Future PLAN orbat discussion
- Thread starter kwaigonegin
- Start date
It's not my claim that China's GDP in PPP terms will be twice the size of the USA by 2030-2035
It's the official position from the recent White Papers published by the Australian Defense Department and Foreign Affairs Department.
And what I find interesting, is that there is a conspicuous silence from US officials on this projection.
Which is not surprising, since it has also appeared in an older semi-official US Treasury paper, that I'm aware of.
So you're going to have to argue with them if you disagree.
And if you read again, you can see that I posit 2 scenarios.
A low-estimate where the PLAN only aims for parity with the US Navy. That implies 100 destroyers requiring 3 per year.
A high-estimate where the PLAN aims for US Navy x2. That implies 200 destroyers requiring 6 per year.
And we previously saw China settle on 3 destroyers per year
But in the past 2 years, that has accelerated to 6+ per year.
So how many destroyers do you think China will build?
Jura The idiot
General
inside
Once again, the US Navy looks to scrap its largest combatants to save money
dated March 18 of this year);
the second most expensive item under 2020 long-term shipbuilding plan is over 100b for 61 imaginary Future Large Surface Combatants which is kind of 'uncovered cheque' issued by those who may be gone tomorrow; CBO: Navy’s Next Nuclear Attack Submarine Could Cost $5.5B a Hull
is the most recent on this
so what may actually happen, with 1t and growing Fed deficit and so on, is the USN using a shrinking number of Burkes during decades to come
there's a tidbit about "parity with the US Navy" well it's a question what the USN will exactly do to ever go beyond the Burkes (while getting rid of Ticos as soon the Pentagon can:
Once again, the US Navy looks to scrap its largest combatants to save money
dated March 18 of this year);
the second most expensive item under 2020 long-term shipbuilding plan is over 100b for 61 imaginary Future Large Surface Combatants which is kind of 'uncovered cheque' issued by those who may be gone tomorrow; CBO: Navy’s Next Nuclear Attack Submarine Could Cost $5.5B a Hull
is the most recent on this
so what may actually happen, with 1t and growing Fed deficit and so on, is the USN using a shrinking number of Burkes during decades to come
Yes. There may be a shrinking number of Burkes in the future.
But what will remain constant is that the US Navy and the Chinese Navy will see each other as their respective pacing threats.
So once again, how many destroyers do you think the Chinese Navy will build?
You should present something if you want to be taken seriously, otherwise you'll just be noise. Not that I think that would bother you much, there's plenty of pseudo-intellectual noise around here so it won't be anything out of the ordinary.
Why would your list of military articles differ significantly from PPP cost? Why would the Chinese economy have a certain level of efficiency at producing one class of good, and then have that efficiency cut in half when producing another class with significant overlap? The default assumption is that the efficiencies between the classes are roughly equal, if they deviate significantly then evidence should be presented for that.
Jura The idiot
General
thought you had asked Iron specifically
me? I stick to
#267 Jura, Jul 28, 2017
the endgame in terms of the number of
- aircraft carriers
- Type 055 cruisers (please don't nitpick about the classification, possible later designation of a class with A or for example X or whatever)
- Type 052 destroyers
- Type 054 frigates
- 6
- 24
- 24
- 36
(at that point they wouldn't grow, but would be retiring older copies while replacing them with either newly built, or with ships which are currently unknown)
about four dozen, to answer your question, in the 'endgame' context as above
I think @Iron Man has a point ( actually,points). Two of which i'd like to comment on -
1.US ships cannot be compared in the sense that they are presumed to be quality wise superior. Many US ships(all carriers) undergo Shock trials which see charges detonated (underwater) near the ships and resulting effects on the ships studied ( damage to structure, electronics etc). It is a very risky and costly process( one reason why G.R.Ford Carrier was "allowed" to postpone it). The reasoning that US equipment are quality wise superior and therefore cannot be effectively compared with Chinese components are not entirely based on emotions/pride/jingoism etc. It would be very wrong to ignore or discredit the very time consuming and comprehensive Q&A process that US has established , over three quarters century of experience, to ensure tip top shape of its overused Navy.
2. Competition is rife within the Military Industrial Complex. Billion dollar mega-Corporations compete to win the Billion Dollar ( Trillion dollars even) military contracts. It would be really ignorant to judge the products of these corporations, which depend upon a network of universities, partners,suppliers and R&D establishments both within and outside United States, as technologically/quality wise/performance wise lacking. (They don't turn out to be top of the line, all the time, either.They aren't perfect and can be outdone)
There has risen, evidently, over the past two decades, a situation, where the US can be seen expending a lot for achieving less. I am quite confident to the position that the US Military Industrial Complex has become a huge cash drain for the country. Oligarchic and even Monopolistic hold on the supply of certain military equipment ( actually, every military equipment/subsystem) has seen very bad "Bang-for-Buck" products get delivered to the Pentagon. The costs escalate while the quality and some improvements "claimed" to be made are questionable and even gimmicky from a military robustness and reliability point of view. It'd make really good "PowerPoint presentation" material though.
I'd like to comment further but ...i hope people get it. It is quite eye opening to see that unbridled capitalism itself is the enemy here. Corporations are robbing America in broad daylight.
All is NOT sunshine and rainbows in Pentagonville.
But, speaking for the Chinese Navy...It would be amiss to ignore its Q&A process for military components, subsystems and equipment too. Every Navy that takes itself seriously will engage in Q&A validation for its components. China too has a developing network of military-university R&D centers. The engineers produced are very fine and extremely competent. The fruits of their labor has started to show but will take some more time. All depends upon the budget allocation on R&D as well as on military spending. Chinese state media running columns on "civilian-military" cooperation is quite telling. On the topic of Chinese Navy, we have seen many experimental technologies, secret projects, investments etc. ( sailless subs, railguns, EMALS, Gas turbines, radars etc) All these show a vibrant and up-and-coming Naval Technological surge in the PRC.
