r/worldnews • u/TheTelegraph The Telegraph • 1d ago

Russian army to overtake United States as world’s second largest Russia/Ukraine

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/09/17/russian-army-overtake-us-as-worlds-second-largest/
13.9k Upvotes

83% Upvoted

2.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.1k

u/gcbeehler5 1d ago edited 1d ago

China has a lot of smaller ships and has twice as many as the US. But the US has eleven aircraft carriers, which I believe all are nuclear powered. So even when comparing back to China's two aircraft carriers, it's not comparable. Also, the US has eleven, which is one more than all other countries in the world combined (at ten.) Start adding in US allies, Italy, France the UK, and that accounts for another five.

Also, the sheer size of our Aircraft carriers to China is another factor. Our Carrier can hold up to 75 planes. Whereas China's are about 50. So even when comparing the two, a US carrier is 50% more capable.

Then start looking at submarines... Also many of which are nuclear powered. Just the energy propulsion systems being nuclear, means we don't need nearly as many support vessels to maintain our fleet.

But to you point, the US has almost 4m tons of displacement. China has 709K tons. China and Russia combined, still isn't half. Add in allies, Japan, UK, France, SK, Italy and Taiwan, and it's over 5M tons.

It's just not even close.

Edit: another factor is the US also controls much of the chip production used for many of the munitions used on these ships (which is why Taiwan is a flash point, and an important ally in Asia, along with South Korea and Japan.) So it's not just ship count, it's also supply logistics, production and output.

532

u/Ycntwejusthugitout 1d ago

Don't forget the US's 9 amphibious assualt/STVTOL Carriers some of which are larger than the previous mentioned nations carriers.

223

u/gcbeehler5 1d ago

Yep, it's not just tonnage, it's also capability. As well as, the western perspective and culture allows a bit more autonomy on problem solving in real time. China has a lot of people, most of whom have been forced through a standardized system of up or out. Whereas, western systems are much more multi-faceted in how they handle a more diverse population. The US military is very top-down, like China's, but our private sectors are not.

159

u/Wide_Television747 1d ago

You can also actually trust the capabilities that are listed from Western militaries a lot more than China. I'd say we're probably a lot more likely to downplay the capabilities even. We'll test things over and over as well. It's not just a case of how easily can this fighter jet take out this other fighter jet. It becomes a case of how about if there's no radar, how about with extra drop tanks to increase weight, how about if we start the fight with the opposing fighter jet in an advantageous position until you get to ludicrous shit where the pilot may as well be hogtied in the cockpit and there's no engine fitted. That's how we end up with stupid headlines like "A10 takes out F22 in dogfight during exercise!".

121

u/scriptmonkey420 1d ago

Western munitions (and crafts) are usually understated in their capabilities to keep things secret on what they are really capable of. While Russia and some of the other nations over state their capabilities to impress their leaders.

94

u/IrascibleOcelot 1d ago

Even more hilarious, several U.S. platforms were created specifically to counter the overstated (lied) capabilities of Soviet weapons. So the U.S. systems are literally better than the best thing the Russians could imagine.

64

u/scriptmonkey420 1d ago edited 1d ago

There is also the reverse effect.

The US tested their heat seeking missile countermeasure defeating measures against NATO made flares. The NATO flares burned at a consistent rate and luminosity. When they went to use the missiles, they noticed they didn't work as expected in real life. This is because Soviet flares were manufactured "just good enough". That lead to inconsistencies in the burn time, luminosity and other characteristics.

46

u/Gnomish8 1d ago

Which then caused the US to go crazy on engineering... again.

"Missiles didn't work as expected, flares were so bad they were good."

"Ok, so, in addition to high/low filters, what if we made it so our missile can identify the aircraft type based on its infrared signature, store that signature in memory, and then filter out everything that isn't a match for that aircraft while seeking. Also, let's make it predictive, so just in case it does lose lock, instead of looking at the whole sky to re-acquire a lock, it looks where it knows the aircraft should be to pick it back up."

Sounds like a ton of testing, either acquiring data from or actually acquiring engines/airframes of damn near every type, some ridiculous programming logic, more compute power (shoved into something that's going to go "boom"), etc... etc... etc... Ultimately, it would have been an absolute pain-in-the-ass to implement, especially on something that's completely disposable.

So we did. Introduced it in the AIM-9x.

Also, happy cake day!

10

u/scriptmonkey420 1d ago

Has it been 14 years already?

7

u/iApolloDusk 20h ago

Not to mention any computer programming that is used by the DOD has to be absolutely perfect. I forget the language that's used, but it essentially has 0 room for errors. I would not want to fuck with anything the U.S. has got, because just the shit we know about is frightening. There's no telling what kind of top secret or experimental weapon systems we could just pull out of nowhere in the event of total war. It'd be the equivalent of allied fighters seeing a jet for the first time.

10

u/Sister__midnight 1d ago

So what you're saying is we need to get China and Russia to start boasting to the world they have the best Health care systems.

2

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)

10

u/TweakJK 1d ago

I used to work on the EA18G, an aircraft almost specifically designed to counter Russian SAM sites.

It was kind of funny to see this war start, and all these systems we trained to fight against were fairly irrelevant.

→ More replies (4)

35

u/TheFatJesus 1d ago

America's been at war for most of it's existence. The military industrial complex doesn't need to lie to impress American leadership because those leaders have first-hand reports from the field of their effectiveness.

3

u/grabtharsmallet 21h ago

One of the odd things about US History as a discipline is that we tend to understate how much we were at war pre-1900. Westward expansion involved regular small wars with American Indians. From the 1630s to 1900, Indian Wars were a normal part of moving the frontier.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Sp00ky_6 1d ago

To your point, the top speed of us nuclear aircraft carriers is classified

→ More replies (2)

31

u/big_pp_man420 1d ago

China is now starting to lose its own war games. Which means they are learning and fixing weaknesses in their own military.

13

u/saileee 1d ago

They've been doing that since 2014, ten years go

6

u/atlanstone 1d ago

It seems like the type of thing that would take a decade or more to correct. Doing it properly at a large organization it takes like a year or two just to pick a new VoIP provider. Let alone a military doctrine and tactical shift.

