It’s been opined by those who should know (not I) that this will entail the navy getting funds that were earmarked for other services. Let the cat fight move from the eternal simmer to outright open warfare.

Then again, the Biden administration could very well say the current state of the navy is sufficient.

Yep,I think you are on target there Westy.
But, since there can be no appropriation for more than two years (see the Constitution), someone embarking on a 15 - 20 year ship building program is going to have to battle year after year to keep that program alive. The House of Representatives holds the purse strings on defense appropriations.
For a simlar historical reference, the 600-ship-Navy and the resignation of SecNav James Webb, mid-to-late 80's.
Yeah, they could. The USAF is, I am sure, already staffing a position paper to send his way that says exactly that. So too the Gang in Green, aka, the US Army.

As a Naval officer (retired) and sometimes strategic thinker, I am frequently baffled by the raw BS that the Chief of Staff of the Air Force comes up with to claim that the USAF can do what the Navy does. (See that idiot McPeak and "virtual presence" in the mid 90's). I am sure the USAF will come up with more of the same this time around. The "US is a maritime nation" is 100% true. What isn't true is that this guarantees the USN first dip into the budget cup. (My further comments on the abortion that was the Defense Reorg of 1947 will not be regurgitated here).

@etudiant: I note that the author of that piece has been inside the belly of the beast on ship acquisition. (Everett Pyatt is a former assistant secretary of U.S. Navy for shipbuilding and logistics.) Ain't that the truth.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c...lies-3vm3mldp2

Chinese military expansion into Pacific ‘poses greatest threat to America and allies’

China represents the most “comprehensive, long-term” threat to America and its allies of any world power, the US military has claimed.

The warning comes amid fears about the true purpose of a £112 million fishing complex Beijing is building close to Australia’s waters.....

Among looming concerns is a deal between China and Papua New Guinea (PNG) to build a fisheries complex in the Torres Strait, 40 miles from Australia’s northern islands. The proposal has provoked fears that the plant will become a de facto naval base for Beijing.

The Fujian Zhonghong Fishery Company has signed a deal backed by the Chinese government to build the A$200 million (£112 million) complex on the impoverished Daru island. Jeffrey Wall, a former adviser to PNG’s foreign ministry, suggested that Beijing would use the deal as a pretext to build a wharf capable of mooring Chinese navy ships 124 miles from mainland Australia.

In an article for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, a Canberra think tank close to defence leaders, Mr Wall wrote that the seas around Daru were not known to have commercial fishing resources. But he pointed out that they were “strategically as close to Australia as you can get”.

“In my view, what they are going to do, first of all, is build a very large wharf,” he said. “When you build a very large wharf, what do you build? Somewhere where naval vessels can land.”.....

The Times article quoted by Orac (above) also contained contrasting numbers on fleet size. Likely to be reasonably correct or aimed at justifying more money for the US Navy?
Chinese military expansion into Pacific ‘poses greatest threat to America and allies’

In The Guardian today:-
Indonesian fisher finds drone submarine on possible covert mission

Click the link for photos and remainder of the article.

"The Times article quoted by Orac (above) also contained contrasting numbers on fleet size. Likely to be reasonably correct or aimed at justifying more money for the US Navy?2

A detailed analysis I read about about 3 years ago noted the rapid expansion of the Chinese Fleet - it noted this also involved a non- monetary cost - quite a few different types and even within types the equipment fit varies a lot. Some of the older ships (that is older in a Chinese PLA (N) sense not a Western Navy) front line ships are equipped with versions of relatively low capability Western commercial systems (secondary radars for example) as well


The writer noted that this sort of variation brings negative effects in W fleets and could see no reason why it wouldn't also affect the Chinese

Quantity has a quality all of its own!

Agreed - when you see people spout on about sending the RN east again to "threaten" the Chinese.................... they must be in stitches in Beijing

I doubt they’re “in stitches” but rather seeing the another threat that must be mitigated and mulling over a political response as well.

