Kapitan, you said it yourself: China is a regional access denial force, but with the clear aim to become internationally potent as well.
This is true that is correct they are predominantly a regional denial force
You must count their coastal foiri8ng assets as well, p0lus their loandbased airforce, and their enormous landbased numbers of coastal anti-ship missiles.
Very much so however I was focusing purely on Naval only peer to peer, with the Airforce it does add an entirely new dimension to the frame, it also closes the BFM gap that's very correct.
However; your also now having to factor in 5 or 6 aircraft carriers plus assets land based in Japan Guam Philippines and South Korea for the Americans which doesn't quite match the Chinese but it certainly decreases the numbers they would be able to use against a USN Fleet.
This will tie up a large resource pool for the Chinese, also the United States currently has the capability to launch a lot of Tomahawk missiles targeting the land bases and systems something the Chinese A) Don't Have and B) Cant reach.
If a DDG empties its vertical laucnh tubes, it mist go home and reload and come back, andntzat takes long time. The supply chains for China are very, very much smaller.
That is true it does have to return as do the Chinese assets, your also failing to realize that South Korea, Guam and Japan are huge weapons caches for the USN which in turn shortens that chain dramatically, these ports will be open to the USN in the event of war with China.
Their focus currently probably is the South Chinese sea, and the waters around Taiwan.
That is their stated aim
The US navy is set up globally, and even if they focus on a war zone and send most shiops there, they will nevertheless maintain significant ressources for other global reigons - and for protecting their long, long long supply lines. Which are very vulnerable.
The supply lines your talking about and this is something I work in, they are long however the threat level is actually quite low.
A scenario is likely to play out that the USN will contain China in the SCS and it will air lift weapons over land while commercial and MSC vessels will re supply the main fleet bases in Japan Guam and South Korea.
Its only when the asset gets close and the estimate they put on it is 300nm from the base (mainly Guam) that the asset becomes in scope of being targeted.
So, I must stay more sceptical than you.
Even mnore since mentally the Chiense state and people and their huge numbers in platform and missiles allows them to digest significantly heavier losses, than the US home crow or military numbers.
China like to Soviet Union of WW2 has the capability to take more casualties than the USA not just physically but in public opinion as well.
A war with China is not just going to be a war with huge material loss either it is going to be basic economic suicide for both parties.
I have more optimism that the USN can hold its own simply because of its resource pool, the quality of training, the fact that its troops are battle experienced (china's are not) and all of this has shown to make a difference even when numbers are against you (take a look at the battle for goose green 1982)
Only one factor speaks against a war, and that is the fact that the war idnex of China is as low as that of the US. Both nations demographically are kind of unlikely, form that index' logic, to easily stumble into a h8ige, assive war with high losses.
The war index makes a statement on the ratio between very old, combat incapable men in as society, and young, combat-capoable and aggressive men. An index og one means that for 1000 old men dying, 1000 young men are there to take their place in the demogroahci structure. Both the US and China are short of 1 only (US 0.96 and China 0.99), whereas the countries where wars have occured in the past 40 years all have (had) indices as high as 4-6.5, means for thousand old men dyiong, 4-6.5 thousand young men are there to repoalce them in socity. A low war index means it is an old, overaged, not-eager-to-conquer and not-wanting to-suffer society.
Afghnaistan, both for the USSR and the US, were wars that they could not have won from the start on, becasue they were fighting aganst a hopelessly high war index, which over the wars even raised further.
The US has since WWII not taken on an real equal enemy anymore, it may have started wars against enemies it underestimated, but not knowingly against enemies of equal capability and striking power. And the US must pay more attention to the mood of the public at home, than China.
These considerations are decisive to make and to understand. Its the one thing that speaks against China going bollocks all of a sudden. On the other hand, like Western and Russian nations before, they too may not pay attention - or do: and start a war before their age structure in society detoriates even further against war - and start something because they think they can get away with it. This is an aspect I find impossible to make any predictions on. They politically now act far more aggressive than ten years ago I would have thought to be realistic to expect then. And they clearly plan to dominate the world, economically, logistically, and militarily, they build networks of alliances and bases all around, whereever nations are stupid enough to let them in.
Indeed I think we can assume that no one wants a war regardless of age group, personally I couldn't see the snowflake generation going off to fight like they did in 1939 it would be all about understanding and peace love caring and don't want to offend anyone.
I can see exactly why you made the statements you did, with the belton road and silk road initiative China is trying to replicate the same hold the west has over the world.
I stress this point though, right now the Chinese while rapidly advancing do not yet have the logistical capability the west does, it also does not have all the areas of the globe covered like the west does.
China would find it hard if not impossible to re supply areas of operation in combat conditions simply because of location and size of the supplies needed.
Do i think that eventually they will get there? Yes I do probably by my estimate around the mid 2040's. but as of today in 2021 they don't have the capability.
Nations that have let the Chinese in are generally odd ball, 3rd world or need huge investment and that's something China is willing to do and the west is not.
There is also a cultural dimension notice how China moves in and out of Muslim states while the west is vilified this is because IMHO China goes in and does not want to change their culture as they have no interest in religion.