I'd argue that PLAN is very competent, technology-wise. I'd even wager that China is simply superior to every other country other than US in comprehensive military technological capabilities in the naval realm.
On the PPP-GDP discussion.
Since China has become rather self sufficient in military technologies (largely) , i think PPP would be the better figure to be used. Not just the PPP but the close cooperation and coordination of SOEs ought to also limit the expenditure on the military. There are less leaks in the pipes. Procurement costs can indeed be cut. Procurement can be made much more streamlined and efficient. Also Don't forget China's choke-hold on the world's rare earth supply required for advanced military equipment (seekers, sensors, chips etc). I'd think that the Chinese military industrial complex isn't exactly gloomy at the moment. They are smiling and energetic.
1.US ships cannot be compared in the sense that they are presumed to be quality wise superior. Many US ships(all carriers) undergo Shock trials which see charges detonated (underwater) near the ships and resulting effects on the ships studied ( damage to structure, electronics etc). It is a very risky and costly process( one reason why G.R.Ford Carrier was "allowed" to postpone it). The reasoning that US equipment are quality wise superior and therefore cannot be effectively compared with Chinese components are not entirely based on emotions/pride/jingoism etc. It would be very wrong to ignore or discredit the very time consuming and comprehensive Q&A process that US has established , over three quarters century of experience, to ensure tip top shape of its overused Navy.
2. Competition is rife within the Military Industrial Complex. Billion dollar mega-Corporations compete to win the Billion Dollar ( Trillion dollars even) military contracts. It would be really ignorant to judge the products of these corporations, which depend upon a network of universities, partners,suppliers and R&D establishments both within and outside United States, as technologically/quality wise/performance wise lacking. (They don't turn out to be top of the line, all the time, either.They aren't perfect and can be outdone)
There has risen, evidently, over the past two decades, a situation, where the US can be seen expending a lot for achieving less. I am quite confident to the position that the US Military Industrial Complex has become a huge cash drain for the country. Oligarchic and even Monopolistic hold on the supply of certain military equipment ( actually, every military equipment/subsystem) has seen very bad "Bang-for-Buck" products get delivered to the Pentagon. The costs escalate while the quality and some improvements "claimed" to be made are questionable and even gimmicky from a military robustness and reliability point of view. It'd make really good "PowerPoint presentation" material though.
I'd like to comment further but ...i hope people get it. It is quite eye opening to see that unbridled capitalism itself is the enemy here. Corporations are robbing America in broad daylight.
All is NOT sunshine and rainbows in Pentagonville.
But, speaking for the Chinese Navy...It would be amiss to ignore its Q&A process for military components, subsystems and equipment too. Every Navy that takes itself seriously will engage in Q&A validation for its components. China too has a developing network of military-university R&D centers. The engineers produced are very fine and extremely competent. The fruits of their labor has started to show but will take some more time. All depends upon the budget allocation on R&D as well as on military spending. Chinese state media running columns on "civilian-military" cooperation is quite telling. On the topic of Chinese Navy, we have seen many experimental technologies, secret projects, investments etc. ( sailless subs, railguns, EMALS, Gas turbines, radars etc) All these show a vibrant and up-and-coming Naval Technological surge in the PRC.
I'd argue that PLAN is very competent, technology-wise. I'd even wager that China is simply superior to every other country other than US in comprehensive military technological capabilities in the naval realm.
On the PPP-GDP discussion.
Since China has become rather self sufficient in military technologies (largely) , i think PPP would be the better figure to be used. Not just the PPP but the close cooperation and coordination of SOEs ought to also limit the expenditure on the military. There are less leaks in the pipes. Procurement costs can indeed be cut. Procurement can be made much more streamlined and efficient. Also Don't forget China's choke-hold on the world's rare earth supply required for advanced military equipment (seekers, sensors, chips etc). I'd think that the Chinese military industrial complex isn't exactly gloomy at the moment. They are smiling and energetic.
Last edited:
Jura The idiot
General
the name of this thread is
Future PLAN orbat discussion
so I think it's worth linking here what the Chinese military is going to face according to the most recent piece
Strategy of maritime pressure in the Pacific
note there're no hard feelings on my part
Future PLAN orbat discussion
so I think it's worth linking here what the Chinese military is going to face according to the most recent piece
Strategy of maritime pressure in the Pacific
note there're no hard feelings on my part
Jura The idiot
General
Today at 11:57 AM
Get rid of darling and pet projects
what a pro said, after describing an evolution of the USN heavy cruisers in 1930s, "All ships were needed. A , and the Navy is making a mistake by waiting."
and now noticed inside
Get rid of darling and pet projects
what a pro said, after describing an evolution of the USN heavy cruisers in 1930s, "All ships were needed. A , and the Navy is making a mistake by waiting."
You do realise that we can already see the following modern warships laid down or newly commissioned.
1. 3/6 Carriers
2. 8/24 Type-55
3. 25/24 Type-52C/D
4. 32/36 Type-54
In other words, you are saying that the Chinese naval shipbuilding programme, is going to come to a crashing halt in the next year with barely any new orders for the next 20 years.
Note that in the past 2 years, they decided to ramp up naval construction significantly.
That would be a huge mistake if they were only aiming for your ORBAT, and they're not that stupid.
Plus come to think of it, the Chinese have announced a huge expansion to the Marine Corps.
And there is no point in such an expansion, if they didn't expect to be able to achieve maritime superiority for such a force.
Last edited: