AF has just declared Bingo fuel, and there is no runway to land

[Tulsaaggieson]

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/us-air-force-serious-decline-207728

This article is concerning, especially given the climate of the world today.

"On any given day, only six of every ten are fit to fly combat missions. In a war with China, the Air Force could generate just 32 percent of the fighter and bomber capacity it could in 1987."

In any conflict we may find ourselves in the AF is the key component that has set us apart from our enemy. Not being able to hide this one from China as well. The AF plays a big role in defending Taiwan if attacked, and we haven't even gotten into Navy readiness.

This administration and the Obama administration have driven our military into a complete disaster. I can't even leave the Trump administration out of the mix as they did nothing to fix anything. This is a dangerous and unnerving situation. We have set the table for the world to go full militaristic.

 

[windriverrange]

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/us-air-force-serious-decline-207728

This article is concerning, especially given the climate of the world today.

"On any given day, only six of every ten are fit to fly combat missions. In a war with China, the Air Force could generate just 32 percent of the fighter and bomber capacity it could in 1987."

In any conflict we may find ourselves in the AF is the key component that has set us apart from our enemy. Not being able to hide this one from China as well. The AF plays a big role in defending Taiwan if attacked, and we haven't even gotten into Navy readiness.

This administration and the Obama administration have driven our military into a complete disaster. I can't even leave the Trump administration out of the mix as they did nothing to fix anything. This is a dangerous and unnerving situation. We have set the table for the world to go full militaristic.

Just as happened in nearly every previous major war this country has fought. It will take something akin to a world war for us to get off high center. Don't think it is out of the question that the draft could come back also.

Doesn't help cho xiden won't punch Iran in the freakin mouth right now & take them off the board. China is far more dangerous right now then the dam bolsheviks. The one silver lining about china though is they have never performed an amphibious assault/invasion & there is a very steep learning cure to those operations as was previously discovered at Dieppe, Guadalcanal, Tarawa, D-Day & so on. Start taking out transports with 10,000 top flight infantrymen it makes taking & holding land very difficult.

 

[2012Bearcat]

But but our military are experts on diversity, inclusions and proper pronoun usage. That's much more important than military readiness.

 

[aix_xpert]

Just as happened in nearly every previous major war this country has fought. It will take something akin to a world war for us to get off high center. Don't think it is out of the question that the draft could come back also.

Doesn't help cho xiden won't punch Iran in the freakin mouth right now & take them off the board. China is far more dangerous right now then the dam bolsheviks. The one silver lining about china though is they have never performed an amphibious assault/invasion & there is a very steep learning cure to those operations as was previously discovered at Dieppe, Guadalcanal, Tarawa, D-Day & so on. Start taking out transports with 10,000 top flight infantrymen it makes taking & holding land very difficult.

The problem with your theory is that it presumes multiple landings in a fire-fight. Until they actually land on the one land mass that matters to them (Taiwan), we wouldn't even try to touch them. They will get the first punch, and their goal isn't world conquest, its the conquering of 1 City-state. They'd likely already have control of Taiwan before we could even launch a counter-offensive.

 

[2012Bearcat]

The problem with your theory is that it presumes multiple landings in a fire-fight. Until they actually land on the one land mass that matters to them (Taiwan), we wouldn't even try to touch them. They will get the first punch, and their goal isn't world conquest, its the conquering of 1 City-state. They'd likely already have control of Taiwan before we could even launch a counter-offensive.

I'm not sure that is correct. Taiwan is not an easy place for a marine invasion and China doesn't have any expereince with marine invasions. Chinese ships would be sitting ducks for both Taiwan and the US.

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

The problem with your theory is that it presumes multiple landings in a fire-fight. Until they actually land on the one land mass that matters to them (Taiwan), we wouldn't even try to touch them. They will get the first punch, and their goal isn't world conquest, its the conquering of 1 City-state. They'd likely already have control of Taiwan before we could even launch a counter-offensive.

I am skeptical of Taiwan being all that China has eyes on. The South China Sea has been very active lately and there are disputes between China the Philippines and even Vietnam. But traditionally China has only had eyes on China. The other side of that is China is not the China of old but a Communist Dictatorship, and as we all should know by now eventually the Communists will run out of other people's money and seek money elsewhere.

 

[aix_xpert]

I am skeptical of Taiwan being all that China has eyes on. The South China Sea has been very active lately and there are disputes between China the Philippines and even Vietnam. But traditionally China has only had eyes on China. The other side of that is China is not the China of old but a Communist Dictatorship, and as we all should know by now eventually the Communists will run out of other people's money and seek money elsewhere.

