Nary a Peep

[SoldierGriz]

100٪ of applicants with appointments to the Academies have nominations. In a previous thread, I described all of the ways one can get the nomination. In this case, it is likely the Superintendent of the Academy provided the nomination as he is among the sources. Annually the Supe can nominate 50. He or she undoubtedly provides some to athletes as the coaches have to recruit before the process begins. But, I guarantee the recruit has to prove their academic capacity to the Academy prior to the offer from the coaches happening.

And stop lying about what I said about the Ivies. I said the majority of those accepted receive financial aid...many times that aid is significant. Most don't come close to paying sticker price.

And, our current military is not weak. The problem right now is China is spending more of their GDP on defense than ever before...there is no question they are rising. But, they have not yet risen. US military, today, is the best in the world and the best ever formed.

I'm glad you are very, very proud of your son - I am as well.

1. My specific experience and research has shown that your assertion that athletes are treated the same in academy admissions is total BS. That is just not true. Your being on an army advisory committee has nothing to do with athletic admissions, especially to the Air Force Academy.

2. I'm glad to hear that the military isn't weak, despite that being the view of think tanks and much of the press. The US is not prepared for what could be coming, and the US surely didn't win the war in Afghanistan. The US percentage of GP devoted to the military continues to shrink. Adjusting for recent inflation, the Biden proposed budget has decreased spending. "A statement from Wicker’s office [Senate Armed Services Committee] noted that, “accounting for inflation, the President has now asked Congress to cut military spending for three years in a row, despite a worsening threat environment.” The number of US ships is declining. The military is having a hard time recruiting. "The Army's goal this year is to bring in 65,000 new soldiers, after falling 15,000 short of its 60,000 recruiting target last year." "The U.S. Army Has a Recruitment Problem. Here's How to Solve It", Time Magazine.

"Is the U.S. military weak now?

https://www.globalvillagespace.com/report-finds-us-military-is-weak-will-struggle-to-win-a-war/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20report%2C%20years,equipment%20to%20fight%20a%20war.

According to the report, years of underfunding and “poorly defined priorities” has led the military to become “weak relative to the force needed to defend national interests on the global stage.” The armed forces also have a capacity problem – not having enough personnel, weapons, and other equipment to fight a war.Oct 19, 2022

3. You stated multiple times that ALL Harvard students got some financial aid, despite the Harvard figure being only 55%. Here's your March 15 post:

"100% of Harvard students receive some aid." https://egriz.com/grizboard/viewtopic.php?p=1585917&hilit=harvard#p1585917

Look son, you said athletes don't need nominations...I accurately corrected you. I have dominated you on this topic since ut started...it's not close. I am your not only your daddy, I am your grand daddy on Academy Appointments

The US military is not weak today. Political decisions led to the results we all know in Afghanistan. I can assure you the military did not lose there. Your view is completely uninformed and frankly ignorant.

What I posted reference the Ivies in that post and all others is dead-on, balls accurate.

Stop trying punch above your weight. You know nothing about Academy Appointments, our military, or Ivy financial aid. Why do you have to continue to embarrass yourself? You make eGrizzers dumber.

- Your Daddy and Grand-Daddy.

 

[GrizMania]

1. My specific experience and research has shown that your assertion that athletes are treated the same in academy admissions is total BS. That is just not true. Your being on an army advisory committee has nothing to do with athletic admissions, especially to the Air Force Academy.

2. I'm glad to hear that the military isn't weak, despite that being the view of think tanks and much of the press. The US is not prepared for what could be coming, and the US surely didn't win the war in Afghanistan. The US percentage of GP devoted to the military continues to shrink. Adjusting for recent inflation, the Biden proposed budget has decreased spending. "A statement from Wicker’s office [Senate Armed Services Committee] noted that, “accounting for inflation, the President has now asked Congress to cut military spending for three years in a row, despite a worsening threat environment.” The number of US ships is declining. The military is having a hard time recruiting. "The Army's goal this year is to bring in 65,000 new soldiers, after falling 15,000 short of its 60,000 recruiting target last year." "The U.S. Army Has a Recruitment Problem. Here's How to Solve It", Time Magazine.

"Is the U.S. military weak now?

https://www.globalvillagespace.com/report-finds-us-military-is-weak-will-struggle-to-win-a-war/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20report%2C%20years,equipment%20to%20fight%20a%20war.