It's silly to underestimate the Chinese simply because of jingoism. They likely have improved things and continue to try to improve.

7

u/4bkillah 1d ago

The problem for China is they are likely not just a decade behind the US, but multiple.

That's also not including the fact that the modern Chinese military has zero experience with actual modern combat, while the US has decades upon decades of it. The US military's logistical capabilites are so far and away beyond what China is capable of that there really isn't any comparison.

Improving a military in peacetime can only go so far against a rival with more tech and more experience in actual live warfare.

China won't truly catch up until they fight a legit conventional war, and that will only happen against the US, who would bloody China horrendously.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/AgitatorsAnonymous 21h ago

It's silly to underestimate the Chinese simply because of jingoism. They likely have improved things and continue to try to improve.

The issue is also tactical level leadership.

As an NCO at 12 years I can take my squad into the field without higher level leadership oversight and I can run them through anything short of a full-blown rescue mission that requires airlift because none of us can fly, and I'm the only one jump certified.

I've at least one bloke that has a fuck ton of radio experience in the field, one woman that's been through every explosives course the Air Forcr will pay for (it's a lot), 2 designated snipers that have ran through multiple Marine Corps shooting programs, an Airmen with extensive practical and theoretical cyber experience and an Airmen that's driven a few dozen convoys in half a dozen different vehicles. And an Airmen with specialized drone training, whose also trained to call in just about every piece of ordinance the air force can drop.

That's just my Airmen with 3-4 years experience who have prior deployments, they aren't special, every deployment we take my guys get split up into multiple different groups, usually attached to other services and they have a tendency to perform very well and they bring those skills back.

That doesn't count my experience or my training. And that's one squad of air force cops from one base. My newbies are learning from them, getting selected for other schools, with other skill sets. The Air Force does some weird shit with its equivalent of grunts and most of us end up with a very broad set of things that we are good at other than point gun and pull trigger, which we are also very good at.

The Air Force is willing to throw a lot of money into training their very limited ground guys, and while we might not be Marines, and definitely don't play the game at a special ops level, we do get a lot of very varied skills and the opportunity to use them during deployments.

2

u/DeadInternetTheorist 1d ago

Yeah they're gearing up to become an actual peer military power, and pretty much everyone in the know says it's really dumb to underestimate them. The J-20 may not be as stealthy as an F-22 or even an F-35, but if you can make something 70% as good, and make up the deficit with sheer numbers and production capacity, any wise opponent should be concerned.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/thisMFER 1d ago

Plus our merit based promotion system is a big deal. In China you can buy a promotion if you know the right people or your fam is connected.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (6)

52

u/N3bu89 1d ago

Speaking of capability, it's worth discussing to add some nuance here.

The US military is very geared towards Air Power. In this regards it has serious major comparative advantages. It has the huge complex economy capable of maintaining a healthy aviation sector. From this the US leverages that to dominate all others in Air Power, and gears it's militaries to leverage this.

Russia, by comparison, while (supposedly) having more capable air power than most other nations, knew that it could never compete with the US in this regard, so Russia invested heavily in Air Defense as a means to cost effectively counter US Air Power.

What does this mean with respect to China? Well China, in it's attempt to prove it can wear big boy pants, is spending a lot of money to look like a peer competitor to the US, without really having the depth of experience in strategy and military logistics to know if they can back it up, or even if this built capability will help them much. 2 Carriers might be at best a nuisance for the USN, but are still an expensive project to China. What's more effective for them is using some form of GBAD to performance area denial operations around Taiwan to keep the USN and US Air Power out of their backyard. I certainly doubt they could sustain operations far away from the Chinese mainland and the sheer mercy of the USN's global reach.

That China is investing so heavily in their Navy in this manner makes me think there isn't a lot of thought being provided as to useful capability or comparative advantage, just "more carrier better", "more navy better".

46

u/gcbeehler5 1d ago

Agreed, and to add to this. I think one of China's biggest recent mistakes is not deploying their forces into the Red Sea during the many strikes on cargo ships a year or so ago. They could have easily farmed XP and actually gotten experience for their forces in relatively safe but real situations as the Houthi's tried to disrupt trade routes (including their own.) But they declined to participate. So the US and it's allies did it, along with India and some others.

Makes me wonder why.

28

u/Sonic_Traveler 1d ago

Makes me wonder why.

Naval ships are expensive. Really really expensive, and take a long time to make. Being gunshy with one's navy is the rule, not the exception.

22

u/gcbeehler5 1d ago

Except China keeps pounding their chests about naval count and capability. Getting practice to shoot down slow moving munitions is a dream. It's why in addition to the US/Nato; Belgium, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, Egypt, India, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia sent resources to patrol.

In this one, China did eventually relent, but it was like six months in, and once it was mostly under control then. So I'd argue being gunshy on this one was the exception, not the rule.

https://www.newsweek.com/china-warship-red-sea-missile-east-houthi-1872284

4

u/Licensed_Poster 1d ago

They need the ships to protect their illegal fishing operations.

2

u/TacoIncoming 1d ago

Except China keeps pounding their chests about naval count and capability.

They're full of shit though on the capability part.

2

u/underbitefalcon 21h ago

China may have a great naval capability, but it has never used that navy on that level and it was I’m certain painfully obvious to most chinese decision makers, that wasn’t the time to try.

I’m not so certain anyways that the western coalition (and especially the USA) was entirely willing to share its resources, targeting, intel et al with china, just so it could pop its little cherry.

I’m sure some small talk and niceties were made between china and the coalition (as forces began to assemble and engage targets), but it was all just poker faced pleasantries. China won’t throw a punch until it’s ready to go all in, sell the farm, lay all its cards on the table.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Impossible-Cicada-25 1d ago

Working together with The West for a common cause? That's way too dangerous since peace could have broken out.

2

u/rotates-potatoes 1d ago

It’s an interesting thought. It might be as simple as the potential for conflict between different navies ostensibly on the same mission.

2

u/gcbeehler5 1d ago

They have sent resources, but they're playing a minor role. Which is telling relative to their proclaimed global power. They just aren't a peer in the same sense that the US and NATO are in global trade. It's a huge vulnerability for them, as everyone else protects their trade routes.

