China has built the world’s largest navy.

Particularly if they serve on a missile cruiser dealing with a coastal patrol boat.

 

Then how come Wargaming a US China conflict doesn't seem to well?

https://americanmilitarynews.com › 2022 › 08 › us-loses-half-its-fighter-jets-tons-of-warships-in-china-war-game
US loses half its fighter jets, tons of warships in China war game

'The war games are ongoing and will run through September, with retired U.S. generals, admirals and former Pentagon officials gaming out the still-hypothetical fight with China over Taiwan. CSIS first detailed some of the findings of its war game scenarios with Bloomberg News on Monday.'

'American military strategists are actively gaming U.S. military response scenarios to a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan by 2026. The wargames have already found that the U.S. would have to lose more than 900 fighter jets — up to half of its fighter jet fleet — and a large number of U.S. warships to turn back China, a new report revealed Monday.'

'the war gamers had studied the scenario 22 different times. In 18 of the 22 cases, Chinese missiles destroyed “a large part of” the U.S. and Japanese naval fleets and “hundreds of aircraft on the ground,” Mark Cancian, a senior adviser at CSIS, told Bloomberg News. He did not specify how many U.S. warships were lost in the cases.'

'“To get a sense of the scale of the losses, in our last game iteration, the United States lost over 900 fighter/attack aircraft in a four-week conflict,” he told Bloomberg News. “That’s about half the Navy and Air Force inventory.”'

WE NEED LONGER RANGE OPTIONS:

'part of the reason for the heavy U.S. losses is that the U.S. cannot take down China’s defenses without first moving in close and putting themselves at risk.'

'“The results are showing that under most — though not all — scenarios, Taiwan can repel an invasion,” Cancian said. “However, the cost will be very high to the Taiwanese infrastructure and economy and to U.S. forces in the Pacific.”'

'“Allied air and naval counterattacks hammer the exposed Chinese amphibious and surface fleet, eventually sinking about 150 ships,” Cancian said.'

'the Chinese missile force is devastating to the U.S. and its allies for as long as their inventory of missiles lasts.'

'Cancian said submarines and bombers that can launch long-range missiles are “particularly important” for the success of the U.S. side'

“The success or failure of the ground war depends entirely on the Taiwanese forces,” Cancian told Bloomberg. “In all game iterations so far, the Chinese could establish a beachhead but in most circumstances cannot expand it. The attrition of their amphibious fleet limits the forces they can deploy and sustain. In a few instances, the Chinese were able to hold part of the island but not conquer the entire island.”

IN BETTER NEWS

DEMOGRAPHICS IS DESTINY: China has lost 41 million workers — almost the size of Germany’s workforce — in 3 years. “The data stems from a rapid rise in the number of people retiring, likely raising pressure on Beijing to accelerate unpopular plans to raise official retirement ages The drop reflects factors such as higher youth unemployment due to the pandemic as well as a shrinking number of people in the ‘classic age group of the working-age population,’ said Stuart Gietel-Basten, a demographer at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.”

'That last group is the one that matters. Young people can be enticed to work once they get hungry enough and the retirement age can always be raised to keep older workers in the workforce longer. But when the cohort of working-age people is shrinking, as it is in China, you’ve got a real problem.'

They are also the fighting age population. Aging populations do not tend to go to war, or win.

 

If they sail like they drive it doesn't matter...

 

He warned us... But dat was Racisss.

 

Just creating a larger target.

 

I don't know. I wasn't there. But it is important to note that the U.S. military actually hasn't won a war since WWII. I don't think that has much to do with the military itself but rather the stateside people who manage it from afar. I don't think the stateside people care about a win. I think they want to promote their careers. The further down the ranks you go the better the soldiering becomes in my experience.

 

The way America conducts it's war games is designed to be very difficult to win, such as a three front war with major players, and the reason they do that is because you learn more from failure than winning.

Do not disparage the aging population, your fathers and maybe even your grandfathers are twice the man than any millennial is.

 

Fret not, we have big boy toys to play with, just haven't had an occasion to use them.

We got this.

 

I've noticed in past conflicts that our actual performance seems to be consistently better than the war gamed prediction.

I also noticed this sentence in my quoted article: 'the war gamers had studied the scenario 22 different times. In 18 of the 22 cases, Chinese missiles destroyed “a large part of” the U.S. and Japanese naval fleets and “hundreds of aircraft on the ground,”

And became very curious about what happened in the other 4, but, could not find the information.

 

Our new masters are kicking butt with their navy! Hail China! Thanks Joe for showing us who our true masters are!

 

I don't think is is fair to claim that China's Belts and Roads Initiative is a TOTAL failure.
Nor do I think that China has a better navy than the US.