According to the report, years of underfunding and “poorly defined priorities” has led the military to become “weak relative to the force needed to defend national interests on the global stage.” The armed forces also have a capacity problem – not having enough personnel, weapons, and other equipment to fight a war.Oct 19, 2022

3. You stated multiple times that ALL Harvard students got some financial aid, despite the Harvard figure being only 55%. Here's your March 15 post:

"100% of Harvard students receive some aid." https://egriz.com/grizboard/viewtopic.php?p=1585917&hilit=harvard#p1585917

Look son, you said athletes don't need nominations...I accurately corrected you. I have dominated you on this topic since ut started...it's not close. I am your not only your daddy, I am your grand daddy on Academy Appointments

The US military is not weak today. Political decisions led to the results we all know in Afghanistan. I can assure you the military did not lose there. Your view is completely uninformed and frankly ignorant.

What I posted reference the Ivies in that post and all others is dead-on, balls accurate.

Stop trying punch above your weight. You know nothing about Academy Appointments, our military, or Ivy financial aid. Why do you have to continue to embarrass yourself? You make eGrizzers dumber.

- Your Daddy and Grand-Daddy.

In regard to supposed weak military...
I was talking with one of my sons, a sergeant in the Army about this...he said "dad, the US military can win any conflict its ALLOWED to win. Anyone who thinks the armed forces are weak are simply listening to political propaganda, and are pandering to their base. But supporting budget cuts to the military is also pandering on the other side, the reductions are small enough that theyre insignificant. US still spends more than double of what China and Russia spend combined."
So, in at least his opinion, he agrees with your opinion on that.

 

[mthoopsfan]

1. My specific experience and research has shown that your assertion that athletes are treated the same in academy admissions is total BS. That is just not true. Your being on an army advisory committee has nothing to do with athletic admissions, especially to the Air Force Academy.

2. I'm glad to hear that the military isn't weak, despite that being the view of think tanks and much of the press. The US is not prepared for what could be coming, and the US surely didn't win the war in Afghanistan. The US percentage of GP devoted to the military continues to shrink. Adjusting for recent inflation, the Biden proposed budget has decreased spending. "A statement from Wicker’s office [Senate Armed Services Committee] noted that, “accounting for inflation, the President has now asked Congress to cut military spending for three years in a row, despite a worsening threat environment.” The number of US ships is declining. The military is having a hard time recruiting. "The Army's goal this year is to bring in 65,000 new soldiers, after falling 15,000 short of its 60,000 recruiting target last year." "The U.S. Army Has a Recruitment Problem. Here's How to Solve It", Time Magazine.

"Is the U.S. military weak now?

https://www.globalvillagespace.com/report-finds-us-military-is-weak-will-struggle-to-win-a-war/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20report%2C%20years,equipment%20to%20fight%20a%20war.

According to the report, years of underfunding and “poorly defined priorities” has led the military to become “weak relative to the force needed to defend national interests on the global stage.” The armed forces also have a capacity problem – not having enough personnel, weapons, and other equipment to fight a war.Oct 19, 2022

3. You stated multiple times that ALL Harvard students got some financial aid, despite the Harvard figure being only 55%. Here's your March 15 post:

"100% of Harvard students receive some aid." https://egriz.com/grizboard/viewtopic.php?p=1585917&hilit=harvard#p1585917

Look son, you said athletes don't need nominations...I accurately corrected you. I have dominated you on this topic since ut started...it's not close. I am your not only your daddy, I am your grand daddy on Academy Appointments

The US military is not weak today. Political decisions led to the results we all know in Afghanistan. I can assure you the military did not lose there. Your view is completely uninformed and frankly ignorant.

What I posted reference the Ivies in that post and all others is dead-on, balls accurate.

Stop trying punch above your weight. You know nothing about Academy Appointments, our military, or Ivy financial aid. Why do you have to continue to embarrass yourself? You make eGrizzers dumber.

- Your Daddy and Grand-Daddy.

Nope, I dominated you on the subjects. You even just admitted that athletes often get nominations from the academy and not from their Congressional delegation. Many applicants from the prep schools get a special military nomination too. That's what I said all along. Using my relative as an example, he got a commitment from Air Force football, before he even applied or got a nomination (and never even had to meet with anyone to get a nomination). How many of your advisory board kids get accepted that way?

You said that 100% of Harvard students get financial aid. They don't, and I provided multiple statements and cites from Harvard on that. Almost nothing you posted on the Ivies, other than a few quotes, was accurate.