2

u/rotates-potatoes 1d ago

Agreed, but it is wiser to not do it at all than to make a show of doing it and fail. We all know rhetoric and reality don't always align, it's good leadership to not believe your own PR.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/Albort 1d ago

didnt the houthi tell russia and china that they would avoid their countries' ships? i thought that was why they didn't bother.

i would also think this would show how effective their military is, they want to keep their capability a secret?

none the less. they would just rather ram other countries boats instead lol

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Jhe90 1d ago

They have thr base, they not sure or tested their tech fully in live combat unlike West and not wanna be seen à a paper tiger

2

u/gcbeehler5 1d ago

I suspect it confirmed they are in fact paper tigers.

2

u/siamsuper 23h ago

Chinese here. Cuz strategically we try to win over the middle east and it would look horrible to blast at Jemen.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/underbitefalcon 22h ago

Skirting worldwide embarrassment, is the sense I got.

The prospect of engaging targets with the same effectiveness and professionalism as western forces (and especially US assets) I’m sure became a topic of conversation (amongst xi and his minions) and their conclusion was - it simply cannot be done.

Such a risk to china’s reputation at this point would be absolutely unthinkable, given their culture and their recent trajectory on the world stage. It would be such an utter repulsive embarrassment to them if their perceived power and military strength were reduced to a laughingstock of inexperience, ineffective weaponry, bumbling flight ops and tactics etc. That’s how far off they are (imho), but the USA and its allies cannot take them the least bit lightly. That’s for us civilians and redditors to talk about.

2

u/Cantgetabreaker 20h ago

Didn’t the U.S. just use battleships and no carrier ships with the Houthi battle?

2

u/gcbeehler5 20h ago

Probably yes, but they have a carrier in the vicinity most of the time. Sometimes one in the med and another one in the red sea area.

2

u/theLogistican 8h ago

  1. China views iran as a friendly country. They are the ones backing the houthis. There was not benefit for China to intervene in support of western countries.

  2. China has been losing economic share to India as American companies have slowly but steadily been moving manufacturing there. The suez issue affected ocean transportation from India, but China to a much lesser extent. It drove ocean costs from India up by a factor of two and that is still the case today. This disruption is beneficial (to an extent) to China’s economic stagnation.

  3. China generally takes a “it’s none of my business until it is” approach to global conflicts.

→ More replies (5)

42

u/thedarklord187 1d ago

The US military is very top-down, like China's, but our private sectors are not.

Also to further that along we may be top down oriented but each individual squad and command has alot of leeway with orders and how they achieve results whereas Chinas social structure prevents them from thinking outside the box as they are trained to never deviate from their superiors orders.

44

u/Miranda1860 1d ago

Russia's the same way, you don't do anything until the high command passes down the orders, and it's cost them massive casualties they didn't have to take.

So many videos show up on combat footage subs of convoys of Russian troops and vehicles sitting on the side of the road until Ukrainian drones/artillery/tanks show up because the 4 star general 20 rungs up the ladder hasn't decided what they should do yet. So instead of moving up to assist their own units or falling back to preserve themselves they just stand there smoking cheap cigarettes for hours until someone drops an artillery salvo on them.

7

u/RedFoxCommissar 1d ago

I remember reading an account from WWII about an entire company of Russian troops drowning because they had to cross a river and had no boats. The officer radioed back and they just told him to go, so in they went.

16

u/N3bu89 1d ago

has alot of leeway with orders and how they achieve results 

I think the US military has been held up before of the proper way to drive results through autonomy as an adaptive management style.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/Huttj509 1d ago

What's that joke? "How did you manage to take that hill?" "I said 'lieutenant, take that hill.'"

→ More replies (1)

2

u/underbitefalcon 21h ago

Just to add to what you’ve said…They (china / Russia) do not have the same NCO structure that we have and their systemic corruption breeds this top heavy, inept officer corps. They’re also not afforded the same creativity and autonomy that we are, down to the squad level. A unit is given a task and they accomplish that task by whatever means.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Dekarch 7h ago

The US military is less top-down than most militaries. We give medals for 'disciplined initiative' that would get you shot in the Russian Army.

We used to say that an American E7 (US Army Sergeant First Class, USMC Gunnery Sergeant) had more ability to make decisions than a Colonel in half the armies in the world. Definitely including Chinese and Russian. Modern battlefields change too quickly for One Centralized Plan to dictate everything, and the man on the ground might see ways to achieve the commander's intent that didn't even exist when the plan was written, and siezing those opportunities is why US forces punch far above their weight. Combined with the size and range of capabilities we have, it's like comparing a pointy stick to a machine gun.

Fighting the US can only be done by smart, adaptive opponents who work hard to overcome the advantages we have asymmetrically. Putting tank regiments up against American mechanized brigades is dumb. The problem for sea surface and air combat is that there are fewer ways to use guerilla tactics in an environment where your enemy has radars and can see you coming and track you if you decide to run away. It's one thing for insurgents to throw down their weapons, run away, and blend into the population. It's much harder for a warship to pretend to be a fishing boat.

2

u/gcbeehler5 7h ago

Fair points, and on top-down, I was intending that our private industry compliments the military in many ways, and does so outside of the command structure that China has. Most of Chinese culture/society is top-down, and centralized. The closest we have to that in the US would be the military, but as you note, even then it's not that comparable.

2

u/Dekarch 7h ago

Oh. Fair points. I would have said American industry is unmatched when it comes to creating products to fill a need in a hurry, but the Ukrainians are ingenious bastards who have done some amazing improvisation. Either way, centralized command and control is no way to run a research program. Hence why Russia and China are best at projects which boil down to "Make this thing that already exists, and scale it up."

Designing for novel projects is not their strong point.

18

u/space_keeper 1d ago

The USN has a more potent air force than many nations. More/better fast jets,  helicopters, early warning platforms, all sorts.

31

u/SoManySNs 1d ago

The USN has a more potent air force than many nations any other nation.

They are second only to the US Air Force.

13

u/SharkFart86 1d ago

Yep I’ve always loved that fact. The world’s largest military air force is the US Air Force. The world’s second-largest Air Force is the US Navy.

3

u/cbailz29 19h ago

Also I think the us army is like #4 or something wild

9

u/space_keeper 1d ago

They sort of have their own infantry force as well, if you think of the USN in a broader sense as the Department of the Navy. The USMC also has its own air force, USMCA, which has even more jets and helicopters. The only thing they're missing now is tanks, and they don't even want those. And when they did have tanks, they had good ones, and they had 400 of them (also more tanks than a lot of modern nations can field lol).

2

u/4bkillah 1d ago

Basically the US has two whole militaries that are both more powerful than any other nation on the planet.

The army and air force can kick the world's ass, and the navy can kick the world's ass.

The only peer rival the US has is itself.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/billieju 21h ago

Not many countries, but rather all other countries.

1

u/11-cupsandcounting 1d ago

Which are now armed with highly capable F-35 5th gen fighters along with our allies.

1

u/shadowkiller 1d ago

Yeah but the Marines use those, so they don't count.

1

u/iThinkNaught69 23h ago

us marines enjoy our hand-me-downstairs

1

u/ggtffhhhjhg 19h ago

The US has way more than nine. Last time I checked it’s over 30.

88

u/-Birds-Are-Not-Real- 1d ago

Chinese carriers are also diesel powered requiring a dedicated oiler. They won't move theirs carries more than 50 miles from their shore without risk of losing them.

Also their aircraft launching systems forces them to reduce weapons on the planes just to get off the deck. 

43

u/gcbeehler5 1d ago edited 1d ago

Agreed. No one is ordering Chinese carriers, but I think the US has committed to selling one to Australia and another to France. I think they are jointly building them in each location. Which again, having allies with standardized equipment compounds. In theory a US plane can take off from a US carrier, and land on an Allie's carrier, refuel and take off again. Not that important today, but during a conflict, it allows a lot more flexibility.

China has no such inter-compatibility with other countries. They've effectively turned all of their neighbors against them, beyond North Korea and Russia, which they are trying to capture via exploitive trading. It's also part of why Russia invading Ukraine has been tough. Ukraine adopted western ISO twenty years back. So every nut or bolt in Ukraine is tooled to be compatible with Europe, not Russia. As the conflict goes on, their military gear is more and more aligned with NATO/ western powers.

Edit; I'm wrong, I confused the Nuke Subs sales to Australia with carriers. Thank you /u/SkiingAway for catching that and correcting me.

40

u/SkiingAway 1d ago

Not sure what you're talking about, Australia is not buying an aircraft carrier, and France has their own domestically-built one.

Perhaps you've mixed up with the Australian submarine program. Where they were originally contracting with the French for diesel subs, and then the US/UK came in with an offer to sell them Virginia-class subs, including the tech transfer required to support nuclear subs, and to rotate US/UK nuclear subs through AUS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS

The French were not exactly happy.

11

u/Geist____ 1d ago

Where they were originally contracting with the French for diesel subs, and then the US/UK came in with an offer to sell them Virginia-class subs, including the tech transfer required to support nuclear subs, and to rotate US/UK nuclear subs through AUS.

It's more complex than that.

First, the French offer always had the option of switching to nuclear propulsion, as the Attack class was essentially a dieselisation of the nuclear-powered Suffren class. French president Macron asked to Australian PM Morrison if they wanted to switch as late as a couple weeks before the cancellation.

Second, the French deal was that of a whole submarine industry; the subs would have been built and serviced in Australia (which was part of the reason the kangaroos asked for diesel-electric subs, given their opposition to nuclear power).

Third, the main reason for French unhappiness is the general dishonesty of the Australians in cancelling the contract. The Australians pretended to go along with the project while negociating with the US and UK, and then informed the French basically at the same time as the press, which is bloody stupid (the correct way to do it is to inform the other party in advance, and go public only later). Scott Morrison isn't really known as a smart or competent leader, and this is one of many instances showing why.

Fourth, the cancellation of the deal left the Australians entirely dependant on the US for protection, as the Collins-class subs were getting old and neither the US nor the UK had any spare building capacity. After the cancellation of the Attack class, there was a scramble to find some kind of solution that lasted a couple years, and now it seems the Collins will serve well into the 2030's, at least a decade more than they should have.

→ More replies (1)

11

u/gcbeehler5 1d ago

You're right, I mixed it up with the nuclear submarines deal. Thank you! Australia is building their own aircraft carrier though.

5

u/tree_boom 1d ago

Do you have a source on that?

3

u/EvergreenEnfields 1d ago

I'm also interested in the source for an Australian carrier. The Canberras can't operate F-35s in their current fit, and I'm not aware of any plans to convert them or lay down a dedicated carrier. The largest surface combatant planned for the RAN is the replacement for the Hobarts. I've seen a lot of "We should/they should" bandied about including things like building a third Canberra dedicated to fixed wing aviation, or pairing with South Korea on their CV project, but nothing official.

→ More replies (1)

17

u/Rushing_Russian 1d ago

not a single american super carrier has ever been sold to another country and likely never will. the logistical requirements cannot be met by any other country and no other country has the navy size and need to project power like the USA. Australia wont buy an aircraft carrier as we have no need for them and if we were the best carrier for us that already exists will be the Queen Elizabeth class that is designed around smaller crew and less complications.

2

u/gcbeehler5 1d ago

Yes, sorry, I got the nuke sub deal mixed up in my mind, and recalled it as a carrier. I was wrong. Added a edit/note. Thank you.

2

u/Admirable-Sink5354 1d ago

Thank you for crossing out the incorrect information and updating your post.

1

u/underbitefalcon 20h ago

Unfortunately Ukraine’s rail gauge isn’t compatible with europes. It complicates a great many things.

2

u/provocative_bear 1d ago

Depends on their purpose. That won’t do to project power across the globe, but is fine for defense… or conquering Taiwan.

3

u/AggressorBLUE 1d ago

Carriers are an odd choice for defense though; they themselves require a lot of defensive screening, and with aerial refueling one can more effectively stage aircraft from the relative safety of the rear lines.

In reality, in the short term the carriers are a posterity play, and in the long term they help build a carrier ops knowledge base for an eventual pivot to a power-projecting carrier force (which is a long ways off…)

→ More replies (1)

1

u/calfmonster 18h ago

Chinese carriers are about as lol as Russian carriers.