China's communism will survive as long as we keep feeding it our money.

 

[COWBOYintheUK]

That article is very misleading. Many of the numbers are correct, but that was by design. We needed more aircraft back in 1987 than we do now. We now have several factors which act as force multipliers which make current weapon systems more effective.

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

That article is very misleading. Many of the numbers are correct, but that was by design. We needed more aircraft back in 1987 than we do now. We now have several factors which act as force multipliers which make current weapon systems more effective.

Our missile technology is much better, and our aircraft can target in ways I don't think most understand. I do understand that, but I also know that there are critical shortcomings in our inventory that would make you cringe, and you would be surprised at how missing the simple can make the complex impossible. I am also worried that the more we give to Ukraine the less we will be able to generate the things we need. Simulator technology can only do so much to make up with actual in the aircraft training time. That simulator technology is also limited and costly to operate effectively as well. Drawing another 200 million from the defense budget will mean that units that needed that money to train will no longer have it.

I am not as optimistic as you are, and though the article may, in my opinion, reach a bit too far, (and it doesn't do so by much) it doesn't lessen the impact that our services have had from the war in Ukraine and this administrations unwillingness to properly fund the one thing the government is supposed to fund. However, I do appreciate your input here, just wish it was more detailed.

 

[SquatchinPoke]

Our missile technology is much better, and our aircraft can target in ways I don't think most understand. I do understand that, but I also know that there are critical shortcomings in our inventory that would make you cringe, and you would be surprised at how missing the simple can make the complex impossible. I am also worried that the more we give to Ukraine the less we will be able to generate the things we need. Simulator technology can only do so much to make up with actual in the aircraft training time. That simulator technology is also limited and costly to operate effectively as well. Drawing another 200 million from the defense budget will mean that units that needed that money to train will no longer have it.

I am not as optimistic as you are, and though the article may, in my opinion, reach a bit too far, (and it doesn't do so by much) it doesn't lessen the impact that our services have had from the war in Ukraine and this administrations unwillingness to properly fund the one thing the government is supposed to fund. However, I do appreciate your input here, just wish it was more detailed.

Careful that guy hangs out in a country with a king just fyi.

 

[COWBOYintheUK]

Careful that guy hangs out in a country with a king just fyi.

Haven't been back there in 25 years

 

[COWBOYintheUK]

Our missile technology is much better, and our aircraft can target in ways I don't think most understand. I do understand that, but I also know that there are critical shortcomings in our inventory that would make you cringe, and you would be surprised at how missing the simple can make the complex impossible. I am also worried that the more we give to Ukraine the less we will be able to generate the things we need. Simulator technology can only do so much to make up with actual in the aircraft training time. That simulator technology is also limited and costly to operate effectively as well. Drawing another 200 million from the defense budget will mean that units that needed that money to train will no longer have it.

I am not as optimistic as you are, and though the article may, in my opinion, reach a bit too far, (and it doesn't do so by much) it doesn't lessen the impact that our services have had from the war in Ukraine and this administrations unwillingness to properly fund the one thing the government is supposed to fund. However, I do appreciate your input here, just wish it was more detailed.

I understand the current manpower shortages , which are concerning, but you do now have the USAF competing directly with US Space Force for recruits which doesn't help. In 1987 we had, just in the UK alone, two wings of F-111s (150 aircraft) two wings of A-10s ( 150 aircraft), One wing of F-16C ( 75 aircraft) two Air refueling wings
(100 aircraft) two Military transport wings (30 aircraft) a Tactical reconnaissance and a Strategic Reconnaissance squadron. I left in 1992, when I got back to the UK in 1997 we had One F-15 wing ( 1 Sq. F-15C, 2 Sq. F-15E, total 75 aircraft) and one Air refueling wing that was it. It was called "the end of the Cold war". Even before that they were moving the F-111s back to the US because their main mission had been taken over by GLCMs. There is also the factor that in 1990 during the Gulf war, only 10% of the ordnance dropped was precision guided, now its close to 100% . AS far as the FMC (Fully Mission Capable ) rate quoted in the article , back in the 80s and 90s we could fudge the numbers, happened all the time. During Operation Allied Force we deployed 26 F-15Es ( flew over 1100 combat sorties) and carried a 100% FMC rate....despite having three of the aircraft stripped to the bone for parts for other aircraft.....My maintenance Chief was fired because he fudged it......nowadays everything is reported automatically, can't really fudge the numbers