The US military is weak and getting weaker. Totally unprepared for what is on the horizon. Try googling. There are dozens of articles on the subject.

I know way more about athletes especially football players, getting into the academies than you do. Athletes get into the academies much easier than do regular applicants. Those from the academy prep schools get in
much easier too.

You are truly an idiot. You can't even read. Let's see if you can get anyone with a head on their shoulders to agree with you that 100% of Harvard students get financial aid. Again, your post on March 15:

"100% of Harvard students receive some aid." https://egriz.com/grizboard/viewtopic.php?p=1585917&hilit=harvard#p1585917

How do you explain your incorrect and dumb statement? Once again, you have been exposed. You just make up stuff.

 

[mthoopsfan]

Look son, you said athletes don't need nominations...I accurately corrected you. I have dominated you on this topic since ut started...it's not close. I am your not only your daddy, I am your grand daddy on Academy Appointments

The US military is not weak today. Political decisions led to the results we all know in Afghanistan. I can assure you the military did not lose there. Your view is completely uninformed and frankly ignorant.

What I posted reference the Ivies in that post and all others is dead-on, balls accurate.

Stop trying punch above your weight. You know nothing about Academy Appointments, our military, or Ivy financial aid. Why do you have to continue to embarrass yourself? You make eGrizzers dumber.

- Your Daddy and Grand-Daddy.

In regard to supposed weak military...
I was talking with one of my sons, a sergeant in the Army about this...he said "dad, the US military can win any conflict its ALLOWED to win. Anyone who thinks the armed forces are weak are simply listening to political propaganda, and are pandering to their base. But supporting budget cuts to the military is also pandering on the other side, the reductions are small enough that theyre insignificant. US still spends more than double of what China and Russia spend combined."
So, in at least his opinion, he agrees with your opinion on that.

"The US military may not be able to win one war — let alone two — as the Pentagon struggles to keep its forces equipped against potential threats from China and Russia, according a new report on American military strength.

Years of underfunding and “poorly defined priorities” has led the military to become “weak relative to the force needed to defend national interests on the global stage,” the conservative Heritage Foundation said in its annual “Index of U.S. Military Strength.”

“[T]he current U.S. military force is at significant risk of not being able to meet the demands of a single major regional conflict,” the report said. “The force would probably not be able to do more and is certainly ill-equipped to handle two nearly simultaneous [major conflicts.]”

“In the aggregate, the United States’ military posture can only be rated as ‘weak,’” the report said.

"Across the services, the report rated only the Marine Corps as “strong” in the think tank’s assessment of force capacity, capability and readiness. While the Army achieved a “marginal” rating, the Space Force and Navy were labeled “weak” and the Air Force bottomed out at “very weak.”

The armed forces also have capacity problem – not having enough personnel, weapons and other equipment to fight a war. The report rates the Navy worse than its sister services, dropping its capacity rating two notches from “marginal” to “very weak” – the lowest on the scale.

At the center of the hard-power problem is the Navy’s shrinking fleet size, according to the report. To fight in two wars, the think tank said the Navy would need about 400 ships – a drastic bump from the current 292 ships the service said it had as of last week.

In 2018, Congress passed a law mandating that the Navy reach a target of 355 ships “as soon as possible.”

Instead, the service has cut ships faster than they’ve built them.

But even as vessel numbers have dwindled, Navy operations have not slowed – creating an additional hurdle to growing the fleet, Heritage senior defense researcher Dakota Wood said Tuesday. The US has about half the ships it had during the Cold War, but the number of ships at sea at any given time – about 100 – has not changed since at least the early 1990s.

Meanwhile, the Chinese navy already has 355 ships and plans to add about 65 more by 2026, according to the Pentagon’s annual China military report published in November. By 2030, China is expected to have 460 ships."

https://nypost.com/2022/10/18/us-military-rated-as-weak-may-not-be-able-to-win-one-war-as-tensions-grow-with-china-russia/

"Why Is the US Military Getting Weaker, and What Can Be Done"

epoch times

 

[GrizMania]

In regard to supposed weak military...
I was talking with one of my sons, a sergeant in the Army about this...he said "dad, the US military can win any conflict its ALLOWED to win. Anyone who thinks the armed forces are weak are simply listening to political propaganda, and are pandering to their base. But supporting budget cuts to the military is also pandering on the other side, the reductions are small enough that theyre insignificant. US still spends more than double of what China and Russia spend combined."
So, in at least his opinion, he agrees with your opinion on that.