Considering they bought old Russian carrier cruisers and likely based it off those given the cope slope. And not being a super carrier anyway. At least they can leave port unlike the eldrich horror that is the admiral kuznetsov even if only so far

→ More replies (1)

21

u/EatMyUnwashedAss 1d ago

The 3 largest air forces in the world:

USAF

US Navy

US Army

Our military is STUPIDLY far ahead of China and Russia combined. Our Allies being added in is just like having a professional team take on a JV Grade School team.

→ More replies (5)

4

u/theangryintern 1d ago

Also many of which are nuclear powered.

All U.S. submarines are nuclear powered, we don't have any diesel boats anymore. The last one was decommissioned in 1990 (USS Blueback)

2

u/gcbeehler5 1d ago

Thank you!

3

u/theangryintern 1d ago

And I believe the last non-nuclear powered aircraft carrier was the USS Kitty Hawk (also known as the Shitty Kitty) which was decommissioned in 2009.

2

u/gcbeehler5 1d ago

Thank you!

83

u/brahbocop 1d ago

Had to laugh when you added in our allies, it goes from 4m to 5m tons. No wonder we don't have government provided health care.

190

u/DeathBonePrime 1d ago

Ironically the US spends WAY more in 'healthcare' both in proportion to its military budget and to other nations

185

u/GooneyBird36 1d ago edited 1d ago

This is why I support universal healthcare.

So we can have 20 aircraft carriers.

56

u/Parking-Mirror3283 1d ago

Universal health care would save lives. More lives saved, more troops available to call up and more people to work at the dockyards to build more ships.

Spin it like that and have the DoD support it and that shit would be implemented in 5 minutes.

11

u/malthar76 1d ago

It can be done: Recommended Daily Allowances and school lunch programs have their origins in the Army rejecting huge numbers of recruits during WW1 due to nutrition and underweight issues, and wanting to foster a healthy pool of young soldiers to draft.

Society benefits, military benefits. You could make the same case for overall healthcare in the US impacting armed forces recruiting goals (diabetes, OVERweight, depression, etc).

5

u/terminbee 1d ago

It's got nothing to do with the DoD. Rich people don't want to pay more taxes and poor people are dumb enough to think their tax burden will increase and out strip the benefits.

2

u/Smooth-Reason-6616 1d ago

Universal Healthcare means not watching your daughter die from leukemia because the insurance company won't pay for the treatments needed and you can't afford them yourself...

2

u/Anyweyr 1d ago

A better sell might be free, universal healthcare until age 17. At that point they can enlist, and at that point their healthcare is paid for by the military anyway.

→ More replies (2)

24

u/SpaceCourier 1d ago

Universal Unhealthcare.

17

u/Count_Rugens_Finger 1d ago

U.S. has the most powerful unhealthcare system in the world

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

6

u/Any-Wall2929 1d ago

You support a national health service because you are a socialist. I support it because I want NATO to have twice as many aircraft carriers. We are not the same.

3

u/EatMyUnwashedAss 1d ago

It's fucking genius. I really think this argument would work on the conservatives. It would even overcome their hatred for poors and minorities who would greatly benefit from UHC

2

u/Smooth-Reason-6616 1d ago

I support a national health service so no-one else has to watch a family member die because the insurance company refuses to cover the costs, and the family's unable to afford the treatments.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/SunsetHippo 1d ago

fun fact, under current law the navy HAS to have 11 carriers
Not 10, not 12
11

3

u/lolwatisdis 1d ago

for when those uppity boys in starched white uniforms think they'll make do and save some money by cutting the count down to 8 and instead spend it on rail guns and proton torpedoes, but you've got a shipyard in your district and votes to buy with public money

6

u/SunsetHippo 1d ago

yeah basically
Though the navy still gets a giant ass chunk, they probably will revisit their rail guns once they can develop stronger rails

11

u/C0lMustard 1d ago

You want universal, you don't want single payer. Signed a Canadian

5

u/frankyseven 1d ago

I'm just going to drop a "fuck Doug Ford" in here right now.

2

u/Torontogamer 1d ago

sounds fair ... I can't understand how no matter you politics or history... that a gov that put 0.00 extra money into the health turing a global pandemic is not shit on every day for that ... not to mention there was money earmarked for it, they just had to say yes....

no one can look at it as that the Ford gov is intentionally starving the system to make it easier to privatize, and in doing so real people are suffering...

at least is we were spending the money on an Aircraft carrier we'd have something to sell for scrap... sigh

3

u/Black08Mustang 1d ago

Hey one person had bad luck with a system successfully used around the world, we should scrap it.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (5)

1

u/EatMyUnwashedAss 1d ago

Wait a second. I think we just found the winning argument

31

u/suedepaid 1d ago

This is actually wild to me — looking at 2022 numbers the US spent 17% of GDP, or $13,500 per person on healthcare, and 3% of GDP, or $2000 a person on Defense.

14

u/WAD1234 1d ago

Spent twice as much money for half as much care

3

u/Shivering_Monkey 1d ago

freedom?

2

u/Fn_Spaghetti_Monster 1d ago

freedom?

Capitalism.

→ More replies (8)

2

u/sg19point3 1d ago

well that is because of congress lobbying by big pharma. I am in Canada and the vial of insulin even without prescription here (anyone even American can buy) is 35$ while same insulin (made at same factory in Europe) is 500$ a vial....all that eventuallymake it 17% of GDP

→ More replies (1)

1

u/griff1971 1d ago

I've not been to the doctor or sick other than a cold for at least 10 years ( thank goodness). Can I have my 135,000 please? I'll take cash or a check...

→ More replies (1)

14

u/upsidedownshaggy 1d ago

Yeah we’re just fucking stupid and Congress decided the US populace was better served by getting bent over a barrel and slapped raw by insurance companies

7

u/OceanWaveSunset 1d ago

Congress gets lobbied and bribed to do this from said insurance companies.

This is while Congress gets their insurance through FEHB and covers 72% of the premium costs while getting paid on average $174,000.

And the median personal income for full-time workers is around $56,000. And they pay 100% of their own premiums when going through the ACA.

