the Philippines (just like we bought Alaska). It’s one thing to just unilaterally take a disputed island from a Vietnam or the Philippines, it’s another thing entirely to take a disputed island from a nuclear super power.

The problem with most of the disputed islands is that they are already there. They've landed and built ports and airports on most of them. There are some rumors that they threw them up in a hurry, but none of them have completely fallen apart yet. It's too late for most of them, but we could certainly say, "no mas," for the rest of them. And if we are in an alliance with the first island chain countries and make it clear that we intend to support them militarily, I think we can accomplish a lot.

Im fine with most of what your proposing---but I have no interest in another NATO where we pay most of the expenses and carry the vast majority of some new coalition defense force. I have no issue with the fleet docking or maintaining a presence at Pac-Allied ports or maintaining our current bases in the region. I just have no interest in another huge S Korea/NATO type deployment. If we move troops out of the Middle East---the point is to bring them home.

What I'd like to see is more integration with the Aussies, Japanese, Koreans and other Pacific nations. Id like to see more of the small Lighting type carriers that utilize the F-35B in use for those allied navies. Those would be fantastic force multipliers for the region as they can link to just about everything in the US arsenal. I know the Japanese are already moving in that directions and the Aussies are revisiting the F-35B option for their helicopter carriers. Hopefully both move that direction in a big way. If they do, that will help give the US Navy some real help in the region (especially given the Ford carriers are still apparently having issues).

(07-07-2020 12:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Im fine with most of what your proposing---but I have no interest in another NATO where we pay most of the expenses and carry the vast majority of some new coalition defense force. I have no issue with the fleet docking or maintaining a presence at Pac-Allied ports or maintaining our current bases in the region. I just have no interest in another huge S Korea/NATO type deployment. If we move troops out of the Middle East---the point is to bring them home.

I not only bring them home, I put a bunch of them into the reserves. It seems to me that one of our big problems is that if we have a bunch of active duty soldiers sitting around getting paid for doing nothing, that creates a huge incentive for us to go looking for a war so we can put them to work. The key to affording a big military is keeping a lot of it at a reduced state of readiness until needed. Readiness costs a fortune.

I'm basically talking about a presence mission in WestPac. I think that's all we need to keep China in check. Then just let their internal issues tear them apart.

Quote:What I'd like to see is more integration with the Aussies, Japanese, Koreans and other Pacific nations. Id like to see more of the small Lighting type carriers that utilize the F-35B in use for those allied navies. Those would be fantastic force multipliers for the region as they can link to just about everything in the US arsenal. I know the Japanese are already moving in that directions and the Aussies are revisiting the F-35B option for their helicopter carriers. Hopefully both move that direction in a big way. If they do, that will help give the US Navy some real help in the region (especially given the Ford carriers are still apparently having issues).

With respect to carriers in particular, looks like the Fords are costing us about $14B each by the time we get everything working. The Navy likes to talk about how wonderful the Fords are (if everything works, of course). There is a lecture by CAPT Tal Manvel, who headed up the Ford development team in the early years, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIjvNCFXCjs. What is interesting is that he goes into great detail about all the improvements, but nowhere talks about opportunity costs.

The last Nimitz cost about $8B, so we can probably build another Nimitz or a RAND CVN-LX (from the RAND study of future carrier alternatives) for $9B in today's dollars. So there is $5-6B of opportunity cost in each Ford. We can convert the LHAs/LHDs to full time "Lightning Carriers" or the RAND CV-LX by converting the troop and equipment spaces, and well decks for those that have them, into additional hangar and aircraft maintenance spaces, to get about 40 aircraft onboard, for probably something like $2B, or build new ones for about $4B. Or we could go a little further and upgrade them as proposed by CSBA--add sponsons, angled deck, and waist cats, and put a ski jump on bow, so it can handle everything in our inventory and maybe get 50 aircraft onboard. That's more expensive, probably $3B for conversion or $5B from ground up. We could probably build a Queen Elizabeth with cats and traps for around $5B or a modernized Kitty Hawk for around $6B. QE probably carries up to 50 aircraft, and the Kitty carried 90 back in the day. Build the Kitty with waist cats only and a ski jump and you lose a little parking room, maybe you can only carry 80, but that's all we are looking for with the Fords.