"The US military may not be able to win one war — let alone two — as the Pentagon struggles to keep its forces equipped against potential threats from China and Russia, according a new report on American military strength.

Years of underfunding and “poorly defined priorities” has led the military to become “weak relative to the force needed to defend national interests on the global stage,” the conservative Heritage Foundation said in its annual “Index of U.S. Military Strength.”

“[T]he current U.S. military force is at significant risk of not being able to meet the demands of a single major regional conflict,” the report said. “The force would probably not be able to do more and is certainly ill-equipped to handle two nearly simultaneous [major conflicts.]”

“In the aggregate, the United States’ military posture can only be rated as ‘weak,’” the report said.

"Across the services, the report rated only the Marine Corps as “strong” in the think tank’s assessment of force capacity, capability and readiness. While the Army achieved a “marginal” rating, the Space Force and Navy were labeled “weak” and the Air Force bottomed out at “very weak.”

The armed forces also have capacity problem – not having enough personnel, weapons and other equipment to fight a war. The report rates the Navy worse than its sister services, dropping its capacity rating two notches from “marginal” to “very weak” – the lowest on the scale.

At the center of the hard-power problem is the Navy’s shrinking fleet size, according to the report. To fight in two wars, the think tank said the Navy would need about 400 ships – a drastic bump from the current 292 ships the service said it had as of last week.

In 2018, Congress passed a law mandating that the Navy reach a target of 355 ships “as soon as possible.”

Instead, the service has cut ships faster than they’ve built them.

But even as vessel numbers have dwindled, Navy operations have not slowed – creating an additional hurdle to growing the fleet, Heritage senior defense researcher Dakota Wood said Tuesday. The US has about half the ships it had during the Cold War, but the number of ships at sea at any given time – about 100 – has not changed since at least the early 1990s.

Meanwhile, the Chinese navy already has 355 ships and plans to add about 65 more by 2026, according to the Pentagon’s annual China military report published in November. By 2030, China is expected to have 460 ships."

https://nypost.com/2022/10/18/us-military-rated-as-weak-may-not-be-able-to-win-one-war-as-tensions-grow-with-china-russia/

"Why Is the US Military Getting Weaker, and What Can Be Done"

epoch times

Well of course the heritage foundation would have that opinion, their chief goal is to get budget increase for military spending.

 

[mthoopsfan]

"The US military may not be able to win one war — let alone two — as the Pentagon struggles to keep its forces equipped against potential threats from China and Russia, according a new report on American military strength.

Years of underfunding and “poorly defined priorities” has led the military to become “weak relative to the force needed to defend national interests on the global stage,” the conservative Heritage Foundation said in its annual “Index of U.S. Military Strength.”

“[T]he current U.S. military force is at significant risk of not being able to meet the demands of a single major regional conflict,” the report said. “The force would probably not be able to do more and is certainly ill-equipped to handle two nearly simultaneous [major conflicts.]”

“In the aggregate, the United States’ military posture can only be rated as ‘weak,’” the report said.

"Across the services, the report rated only the Marine Corps as “strong” in the think tank’s assessment of force capacity, capability and readiness. While the Army achieved a “marginal” rating, the Space Force and Navy were labeled “weak” and the Air Force bottomed out at “very weak.”

The armed forces also have capacity problem – not having enough personnel, weapons and other equipment to fight a war. The report rates the Navy worse than its sister services, dropping its capacity rating two notches from “marginal” to “very weak” – the lowest on the scale.

At the center of the hard-power problem is the Navy’s shrinking fleet size, according to the report. To fight in two wars, the think tank said the Navy would need about 400 ships – a drastic bump from the current 292 ships the service said it had as of last week.

In 2018, Congress passed a law mandating that the Navy reach a target of 355 ships “as soon as possible.”

Instead, the service has cut ships faster than they’ve built them.

But even as vessel numbers have dwindled, Navy operations have not slowed – creating an additional hurdle to growing the fleet, Heritage senior defense researcher Dakota Wood said Tuesday. The US has about half the ships it had during the Cold War, but the number of ships at sea at any given time – about 100 – has not changed since at least the early 1990s.

Meanwhile, the Chinese navy already has 355 ships and plans to add about 65 more by 2026, according to the Pentagon’s annual China military report published in November. By 2030, China is expected to have 460 ships."

https://nypost.com/2022/10/18/us-military-rated-as-weak-may-not-be-able-to-win-one-war-as-tensions-grow-with-china-russia/

"Why Is the US Military Getting Weaker, and What Can Be Done"

epoch times

Well of course the heritage foundation would have that opinion, their chief goal is to get budget increase for military spending.

Not true. That is not their goal. The goal is to evaluate military strength. They do an assessment periodically. This is their worst assessment. Feel free to provide and links for what you said.

 

[GrizMania]

Well of course the heritage foundation would have that opinion, their chief goal is to get budget increase for military spending.

Not true. That is not their goal. The goal is to evaluate military strength. They do an assessment periodically. This is their worst assessment. Feel free to provide and links for what you said.

I googled it, as you suggested.
And looked where their funds come from. Elementary, really.
But by all means feel free to have a different opinion, as that's all it is, kind sir.

 

[smarsh]

#egrizzing

 

[Dillon]

"The US military may not be able to win one war — let alone two — as the Pentagon struggles to keep its forces equipped against potential threats from China and Russia, according a new report on American military strength.

Years of underfunding and “poorly defined priorities” has led the military to become “weak relative to the force needed to defend national interests on the global stage,” the conservative Heritage Foundation said in its annual “Index of U.S. Military Strength.”

“[T]he current U.S. military force is at significant risk of not being able to meet the demands of a single major regional conflict,” the report said. “The force would probably not be able to do more and is certainly ill-equipped to handle two nearly simultaneous [major conflicts.]”

“In the aggregate, the United States’ military posture can only be rated as ‘weak,’” the report said.

"Across the services, the report rated only the Marine Corps as “strong” in the think tank’s assessment of force capacity, capability and readiness. While the Army achieved a “marginal” rating, the Space Force and Navy were labeled “weak” and the Air Force bottomed out at “very weak.”

The armed forces also have capacity problem – not having enough personnel, weapons and other equipment to fight a war. The report rates the Navy worse than its sister services, dropping its capacity rating two notches from “marginal” to “very weak” – the lowest on the scale.

At the center of the hard-power problem is the Navy’s shrinking fleet size, according to the report. To fight in two wars, the think tank said the Navy would need about 400 ships – a drastic bump from the current 292 ships the service said it had as of last week.

In 2018, Congress passed a law mandating that the Navy reach a target of 355 ships “as soon as possible.”

Instead, the service has cut ships faster than they’ve built them.

But even as vessel numbers have dwindled, Navy operations have not slowed – creating an additional hurdle to growing the fleet, Heritage senior defense researcher Dakota Wood said Tuesday. The US has about half the ships it had during the Cold War, but the number of ships at sea at any given time – about 100 – has not changed since at least the early 1990s.

Meanwhile, the Chinese navy already has 355 ships and plans to add about 65 more by 2026, according to the Pentagon’s annual China military report published in November. By 2030, China is expected to have 460 ships."

https://nypost.com/2022/10/18/us-military-rated-as-weak-may-not-be-able-to-win-one-war-as-tensions-grow-with-china-russia/

"Why Is the US Military Getting Weaker, and What Can Be Done"

epoch times

Well of course the heritage foundation would have that opinion, their chief goal is to get budget increase for military spending.

Then there is the depletion of the Oil Reserve - As a U.S. citizen I am embarrassed that this was allowed to happen! Deplorable! Where the Hell was Congress?

 

[mthoopsfan]

"At a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing, Graham got Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro to confirm that the Navy currently has 296 ships, while China has "upward of 300."

"Like 340?" Graham pressed on China’s fleet size. "Yes, sir," Del Toro acknowledged.

Del Toro acknowledged that under Biden’s proposed budget, the U.S. Navy would be left with 291 ships by 2028, while China’s fleet would grow to about 440."

I don't think this is the way to prepare for conflict with China or control in the South China Sea.

 

[uptopgriz]

"At a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing, Graham got Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro to confirm that the Navy currently has 296 ships, while China has "upward of 300."

"Like 340?" Graham pressed on China’s fleet size. "Yes, sir," Del Toro acknowledged.

Del Toro acknowledged that under Biden’s proposed budget, the U.S. Navy would be left with 291 ships by 2028, while China’s fleet would grow to about 440."

I don't think this is the way to prepare for conflict with China or control in the South China Sea.