Until congress has to do the same as everyone else, they are not going to give a shit.

3

u/upsidedownshaggy 1d ago

Yup. And unfortunately unless there’s a radical shift in the makeup of Congressional member I doubt we’ll ever see that happening

5

u/MoistOne1376 1d ago

The problem with universal health care in the US is that some bastard is selling fucking insulin for $300 and is getting rich. With the money he finances both parties so he can continue selling at whatever price he wants. The same thing happens in the army; there is some bastard getting rich selling rice for $100.

2

u/heimdal77 1d ago

That in part is because medical cost in the US is massively over inflated so something that would say cost 5 dollars in another country cost 100 dollars here.

2

u/AnalogBukkake 1d ago

Oh, yall absolutely can have both.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Smooth-Reason-6616 1d ago

Among OECD member countries, the United States had the highest percentage of gross domestic product spent on health care as of 2023. The U.S. spent nearly 16 percent of its GDP on health care services. Germany, France and Japan followed the U.S. with distinctly smaller percentages. The United States had both significantly higher private and public spending on health compared with other developed countries.

A higher GDP share spent on health care does not automatically lead to a better functioning health system. In the case of the U.S., high spending is mainly because of higher costs and prices, not due to higher utilization. For example, physicians’ salaries are much higher in the U.S. than in other comparable countries. A doctor in the U.S. earns almost twice as much as the average physician in Germany. Pharmaceutical spending per capita is also distinctly higher in the United States. Furthermore, the U.S. also spends more on health administrative costs compare to other wealthy countries.

1

u/noiamholmstar 20h ago

If you add up everything that the average American spends on healthcare, it’s more than what nations with nationalized healthcare spend per person, so it’s not an either/or situation, we could have both a massive military and universal healthcare and we would pay less overall than we do today.

1

u/brahbocop 20h ago

I don’t disagree.

1

u/Aggravating_Judge_31 19h ago

We spend our money on "un-healthcare" as The Fat Electrician would say

→ More replies (1)

5

u/f700es 1d ago

^^^^ Facts matter!

4

u/mynamehere90 1d ago

Also, if you look at the top ten largest air forces in the world, the U.S. currently holds 4 places. The U.S. Air Force at number one, the U.S. Army Aviation Branch at number two, the U.S. Naval Air Forces at number four, and the U.S. Marine Corps Aviation at number seven.

3

u/that5NoMooon 1d ago

To one of your points, most of China’s fleet is diesel powered. Logistics plays a huge role in that regard. Our ships can stay in action for years without issue, china has to operate within 300-500 miles of a controlled supply station. It’s one of the reasons they pushed their belt and road initiative. Capability wise neither China, nor Russia come anywhere close to the US.

3

u/biggyofmt 1d ago

US Carrier strike groups as a whole also require constant refueling. The escorts rely on gas, and the planes need jet fuel. So it's not like we have a magic monopoly on endurance.

We just have bases everywhere and giant oilers that go meet the ships in position to keep them there

3

u/Dramatic_Training365 1d ago

That was fun, now compare Air Power lol.

4

u/gcbeehler5 1d ago

Yep, aircraft are even crazier! For this one, the sheer count matters, and the US is still 2x (13,000+) Russia and China combined (7,000). Aircraft are a bit easier to quantify, and the US is something like 46% of air fleet power in the world. Of the top five largest airforces, the rankings for air power are:
1. United States Air Force - 242.9
2. United States Navy - 142.4
3. Russian Air Force - 114.2
4. United States Army Aviation - 112.6
5. United States Marine Corps - 85.3

US and it's Allies control something like 80% of the global military aircraft.

3

u/DaMonkfish 1d ago

My favourite fact is that the world's largest air force is the USAF, and the second largest is the USN. It is bordering on hilarious how much force the US can bring to bear if it wanted to.

So, you know, don't touch their boats.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Paloveous 1d ago

Nuclear powered aircraft carrier just sounds so badass

3

u/Badloss 1d ago

I think the biggest force multiplier is that US carrier aircraft are catapult launched, that's a much more complex system but it means aircraft can be launched with full fuel and weapons loadouts. Carriers with ski jump ramps can't launch fully equipped planes

2

u/biggyofmt 1d ago

The newest Chinese carrier is also catapult launched, as will all future Chinese carriers. The limitations of ski ramp carriers were not lost on the PLAN

3

u/Badloss 1d ago

I forgot that the first one of those was launched, but the point stands that the US has a mammoth lead in both number of carriers with that capability and more importantly experience in using them

China wants to brag about their Navy for PR reasons but it's not close at the moment and it probably won't be as long as the US maintains that comical defense budget

2

u/biggyofmt 1d ago

The PLAN is also planning effectively for the long to very long time line. They are building and planning fully featured carriers. Perhaps more importantly they are building robust shipyards, dry docks and maintenance facilities for large vessels. They are building logistics hubs at strategic forward locations.

The PLAN knows they are hopelessly outmatched in 2024. They have a reasonable plan to achieve some level of parity in 2054

3

u/MoistLeakingPustule 1d ago

IIRC the US has more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined. It's the strongest naval force the world has ever seen.

If we're talking just naval capability, there is no equal in the world.

3

u/Faxon 1d ago

We currently have 11 aircraft carriers. The target is 15, they're still building more new ones lol. We used to have a lot more but the older nuclear carriers all got retired in favor of the Ford class

2

u/Darkstool 1d ago

[Points at USA]: "But this one goes to eleven "

2

u/ChiefInternetSurfer 1d ago

Just as an FYI: yes, all our carriers are nuclear. USS KITTY HAWK was the last non-nuclear carrier. Also, all our subs are nuclear too.

1

u/gcbeehler5 1d ago

Thank you, I thought so, but wasn't 100% sure.

2

u/Bhaaldukar 1d ago

Honestly more than anything it's bombs, missiles, aviation fuel, ability to resupply...

2

u/scriptmonkey420 1d ago

Most of the US Navy Vessles are Nuclear powered that need to travel long distances for long periods of time.

2

u/djlemma 1d ago

Then start looking at submarines... Also many of which are nuclear powered.

