Originally Posted by
Lookleft
Maybe the Yanks have finally woken up to the fact that quantity as well as quality is needed to keep pace with the Chinese military when the inevitable conflict breaks out.
The rise of China since the 70's has come about by the opening of trade with the world at large. In more recent times, the long term planning of China is seen globally, with the amount of resource contracted from all parts of the world, showing there is a positioning to ensure supply of resources. The local hot spots are historically sensitive, but the establishment of military bases in contested waters is a new shift, and does come about from having confidence in the growing naval power at least in the South China Sea. The acoustics in that region frustrate both sides of the sub warfare outcome, but a sub remains a serious risk to any maritime trade and control of sea lanes. In the SCS, mining of the sea lanes and approaches to harbours would be a confounding factor to the prosecution of any war plan involving land grabs of EEZ resources based on maritime transport. Modern mines are a P.I.T.A, literally and figuratively.
Would be interesting to see how this plays out at the end of the next 50 year plan, but I doubt that the reality of benefit of international trade will be lost on the Chinese Govt, except of course that most wars occur due to misunderstandings and overly confident and exuberant aspirations of leaders with unfettered power. Then again Round 1 started because it was just time to have a bit of a fight, and it was easier to have it than get the royalty in charge to contemplate the consequences of their actions.
We tend to fight the last war at least in the beginning of the next one. Where there is an unexpected technological or tactical change that occurs, the outcome becomes more uncertain than otherwise would be the case. The F-35 is an impressive system, but whether it is the right tool for low intensity conflicts, CAS or force projection is the concern I have. The latest pricing estimates for the future frigates appears to be in the same category of capital risk. a $35B/9 Frigate [program?] cost would appear to put each keel into the category of a national treasure. Gunk holing around on a dark night inshore in hostile waters would need a pretty good rationale to be authorised.
There are times where high value assets with leading edge capabilities pay dividends, there are other times that a bicycle, pound of rice and a rifle is impossible to beat. Getting inside the opponents decision making tempo, and having some imagination [not limited to your own view of the world, but comprehending the adversaries position with honesty] makes a difference.