So lets's assume we go for the top of the line here and build another Nimitz and a Kitty. That's two carriers for $15B, or roughly half the cost of two Fords, and they can carry the same 160 aircraft. We could then fill out an escort squadron with a cruiser ($4B), 2 AAW destroyers like Burkes ($2B each or $4B total), 3 GP escorts like the FFG(X) ($1.2B each, $3.6B total), and 4 ASW frigates like upgraded Knoxes or Perrys ($500MM each, $2B total). So for $28.6B, we have not only two carriers that can haul 90 aircraft each, but we also have a 10-ship escort squadron. Whatever advantages the Fords convey (many of which can be back fitted onto Nimitzes and Kittys), are they worth the opportunity cost? I think not.

I like converting the LHAs/LHDs for at least interim carriers because they are basically worthless as amphibs. When I was in gator navy, we criticized the move because putting all your eggs in one basket means one torpedo or missile hit can take out your whole assault force. But it's actually worse than that. Because of that risk, the Navy has determined that they have to operate at least 25-50 miles offshore. From that distance, the only effective ship-to-shore connectors are helos or V-22s, neither of which can carry tanks or heavy artillery. That means that all the Marines can put ashore are light infantry--very light infantry. That means they can't get much done, and if you've followed any of the news on that subject, the Commandant of the Marines is obviously struggling to come up with an answer to that problem.

And as far as opportunity cost, you can build a whole amphibious squadron--smaller LHA/LHD like Spanish Juan Carlos, LPH like French Mistral, LPD/LSD like British Albion, LST with a conventional LST bow, LPA/LKA, and a naval gunfire support frigate, for about the cost of one LHA/LHD. The trick to saving a bunch of money on amphibs is living with an 18 knot SOA instead of 20. Those extra 2 knots are extremely expensive, and they pretty much eliminate the conventional LST that can beach, because you just can't drive that hull through the water that fast, no matter how much power you apply. It was described to me as like driving a nail head first.

I was a big fan of ADM Zumwalt's "high/low" approach to shipbuilding. Build some top-of-the-line, state-of-the-art ships for sure, but flesh out the numbers with cheaper ships based on proved and simpler technology. I actually thought the Knoxes and Perrys were badly underpowered and undergunned. But they turned out to be good ASW platforms, and that was huge in winning the Cold War. Building a cheaper carrier (actually two cheaper carriers) and spending the savings on building escorts, particularly ASW escorts (an area where we are currently weak, in part because we disposed of over 40 Perrys prematurely), makes a lot more sense to me from an opportunity cost standpoint. Same with the amphibs. A bunch of smaller and cheaper and more versatile ships that can actually come in to 3-5 miles offshore and do a real amphibious assault makes a lot more sense to me.

(07-07-2020 01:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-07-2020 12:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Im fine with most of what your proposing---but I have no interest in another NATO where we pay most of the expenses and carry the vast majority of some new coalition defense force. I have no issue with the fleet docking or maintaining a presence at Pac-Allied ports or maintaining our current bases in the region. I just have no interest in another huge S Korea/NATO type deployment. If we move troops out of the Middle East---the point is to bring them home.

I not only bring them home, I put a bunch of them into the reserves. It seems to me that one of our big problems is that if we have a bunch of active duty soldiers sitting around getting paid for doing nothing, that creates a huge incentive for us to go looking for a war so we can put them to work. The key to affording a big military is keeping a lot of it at a reduced state of readiness until needed. Readiness costs a fortune.

I'm basically talking about a presence mission in WestPac. I think that's all we need to keep China in check. Then just let their internal issues tear them apart.

Quote:What I'd like to see is more integration with the Aussies, Japanese, Koreans and other Pacific nations. Id like to see more of the small Lighting type carriers that utilize the F-35B in use for those allied navies. Those would be fantastic force multipliers for the region as they can link to just about everything in the US arsenal. I know the Japanese are already moving in that directions and the Aussies are revisiting the F-35B option for their helicopter carriers. Hopefully both move that direction in a big way. If they do, that will help give the US Navy some real help in the region (especially given the Ford carriers are still apparently having issues).

With respect to carriers in particular, looks like the Fords are costing us about $14B each by the time we get everything working. The Navy likes to talk about how wonderful the Fords are (if everything works, of course). There is a lecture by CAPT Tal Manvel, who headed up the Ford development team in the early years, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIjvNCFXCjs. What is interesting is that he goes into great detail about all the improvements, but nowhere talks about opportunity costs.