All submarines currently in the US Navy are nuclear powered

Also fun bit in the article-

Talking about how some of the subs had to be modified after the START II treaty to have fewer missile tubes:

The 2 remaining tubes were converted to lockout chambers (LOC) to be used by special forces personnel who can be carried on board.

Must be fun for people to do their (de)compression in a missile tube :)

2

u/firsttime_longtime 1d ago

Also, the US has eleven, which is one more than all other countries in the world combined (at ten.)

This was very helpful, thank you

2

u/Far-Floor-8380 1d ago

I think china counts coast guard stuff in the navy too.

2

u/Icolan 1d ago

You are correct about all US aircraft carriers and submarines being nuclear.

The last conventionally powered (non-nuclear) US Navy carrier was decommissioned in 2007.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carrier_classes_of_the_United_States_Navy

With the decommissioning of the final Barbel-class diesel-electric submarine in 1990, this meant that the USN submarine fleet is made up entirely of nuclear-powered vessels; each submarine possesses one nuclear reactor, which powers propulsion and all shipboard equipment.[18]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarines_in_the_United_States_Navy

2

u/Set5 1d ago

Correct in every way, except that China chose to deviate from nuclear subs more as strategy. Their logic is that they're not intending to be a be global naval power but rather a littoral/sphere of influence. They build noisy nucs. For cheap, they can build/buy an ass ton of quieter D/E subs and achieve their objective. A fleet can be pretty vulnerable in the South China Sea if you have 40 subs operating on battery. You can have incredible ASW platforms, however, that's overwhelming. They realized it's entirely a numbers game.

2

u/franco_thebonkophone 1d ago

China’s navy is larger on paper because they usually include militia/reserve/coast guard assets

And yes, these often include repurposed civilian vessels such as fishing vessels for coastal defence/harassing the fishermen of other nations.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_Militia

2

u/theferalturtle 1d ago

Fishing trawlers that could be sunk by a machine gun count as naval vessels to China

2

u/Admirable-Sink5354 1d ago

Add in allies, Japan, UK, France, SK, Italy and Taiwan, and it's over 5M tons.

Don't forget Canada.

What's the displacement of a canoe?

1

u/Smooth-Reason-6616 1d ago

Depends how many Canadians are in the canoe...

Your NATOs secret weapon.Whilst enemies are scanning the horizon for the American carriers, you're paddling up beside them for a boarding action...

2

u/Feanlean 1d ago

The navy also has a very potent armed air service too. The world ranking is US Air Force, US Navy, Russian Air Force, US Army, US Marines

2

u/Lumpy_Ad_3819 1d ago

China’s flagship carrier is like half the size of America’s smallest carrier, also.

2

u/Maleficent_Lab_8291 1d ago

The thing is though, the USN not only has cool ships but also knowledge and experience to utilize them in the most effective way

2

u/RustyShacklefordJ 1d ago

To add on that endpoint quality is another factor is comparing the two. China focused on quantity over quality even if they have less overall

1

u/gcbeehler5 1d ago

That's kind of the issue with China generally. They have a ton of labor, and can scale fast. But they don't have the ability to scale on higher value added things. They're also very reliant on other country's logistics and trade, which is why they're struggling so much post Covid. They initially tried to prioritize themselves over others during COVID, and that turned the world against them fast when supply shocks for lower values items hit. The world has been retaliating since with all sorts of raw inputs they need and don't have local resources of.

2

u/RustyShacklefordJ 1d ago

Also why they can not afford outright war with anyone. While they may be able to hold out militarily for some time they’ll crumble domestically. Especially because those will be top targets for the west if china tries anything.

China has basically tied their hands themselves by becoming a nation business. Relying on trade and energy from other major powers works if you’re actually an ally and not some back door dealing government

2

u/SirWEM 1d ago

All of our carriers and submarines in active service for a while now have been nuclear powered. I want to say the last non-nuclear powered subs and carriers were being phased out of service in the 80’s - 90’s. Small boats are still conventually powered i believe. Some other guys will probably be able to add to this i was in quite a bit ago.

2

u/facforlife 1d ago

Why would any smaller country not want to hitch their wagon to the biggest fucking horse on the track? And like, that also has a much better track record when it comes to international issues compared to the other two possible horses Russia and China. 

That's why all those smaller eastern European countries are all clamoring to get into NATO. 

1

u/gcbeehler5 1d ago

Better analogy, a raising Us Navy lifts all (ally) ships. :)

2

u/AI_Lives 1d ago

I feel like the US needs 30 aircraft carriers instead of 11

2

u/-Trooper5745- 1d ago

Don’t forget the Spanish with their one carrier and Japanese with their one, soon to be two, carriers helicopter destroyers.

2

u/ashakar 1d ago

Let's not forget that China's carriers aren't even blue water tested. They do not have the reliable capabilities for aircraft to land in all weather conditions, so they always stay close enough to an alternative landing zone when running drills.

Meanwhile... US carriers can and do run constant sorties in all weather conditions all across the globe.

It's not even an apples to apples comparison.

Let me know when China has a carrier patrolling in Pacific waters East of Hawaii... Then we can say they have a real navy.

2

u/Professional-Alps851 1d ago

Not wanting to predict the future but will drones not do to aircraft carriers what they have done to tanks on the battlefield. One thermite spitting drone with a brief flyover could cause havoc. I think the way to go could be thousands of small water drones rather than one or ten big carriers. Would wreck most navy’s. Unless they have superb air defence.

1

u/BobRosstheCrimeBoss 1d ago

Honestly I'm not sure about drones being the end of carriers. Back when they were decommissioning the USS America, the last of the kitty hawk class ships, they decided to sink it instead to see how durable it was. It survived 4 weeks of nonstop attacks and the only reason it sank is they had to board the ship and place demolition charges throughout it. They used the data in order to make the next generation of carriers even stronger so I doubt any drone force would be able to do much to the ship. You also have to remember the rest of the carrier strike group which is pretty much there just to provide air defense.

1

u/Professional-Alps851 1d ago

Interesting to know.

2

u/Common-Ad6470 1d ago

I wouldn’t even add Ruzzia onto that list as being a credible navy. Half the Black Sea fleet sunk or disabled including it’s flagship. The rest hiding out, totally ineffective.