So what. Japan had a much larger and more advanced Navy than America in WW 2. It didn't end very well for them.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

"At a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing, Graham got Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro to confirm that the Navy currently has 296 ships, while China has "upward of 300."

"Like 340?" Graham pressed on China’s fleet size. "Yes, sir," Del Toro acknowledged.

Del Toro acknowledged that under Biden’s proposed budget, the U.S. Navy would be left with 291 ships by 2028, while China’s fleet would grow to about 440."

I don't think this is the way to prepare for conflict with China or control in the South China Sea.

So what. Japan had a much larger and more advanced Navy than America in WW 2. It didn't end very well for them.

Just curious, but based on technology from the 1940's and now, do you think this is an actual apples to apples comparison?

 

[mthoopsfan]

"At a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing, Graham got Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro to confirm that the Navy currently has 296 ships, while China has "upward of 300."

"Like 340?" Graham pressed on China’s fleet size. "Yes, sir," Del Toro acknowledged.

Del Toro acknowledged that under Biden’s proposed budget, the U.S. Navy would be left with 291 ships by 2028, while China’s fleet would grow to about 440."

I don't think this is the way to prepare for conflict with China or control in the South China Sea.

So what. Japan had a much larger and more advanced Navy than America in WW 2. It didn't end very well for them.

See below brief research. Feel free to supply your own.

At best, Japan had the 3d largest Navy at the start of WW II. Probably below 3d, tho.

"At its peak, the U.S. Navy was operating 7,601 ships on V-J Day in August 1945, including 28 aircraft carriers, 23 battleships, 71 escort carriers, 72 cruisers, over 232 submarines, 377 destroyers, and thousands of amphibious, supply and auxiliary ships."

"Of 177 destroyers, only five remained. The Imperial Japanese Navy lost 334 warships (out of 611 total vessels) and just over 300,000 men during the course of the war."

"Let’s first rank navies in terms of size as they were in 1939.

British Royal Navy: 15 battleships and battlecruisers, 7 aircraft carriers, 66 cruisers, 164 destroyers and 66 submarines.
US Navy: 15 battleships, 6 aircraft carriers, 37 cruisers, around 150 destroyers and 112 submarines.
Japan: 10 battleships, 12 carriers (6 fleet, 6 light), 38 cruisers, 126 destroyers, 68 submarines
France: 7 Battleships/Battlecruisers, 1 aircraft carrier, 19 cruisers, 78 destroyers, 27 submarines
Italy: 6 battleships, 19 cruisers, 59 destroyers, 116 submarines
As a very distant ‘also ran’ was:

6. The German Kiegsmarine with two battlecruisers (two full battleships almost in commission) 2 pre-dreadnought battleships, 12 cruisers, around 40 destoyers and 57 U-boats.

So, these are the ‘Top Navies’ in terms of battleshp strength. However, in terms of actual striking power, it was a toss up between the RN, which had the highest levels of skill, expertise and overall capability against the Imperial Japanese Navy which had the best developed naval airpower and most modern weapons.

By the end of the war, of course, there was no contest, with the US Navy the most powerful in the world by a nautical mile with 23 battleships, 28 fleet carriers and some 70 light and escort carriers, 377 destroyers, and 232 submarines, as well as the most modern weapons and aircraft."

 

[argh!]

So what. Japan had a much larger and more advanced Navy than America in WW 2. It didn't end very well for them.

See below brief research. Feel free to supply your own.

At best, Japan had the 3d largest Navy at the start of WW II. Probably below 3d, tho.

"At its peak, the U.S. Navy was operating 7,601 ships on V-J Day in August 1945, including 28 aircraft carriers, 23 battleships, 71 escort carriers, 72 cruisers, over 232 submarines, 377 destroyers, and thousands of amphibious, supply and auxiliary ships."

"Of 177 destroyers, only five remained. The Imperial Japanese Navy lost 334 warships (out of 611 total vessels) and just over 300,000 men during the course of the war."

"Let’s first rank navies in terms of size as they were in 1939.