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

I understand the current manpower shortages , which are concerning, but you do now have the USAF competing directly with US Space Force for recruits which doesn't help. In 1987 we had, just in the UK alone, two wings of F-111s (150 aircraft) two wings of A-10s ( 150 aircraft), One wing of F-16C ( 75 aircraft) two Air refueling wings
(100 aircraft) two Military transport wings (30 aircraft) a Tactical reconnaissance and a Strategic Reconnaissance squadron. I left in 1992, when I got back to the UK in 1997 we had One F-15 wing ( 1 Sq. F-15C, 2 Sq. F-15E, total 75 aircraft) and one Air refueling wing that was it. It was called "the end of the Cold war". Even before that they were moving the F-111s back to the US because their main mission had been taken over by GLCMs. There is also the factor that in 1990 during the Gulf war, only 10% of the ordnance dropped was precision guided, now its close to 100% . AS far as the FMC (Fully Mission Capable ) rate quoted in the article , back in the 80s and 90s we could fudge the numbers, happened all the time. During Operation Allied Force we deployed 26 F-15Es ( flew over 1100 combat sorties) and carried a 100% FMC rate....despite having three of the aircraft stripped to the bone for parts for other aircraft.....My maintenance Chief was fired because he fudged it......nowadays everything is reported automatically, can't really fudge the numbers

I would not say 100% of ordinance is precision guidance. You can't take day to day operations and compare that war. During Iraqi freedom we dropped a significant amount of dumb munitions, as we had found out the ac the Iraqis feered the most was the B52. A very aged but effective aircraft. Concentrated forces can have dumb munitions, individual equipment is better for precision ordnance. We also used precision ordinance to limit collateral damage. The AC-130 is still an effective tool on the battle field and it uses normal artillery shells just accurately targeted.

With that being said it wasnt uncommon for my wing to be down a significant amount of aircraft and a few stripped to make the rest flyable. Keeping enough ac deployed while having enough stateside to train was always a struggle. My concern is, if that was what we were doing while being fully funded during the war on terror, what is force readiness when that money is now taken away? It surely is not better and I would be completely surprised if we are close to the same.

I don't disagree with spaceforce competition for manpower, but the AF should be drawing down its needs as they hand over to the new branch. This would mean a smaller amount of recruits needed to fill operational needs and we still are not making those. Instead we lower our standards and still can't recruit.

All of that is highly concerning, and I have not even got into operational needs of support ac which we are also short on. Throw in pilot shortages which spaceforce does not compete with and you have a soup of problems I don't think our leadership is prepared to handle nor do I think we have the right kind of leadership to get ourselves out this kind of mess with very little creativity to address the shortfalls.

Thanks for your details. I appreciate that.

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

Careful that guy hangs out in a country with a king just fyi.

You realy are stuck on stupid.

 

[COWBOYintheUK]

I would not say 100% of ordinance is precision guidance. You can't take day to day operations and compare that war. During Iraqi freedom we dropped a significant amount of dumb munitions, as we had found out the ac the Iraqis feered the most was the B52. A very aged but effective aircraft. Concentrated forces can have dumb munitions, individual equipment is better for precision ordnance. We also used precision ordinance to limit collateral damage. The AC-130 is still an effective tool on the battle field and it uses normal artillery shells just accurately targeted.

With that being said it wasnt uncommon for my wing to be down a significant amount of aircraft and a few stripped to make the rest flyable. Keeping enough ac deployed while having enough stateside to train was always a struggle. My concern is, if that was what we were doing while being fully funded during the war on terror, what is force readiness when that money is now taken away? It surely is not better and I would be completely surprised if we are close to the same.

I don't disagree with spaceforce competition for manpower, but the AF should be drawing down its needs as they hand over to the new branch. This would mean a smaller amount of recruits needed to fill operational needs and we still are not making those. Instead we lower our standards and still can't recruit.

All of that is highly concerning, and I have not even got into operational needs of support ac which we are also short on. Throw in pilot shortages which spaceforce does not compete with and you have a soup of problems I don't think our leadership is prepared to handle nor do I think we have the right kind of leadership to get ourselves out this kind of mess with very little creativity to address the shortfalls.

Thanks for your details. I appreciate that.