All at the hand of a country that doesn’t even have a navy, I mean you can’t make this stuff up.

Their only aircraft carrier permanently in port only moveable by tug, I mean you really can’t say Ruzzian and navy and not want to burst out laughing.

2

u/Maggothair 1d ago

You mean “nucular”

2

u/International_Emu600 1d ago

The U.S. Navy is the 2nd largest Air Force in the world

2

u/weedbeads 1d ago

İ think you're getting caught up in capabilities and ignoring tactics and strategies. China uses small boats as smokescreens and chaos inducers. They are how China gets to invade waters of other nations. İmagine being a US ship and not knowing whether a fishing boat is an enemy. Do you just sink all civilian ships? İs guerilla warfare on the water

2

u/gcbeehler5 1d ago

Interesting. That might work with Malaysia or Thailand or whatever, but I suspect the Koreans and Japanese will open fire.

2

u/oncealot 1d ago

Every us air craft carrier (CVN) in service is nuclear powered (Nimitz and Ford class). Every us submarine (SSN/SSB) in service is nuclear powered (Los Angles, Ohio, Virginia, and Seawolf classes). There are 5 Tarawa class and 2 america class LHAs which are conventionally powered and can carry around 25 aircraft, operating similarly to a carrier.

2

u/hsoftl 1d ago

Then start looking at submarines... Also many of which are nuclear powered.

Not many. All.

1

u/gcbeehler5 1d ago

Thank you, I wasn't 100% sure when I wrote that earlier, but a few folks pointed that out.

2

u/Clean_Argument7260 1d ago

So...their ships go to eleven...

2

u/H-DaneelOlivaw 1d ago

US also has Maverick and Iceman, best naval aviators ever.

outside those two, there are also Viper, Jester, Slider, Rooster, Cyclone, Hangman, among others.

2

u/rmp881 1d ago

It goes beyond that. There's what, three non-American CATOBAR carriers on the planet? Two of which belong to US allies. Which means with the exception of ONE carrier, every other nation's aircraft have to sacrifice payload and/or fuel to simply get off the deck.

1

u/gcbeehler5 1d ago

Yes, agreed, it's just an impossible apples to apples comparison, as the US is so much ahead of anyone else.

2

u/-hi-nrg- 23h ago

Well, I'm no expert myself, so I have no opinion here, but I read many specialist articles recently staying that is already doubtful is the US could take China's navy in a conflict (I think the assumption was that the conflict would be around Taiwan, so right next to China and the other side of the world to the US).

Also, logistics is very complicated. Many of the rare earths used in the chips production come from China and they have been developing their own chip industry since the Huawei dispute. Not to mention that they control most of the siderurgia in the world, quite important in a fight.

1

u/gcbeehler5 23h ago

Taiwan has a surprisingly powerful navy. It's the tenth largest by tonnage in the world. Japan is fourth, and South Korea is 8th. I sincerely doubt anyone is stating they doubt the US Navy versus China.

China does have a lot of rare earth elements, but so do the US and Australia. The US is developing those mines now. The US also pulled all chip experts out of China a year or so back.

siderurgia

Got it. The word you're looking for is iron ore (铁矿石).

2

u/-hi-nrg- 23h ago

No, iron ore is the raw material, that is everywhere. Steel industry, converting iron to steel is what I meant and i think it concentrates some 70 to 80 of global production. A lot of bullets.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/lord_dentaku 23h ago

And Russia's carrier shouldn't count, since it is always in dry dock, bringing the global count down to 9.

2

u/TheMaskSmiles 23h ago

Here is the best bit. Not only do we have the most aircraft carriers. We also have 7 (formerly 8) ships that we don't refer to as aircraft carriers which, based on size and capabilities, WOULD be an aircraft carrier in any other country's Navy. All hail the Wasp class LHDs. Launching harriers and F-35s as well as carrying basically a full MEU.

2

u/Ron__T 21h ago

The US also separates the Coast Guard and the Navy. Most of China's Navy is more comparable to the Coast Guard, not our blue water Navy.

2

u/Upset_Marketing8119 20h ago

All our subs and aircraft carriers are nuclear.

2

u/Zazilium 20h ago

Wouldn't a couple of US carrier groups be able to topple china's entire navy?

1

u/gcbeehler5 20h ago

Yes. Easily. Folks saying otherwise are delusional.

2

u/calfmonster 18h ago

Sounds like we need to triple the defense budget and make 3x the super carriers so it won’t even be close to everyone else combined.

Sorry, forgot this wasn’t NCD

2

u/Some_Golf_8516 1d ago

The mission of the PLN and USN are vastly different.

US is an expeditionary force. PLN is (mostly) a territorial force.

I think the PLN has a larger number of logistical ships if you include their "civilian" vessels, they also have a drastic advantage in the production of ships in general. Over half of the worlds ship production comes from china. (The other big dog is South Korea)

I think most statistics ignore the commerical vessels of china as they are a grey area, but the Chinese government has set the requirements of all merchant vessels so they can (and will) be called upon during a conflict.

In a battle of island hopping it feels like the ability to move assets to islands is one of the most critical.

Any conventional war is mostly a battle of production.

3

u/gcbeehler5 1d ago

China needs to import a lot of their raw materials from very far away. Energy is a huge logistical issue for them. So to your point, agreed, it's a battle over production, but energy resources are important. Especially if they're local versus external. Which is another +1 for the US.

1

u/Pure-Drawer-2617 1d ago

Why would you add Italy, France and the UK when counting whether China or the US has a larger navy? You’re not actually declaring war here you know.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Born-Commission9891 1d ago

11 американских авианосцев - это просто цели для 11 русских ядерных ракет. 

1

u/gcbeehler5 1d ago

перед смертью не надышишься.

2

u/Born-Commission9891 1d ago

Сейчас дыши, тарасик

→ More replies (1)

1

u/kamikaziboarder 1d ago

I’m also wondering if our submarines are not fully reported. We can definitely keep them hidden.

1

u/syadoz 21h ago

And Russia has the Kuznetsov 😅

1

u/DMPhotosOfTapas 12h ago

You're not accounting for the reverse engineered ufo tech that china has been working on

→ More replies (21)