British Royal Navy: 15 battleships and battlecruisers, 7 aircraft carriers, 66 cruisers, 164 destroyers and 66 submarines.
US Navy: 15 battleships, 6 aircraft carriers, 37 cruisers, around 150 destroyers and 112 submarines.
Japan: 10 battleships, 12 carriers (6 fleet, 6 light), 38 cruisers, 126 destroyers, 68 submarines
France: 7 Battleships/Battlecruisers, 1 aircraft carrier, 19 cruisers, 78 destroyers, 27 submarines
Italy: 6 battleships, 19 cruisers, 59 destroyers, 116 submarines
As a very distant ‘also ran’ was:

6. The German Kiegsmarine with two battlecruisers (two full battleships almost in commission) 2 pre-dreadnought battleships, 12 cruisers, around 40 destoyers and 57 U-boats.

So, these are the ‘Top Navies’ in terms of battleshp strength. However, in terms of actual striking power, it was a toss up between the RN, which had the highest levels of skill, expertise and overall capability against the Imperial Japanese Navy which had the best developed naval airpower and most modern weapons.

By the end of the war, of course, there was no contest, with the US Navy the most powerful in the world by a nautical mile with 23 battleships, 28 fleet carriers and some 70 light and escort carriers, 377 destroyers, and 232 submarines, as well as the most modern weapons and aircraft."

china might have more boats, but the u.s. has better boats, and a more navy personnel, especially those with experience. china's jet carriers mostly still use the 'ski jump' technology to take off, and don't compare with even the older u.s. boats. the one problem, though, is that they are expert at ripping off our designs and copying them. however, they are not experts at really pulling it off, and both their naval and air force equipment have 'glitches' that make them inferior to those of the u.s. . yeah, they are improving, but it is still china, where creativity and inventiveness get pounded out of people at a young age.

 

[mthoopsfan]

The problem isn’t just China and South China Sea. The US has one ship in Black Sea, near Russia and Ukraine. Had no ships there the prior year. It’s a big world. China, Russia and the Middle East. Opening up a blockade or defending Taiwan wouldn’t be easy. New bases authorized in Philippines.

 

[kemajic]

Shame on me for starting a thread hoping for some information from Spring Ball.

 

[retiredpopo]

Shame on me for starting a thread hoping for some information from Spring Ball.

at least Bobbie had some information in an article in today's missoulian.

 

[Copper Griz]

So what. Japan had a much larger and more advanced Navy than America in WW 2. It didn't end very well for them.

Just curious, but based on technology from the 1940's and now, do you think this is an actual apples to apples comparison?

You make a very good point and the answer is clearly - no. Conversely, maybe it isn’t about who has more ships? Modern warfare may not require more, just better. Also, how many carriers does China possess? How advanced are the ships they have? When was the last time they waged a war? Russia had (past tense appropriate here) a lot of tanks. Drones and Himars took care of them in quick order. Finally, why would anyone believe a publication or report on the US military. They are masters of deception. I agree with the previous poster. The US military would absolutely wipe the floor with the current adversaries. Russia would be done in a month. China would be much more difficult, but nobody knows how advanced our weaponry really is. What do we have that has never been seen? I suspect a lot. Look at the trials of the first generation stealth aircraft. What was the date and what computer operating systems were available to the public at that time? The answer says a lot about how far ahead the Pentagon and US military are of every other country. I sleep well because of it and am very thankful of our service members and their sacrifices. They sure are as hell aren’t weak!!

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Shame on me for starting a thread hoping for some information from Spring Ball.

Sorry this has happened to you. You deserved that information.

 

[grizghost]

Just curious, but based on technology from the 1940's and now, do you think this is an actual apples to apples comparison?

You make a very good point and the answer is clearly - no. Conversely, maybe it isn’t about who has more ships? Modern warfare may not require more, just better. Also, how many carriers does China possess? How advanced are the ships they have? When was the last time they waged a war? Russia had (past tense appropriate here) a lot of tanks. Drones and Himars took care of them in quick order. Finally, why would anyone believe a publication or report on the US military. They are masters of deception. I agree with the previous poster. The US military would absolutely wipe the floor with the current adversaries. Russia would be done in a month. China would be much more difficult, but nobody knows how advanced our weaponry really is. What do we have that has never been seen? I suspect a lot. Look at the trials of the first generation stealth aircraft. What was the date and what computer operating systems were available to the public at that time? The answer says a lot about how far ahead the Pentagon and US military are of every other country. I sleep well because of it and am very thankful of our service members and their sacrifices. They sure are as hell aren’t weak!!

....I think one of the biggest threats China has is to be Japan...Japan is highly tech Navy (one of the best in the world )
that really poses a threat against China...link that together with the US and China has a big problem on its hands..