Shouldn't have said 100%, but has to be close now.....I was thinking tactical aircraft, but even B-52s are dropping JDAMs now, although the days of flying three BUFFs over a target at 35,000 feet in a triangle formation and carpet bombing are probably pretty much over I see really no good reason to use any type of unguided bomb.........I had been in aircraft maintenance for 21 years and never been where we didn't have several aircraft stripped down as "cann queens" even in peacetime....never enough parts

 

[COWBOYintheUK]

But but our military are experts on diversity, inclusions and proper pronoun usage. That's much more important than military readiness.

The US Military is a snap shot of American citizens. Everyone needs to be included. As I said I spent 21 years in Aircraft Maintenance and none of us ever gave a hoot who was working along side of us as long as they knew their job, followed the rules and did their job and had respect for Authority........

 

[SquatchinPoke]

You realy are stuck on stupid.

I wasn’t the one so easily trigger good buddy.

 

[COWBOYintheUK]

A couple more things........we are retiring the B1Bs, they are worn out, they have been running a 45% FMC rate. But........we are taking the 76 B-52Hs and refitting them with new Rolls Royce engines and some 5th generation Avionics and re-designating them as the B-52J , they are expected to stay in service through 2070....over 100 years old..........plus we will have 132 B-21 Raiders along with their "Loyal wingman " drones and the 20 B-2 Spirits. On the tactical front, they have received the first two F-15EX, which is an incredible aircraft, based on an enhanced F-15E airframe they have added 5th generation Avionics and it can carry up to 30,000 pounds of ordnance ( F-35 carries 6,000 pounds) they will supplement the F-35 and F-22 fleet ( 32 F-22 block 30 are set for retirement and F-35 delivery is falling behind) in an air superiority role and then they will take over for the A-10s when they are retired at the end of the decade......they will also produce around 1000 Valkyrie and Ghostbat "Loyal wingman" drones for use with the F-35 and eventually the NGADS (Next Generation Air Domination system ) which will be our first 6th generation tactical aircraft ( that we know of) ........so things are not that bad for the USAF

 

[OrangeTuono]

China's Taiwan objectives:
- Strangehold global economy with capture the Semiconductor and Electronics manufacturing facilities
- Free access to Pacific Ocean
- Fullfilment of Xi's quest for reunification

Lots of focus here on the AF, but as you guys are pointing out I'm no sure how much AF (or Army) assets we could deploy in a first wave defense. Even Philippines, Japan and SKorea there's not a significant presence. And I'm sure China has those assets mapped and would be prepared for a counter attack.

Any updates on the Red Dragon palletized launch from C130/C17's program?
There also was a program stashing containers of equipment and munitions around the Pacific, that were ready to go sans troops to activate them.

Don't know how to assess, but China is always stated as being a "near peer". Which technically they are, but zero experience actually fighting and operating seems a bit risky for them.

 

[COWBOYintheUK]

I don't know how much a near peer they are.......I do know , as an example, what we consider 5th generation technology in a tactical aircraft we consider more 4th generation, so when they talk about their J20 being a 5th generation fighter, its more of a 4.0 or 4.5 generation aircraft, their engine technology is significantly behind and so are their Avionics.....Taiwan flying mid block F-16s will be able to hold their own against the Chinese fighters , but the numerical superiority would be difficult to overcome

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

A couple more things........we are retiring the B1Bs, they are worn out, they have been running a 45% FMC rate. But........we are taking the 76 B-52Hs and refitting them with new Rolls Royce engines and some 5th generation Avionics and re-designating them as the B-52J , they are expected to stay in service through 2070....over 100 years old..........plus we will have 132 B-21 Raiders along with their "Loyal wingman " drones and the 20 B-2 Spirits. On the tactical front, they have received the first two F-15EX, which is an incredible aircraft, based on an enhanced F-15E airframe they have added 5th generation Avionics and it can carry up to 30,000 pounds of ordnance ( F-35 carries 6,000 pounds) they will supplement the F-35 and F-22 fleet ( 32 F-22 block 30 are set for retirement and F-35 delivery is falling behind) in an air superiority role and then they will take over for the A-10s when they are retired at the end of the decade......they will also produce around 1000 Valkyrie and Ghostbat "Loyal wingman" drones for use with the F-35 and eventually the NGADS (Next Generation Air Domination system ) which will be our first 6th generation tactical aircraft ( that we know of) ........so things are not that bad for the USAF

That does make me have at least a good outlook technologically, but my experience with that is manpower takes a hit while technology upgrades are put in place. I like the F-15EX idea, and the B-52 over the B-1 is a no brainer. Sometimes you just don't want to change what works, and the B-52 definitely works. I am skeptical of the drone tech at this time, but I expect it to be a bigger part of the inventory going forward. I have concerns with AI integration with unmanned vehicles, but that's for another day.