The last Nimitz cost about $8B, so we can probably build another Nimitz or a RAND CVN-LX (from the RAND study of future carrier alternatives) for $9B in today's dollars. So there is $5-6B of opportunity cost in each Ford. We can convert the LHAs/LHDs to full time "Lightning Carriers" or the RAND CV-LX by converting the troop and equipment spaces, and well decks for those that have them, into additional hangar and aircraft maintenance spaces, to get about 40 aircraft onboard, for probably something like $2B, or build new ones for about $4B. Or we could go a little further and upgrade them as proposed by CSBA--add sponsons, angled deck, and waist cats, and put a ski jump on bow, so it can handle everything in our inventory and maybe get 50 aircraft onboard. That's more expensive, probably $3B for conversion or $5B from ground up. We could probably build a Queen Elizabeth with cats and traps for around $5B or a modernized Kitty Hawk for around $6B. QE probably carries up to 50 aircraft, and the Kitty carried 90 back in the day. Build the Kitty with waist cats only and a ski jump and you lose a little parking room, maybe you can only carry 80, but that's all we are looking for with the Fords.

So lets's assume we go for the top of the line here and build another Nimitz and a Kitty. That's two carriers for $15B, or roughly half the cost of two Fords, and they can carry the same 160 aircraft. We could then fill out an escort squadron with a cruiser ($4B), 2 AAW destroyers like Burkes ($2B each or $4B total), 3 GP escorts like the FFG(X) ($1.2B each, $3.6B total), and 4 ASW frigates like upgraded Knoxes or Perrys ($500MM each, $2B total). So for $28.6B, we have not only two carriers that can haul 90 aircraft each, but we also have a 10-ship escort squadron. Whatever advantages the Fords convey (many of which can be back fitted onto Nimitzes and Kittys), are they worth the opportunity cost? I think not.

I like converting the LHAs/LHDs for at least interim carriers because they are basically worthless as amphibs. When I was in gator navy, we criticized the move because putting all your eggs in one basket means one torpedo or missile hit can take out your whole assault force. But it's actually worse than that. Because of that risk, the Navy has determined that they have to operate at least 25-50 miles offshore. From that distance, the only effective ship-to-shore connectors are helos or V-22s, neither of which can carry tanks or heavy artillery. That means that all the Marines can put ashore are light infantry--very light infantry. That means they can't get much done, and if you've followed any of the news on that subject, the Commandant of the Marines is obviously struggling to come up with an answer to that problem.

And as far as opportunity cost, you can build a whole amphibious squadron--smaller LHA/LHD like Spanish Juan Carlos, LPH like French Mistral, LPD/LSD like British Albion, LST with a conventional LST bow, LPA/LKA, and a naval gunfire support frigate, for about the cost of one LHA/LHD. The trick to saving a bunch of money on amphibs is living with an 18 knot SOA instead of 20. Those extra 2 knots are extremely expensive, and they pretty much eliminate the conventional LST that can beach, because you just can't drive that hull through the water that fast, no matter how much power you apply. It was described to me as like driving a nail head first.

I was a big fan of ADM Zumwalt's "high/low" approach to shipbuilding. Build some top-of-the-line, state-of-the-art ships for sure, but flesh out the numbers with cheaper ships based on proved and simpler technology. I actually thought the Knoxes and Perrys were badly underpowered and undergunned. But they turned out to be good ASW platforms, and that was huge in winning the Cold War. Building a cheaper carrier (actually two cheaper carriers) and spending the savings on building escorts, particularly ASW escorts (an area where we are currently weak, in part because we disposed of over 40 Perrys prematurely), makes a lot more sense to me from an opportunity cost standpoint. Same with the amphibs. A bunch of smaller and cheaper and more versatile ships that can actually come in to 3-5 miles offshore and do a real amphibious assault makes a lot more sense to me.

At the point, the Carrier force is better off canceling the Ford program. Finish the JFK and the new Enterprise and refuel the current Nimitz's. As for the Amphibs, I've got bad new for you, the Navy's ship procurement has killed that mission.

Besides, we aren't rolling up on beaches anymore, we need a force that can secure deep water ports. I don't really see that happening without the USAF.