I'd classify 200% duties (on Australian wines iirc) as a vigorous 'political' response.
China is on its way to recovering its role as the producer of 40% of global GNP, after an almost 200 year hiatus.
They may have a slogan about political power growing out of the barrel of a gun, but they are quite aware that economic power is as potent, but more easily wielded and more flexible. They are using it effectively against the western 'coalition', as shown by the just negotiated EEC/China trade and investment agreement, which puts all the real issues off to further discussions, while giving China continued free rein, all because Germany is terrified that its auto industry, which is super dependent on the Chinese market, would face a calamity if China closed its borders.

The Japanese have heavy lift capabilities in the HB rockets used on the Mars missions for the UAE Mars mission . The HB 3 series has an even bigger payload than the HB rocket used for the Mars lift . They also have a head start on biological stuff from the 731 experiments on humans almost a century ago . The Japanese also hit a very small target moving at great speed at the outreaches of space so the dual use capabilities are there . Large heavy lift with pin point accuracy . Add multiple re-entry vehicles to the mission and it will make the contrails program redundant.

Apart from the unnecessary and frankly unpleasant mention of the 731 experiments you have a good point.

Should the Japanese decide to "break-out" from their pacifist history there is no doubt that within 5 years they could have most of the capabilities of some of the bigger players - an atomic bomb, long range rockets (but not maybe integrated in that time frame etc etc . Aircraft are a weakness as although they've expended zillions over the years they've never really manage d a decent aircraft programme. But if they turn their attention to electronic and cyber warfare they'd probably be leaders in less than 5 years.

But there'd have to be a complete U-turn in public opinion. I know very few Japanese who see anything good in militarism and the military

I believe duties on wines and targeting of Australian exports of natural resources, come down to China getting tired of Australia mouthing off while claiming China is an important trading partner.

China decided that Australia is quite free to abuse it.

However as Austalia has a AUS$70 billion trade surplus with China then perhaps abusing the country which is the lynchpin of your economy has its consequences. US has a AUS$19 billion trade surplus with Australia.

Australians will need to get used to the idea that political pronouncements have an economic impact.

I love your optimism, in reality they can just ignore, unless RN is part of a USN deployment then it really has zero impact.

The "we have a big aircraft carrier" has zero impact when people you are challenging make you aware that in the event of any conflict it will be "we had a big aircraft carrier",

The Prince of Wales and The Repulse on 7th of December 1941 supposedly were a big show of RN power in Asia, couple of days later both were on the bottom of the sea.

Australia has the raw materials China needs. The idea that Australia's modest trade surplus is an issue when China runs a half trillion annual surplus with the US alone seems dubious.
China does seem to be becoming a lot more touchy about foreign opinions voiced elsewhere, but not very receptive to allowing similar sentiments to be articulated to their own people.
That will be a problem, getting every tweet cleared with Beijing.
Of course, having decided that 'hate speech' can be censored, can any government object to censoring anti Chinese news and comments if it becomes economically damaging??

USN sends a lone destroyer near one of “their islands” and the Chinese military along with their diplomatic corps go ape ****. U.K. sends a carrier battle group and the Chinese don’t even take notice, nah, don’t buy it.. Any one in the leadership in the Chinese military who didn’t take the threat of a CBG sailing nearby should be relieved of their authority.

Yeah, how dare Australia ask for an enquiry into the origins of COVID, which has wreaked havoc across the world. The gall of that pissant little country even asking the question!

If nations won’t stand up to China, things will get much worse. And the people who defend the CCP, (usually for no other reason that they hate America) can go screw themselves.

"USN sends a lone destroyer near one of “their islands” and the Chinese military along with their diplomatic corps go ape ****. U.K. sends a carrier battle group and the Chinese don’t even take notice, nah, don’t buy it."

that's because the "lone destroyer" is backed by the whole might of the USN and USA. A British CBG is much smaller that a US one, will have a dozen or so strike aircraft and represents about 50% of the whole UK navy.

Racedo is right here - it's politicians willy-waving and it would have the same outcome as 1941

So do others have the resources and a willingness to trade. US economy is 16 times bigger than Australia and remove the Chinese trade surplus and Australia is in defecit

China touchy ? Think you need to look at all Govts as they are touchy.

Unless US support it then UK will struggle to send a CBG close to China. RN struggling to recruit / retain and that unlikely to change so putting all your resources and sailing around the world to put on a show of force achieves what ?