I agree that the there is a future, and one that is good for the AF going forward, but we are in danger right now, and getting to the future may take longer than we want. That being said if we can get through this dark time, I am with you that I have an optimistic outlook for the future.

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

I don't know how much a near peer they are.......I do know , as an example, what we consider 5th generation technology in a tactical aircraft we consider more 4th generation, so when they talk about their J20 being a 5th generation fighter, its more of a 4.0 or 4.5 generation aircraft, their engine technology is significantly behind and so are their Avionics.....Taiwan flying mid block F-16s will be able to hold their own against the Chinese fighters , but the numerical superiority would be difficult to overcome

The numbers game is definitely the concern. I would not be surprised if the Chinese have a few tricks up their sleeve as well that we have not anticipated. You have to give them credit in that they are planning and are being innovative. As for being 4.5 gen, I would agree, and we still hold an edge in missile tech. I'm not as confident with the F-16s to hold their ground, but they will be able to put up a fight.

Good discussion thanks!

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

China's Taiwan objectives:
- Strangehold global economy with capture the Semiconductor and Electronics manufacturing facilities
- Free access to Pacific Ocean
- Fullfilment of Xi's quest for reunification

Lots of focus here on the AF, but as you guys are pointing out I'm no sure how much AF (or Army) assets we could deploy in a first wave defense. Even Philippines, Japan and SKorea there's not a significant presence. And I'm sure China has those assets mapped and would be prepared for a counter attack.

Any updates on the Red Dragon palletized launch from C130/C17's program?
There also was a program stashing containers of equipment and munitions around the Pacific, that were ready to go sans troops to activate them.

Don't know how to assess, but China is always stated as being a "near peer". Which technically they are, but zero experience actually fighting and operating seems a bit risky for them.

China has always operated in the Chinese sphere, so working outside of that sphere will be a learning experience for them. Don't know about stashing of equipment but I do know we have been working more closely with the Philippines in recent years.

The assessment of China as a near peer may more near than you want to think. While I believe we still hold an edge technologically, I do believe they have developed their own edges over us as well. The AI race to integration with the military, could give them a leg up, but I have only seen open-source assessments of the US and China. I would assume that both are ahead of what is open to the public. As noted recently with their balloon technology which showed a degree of sophistication married with the simplicity of the idea is probably ahead of what we are doing, but we operate in other ways to make up for that difference.

In the future I think each country will have its strengths and weaknesses, and that balance is getting closer together every day. The big question is will China be willing to use its military to become imperialistic? I think it already is.

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

I wasn’t the one so easily trigger good buddy.

Welcome to the thread. Pay attention this is how adults talk. You may want to sit in the corner, I'm sure we are well above your intelligence level.

 

[SquatchinPoke]

Welcome to the thread. Pay attention this is how adults talk. You may want to sit in the corner, I'm sure we are well above your intelligence level.

Yes master supreme

 

[SquatchinPoke]

You do know drones are the future of air warfare though right?

 

[COWBOYintheUK]

Yes they are , that’s why we are producing the Valkyrie and Ghostbat drones, they are controlled by AI and 3 or 4 will fly into a combat situation with an F-35 and drone will handle situations that arise so the manned aircraft can ensure the target is destroyed

 

[COWBOYintheUK]

The B-21 will also be accompanied by these Loyal wingman drones…. Different than the two I mentioned earlier, and the B-21 can fly missions without an aircrew …… we do have weapon systems that would blow your mind, but you would not see them unless the US or maybe our allies were in danger…. Scy- fi stuff

 

[SquatchinPoke]

@COWBOYintheUK AI and not pilots anymore or operators? I figured the numbers were off because they would be contracted and not military. AI is even better IMO.

 

[2012Bearcat]

Air Force again dangles $600,000 in bonuses to keep pilots in uniform

Annual bonus pay programs aim to keep airmen around to blunt the effects of a pilot shortage that has lasted decades.

www.airforcetimes.com

Read this a couple of weeks ago. My first thought, it's not a good thing the military is forced to pay more bonuses for pilots to stay in uniform. Yes they can make a ton more money in the private sector but that has always been the case. Whatever the reason, this is a problem.

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

Air Force again dangles $600,000 in bonuses to keep pilots in uniform

Annual bonus pay programs aim to keep airmen around to blunt the effects of a pilot shortage that has lasted decades.

www.airforcetimes.com

Read this a couple of weeks ago. My first thought, it's not a good thing the military is forced to pay more bonuses for pilots to stay in uniform. Yes they can make a ton more money in the private sector but that has always been the case. Whatever the reason, this is a problem.

They have been paying big bonuses for the last 20 years. This is just the latest version and inflation is probably a big chunk of that increase, but still concerning.

 

[COWBOYintheUK]

@COWBOYintheUK AI and not pilots anymore or operators? I figured the numbers were off because they would be contracted and not military. AI is even better IMO.

From what I understand........back in my day we would send in a strike package.....say our part would be two F-111s along with an EF-111A (Electronic combat version) , F-15Cs would establish Air Supremacy over the area our strike package would ingress, F-16s would take out all surface to air threats .........now we can go in with an F-35 (which is stealth ) along with 5 Valkyrie autonomous drones which are controlled by on board AI but all networking with each other and the manned F-35......if an air to air threats emerges one of the drones takes care of it, another may perform electronic combat, one may act as a wild weasel........with AI, they can be pre programmed to take care of any scenario which may arise allowing the piloted aircraft to take out the primary target and the drones to take care of the highest risk threats ......the Valkyrie drones look just like a smaller F-35 but the air intake is where the cockpit is on an F-35 and the Ghostbat is hard to explain, but they are both stealthy

 

[COWBOYintheUK]

They have been paying big bonuses for the last 20 years. This is just the latest version and inflation is probably a big chunk of that increase, but still concerning.

Back in the early 1980s I got a $40,000 bonus for reenlisting and I was just a Buck Sergeant Avionic Tech......... plus an incentive flight in an F-111D

 

[SquatchinPoke]

From what I understand........back in my day we would send in a strike package.....say our part would be two F-111s along with an EF-111A (Electronic combat version) , F-15Cs would establish Air Supremacy over the area our strike package would ingress, F-16s would take out all surface to air threats .........now we can go in with an F-35 (which is stealth ) along with 5 Valkyrie autonomous drones which are controlled by on board AI but all networking with each other and the manned F-35......if an air to air threats emerges one of the drones takes care of it, another may perform electronic combat, one may act as a wild weasel........with AI, they can be pre programmed to take care of any scenario which may arise allowing the piloted aircraft to take out the primary target and the drones to take care of the highest risk threats ......the Valkyrie drones look just like a smaller F-35 but the air intake is where the cockpit is on an F-35 and the Ghostbat is hard to explain, but they are both stealthy

Wow that is really nice. Would really limit the loss of life also.

 

[SquatchinPoke]

Droneliner is designing a computerized cargo aircraft that could stay airborne indefinitely, revolutionizing the aviation industry.

Pilots and truck drivers are on the radar to be replaced mark my words.

 

[OrangeTuono]

China has always operated in the Chinese sphere, so working outside of that sphere will be a learning experience for them. Don't know about stashing of equipment but I do know we have been working more closely with the Philippines in recent years.

The assessment of China as a near peer may more near than you want to think. While I believe we still hold an edge technologically, I do believe they have developed their own edges over us as well. The AI race to integration with the military, could give them a leg up, but I have only seen open-source assessments of the US and China. I would assume that both are ahead of what is open to the public. As noted recently with their balloon technology which showed a degree of sophistication married with the simplicity of the idea is probably ahead of what we are doing, but we operate in other ways to make up for that difference.

In the future I think each country will have its strengths and weaknesses, and that balance is getting closer together every day. The big question is will China be willing to use its military to become imperialistic? I think it already is.

China almost always does joint commercial/military imperialism - ports are both naval and commercial.
Hell, there "blue navy" of fishing vessels work in conjuction with their coast guard to literally push other country's vessels around. Equation is simple - the blue navy boats (fishing vessels) literally ram other boats attempting provocation, with their cutters a few hundred meters off.

When dealing with authoritarian regimes, most of the world outside the West, they can grease the ruling elite's and deploy their military simultaneously. We're not so clever broadly in that aspect, except through the military industrial complex.

US bases in The Philippines...

Here’s where US military will open bases in the Philippines in move to counter China

The Defense Department on Monday announced the locations of four new naval bases in the Philippines, securing three of the spots in the northeastern part of the island to better counter Chinese agg…

thehill.com