Directing China's Military Defence Investment

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
I know that there are a lot of guys here with military experience and hence real world, working knowledge of military equipment and weapons and I also know that there are a lot of guys here with Professional Engineering and experience.
For myself, I guess my experience would be of holding a cheque book and in that light I often read the arguments on these boards from the ex military and the working techs and wonder about questions that I never see being discussed.

So here goes.
I am very keen to look at the world of Chinese Military Investment from the perspective of the cheque book holder; the Minister that is responsible for directing and managing policy and its associated expense.

In that capacity I try to imagine what I would say at the meetings of my top Generals and Industrialists as I try to determine how best to spend the money for value returns over short, medium and long terms.

I find two basic questions keep suggesting themselves whenever discussions of the material needs of the PLA are discussed.

1) What can we package now and produce at very short notice?
2) Where will the cutting edge be by 2025?

Question one is no doubt self explanatory and means to ensure that everybody is on their toes with regard to the levels of technology currently achieved to a production standard.
Question 2 however is about understanding the costs of processes that cannot be rushed and where time is a critical and immutable factor. It would make no sense to me to commission a project today that gives me today's technology in twenty years time. I want to leapfrog this and get to the same point as our competitors, if not beyond, by that same date.

How would you military men and industrialists answer me?
 

kei3000

New Member
Well, after read your questions twice carefully, with my poor master of English, I hope I`ve got your point and made myself easily understood.

For the first one, IMHO, it is depend on the situation and political atmosphere.
Whether it should or not to stop the test of F-35 or J-20/31 and make it available to air force is about international politics.
If we don`t need them immediately, well, it would be regarded as more beneficial to forge a prototype more perfect, nevertheless, A-bomb had to be produced in line for push the process of WWII forward.

For the second one, this is about to evaluate the potential and innovation of the human kind,
which appears to be very difficult even to the pros no to metion our ordinary persons.
You know, like the butterfly effect, if only a small factor which cannot be noticed now from all angles changed, an unpredictable transform will surely happen. As 12 years earlier, we cannot image there are something like iphone or some disease like SAS would exist. Thus, the cutting "edge" is very hard to identified, but a "range" can be assumed if we march ahead at a certain pace, such as more information related weapons for future OTH war.
 

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
I think you are following me quite well to be honest.

I was thinking of a number of the background projects which have been rumbling on for decades without showing any real signs of outward activity. I think it is likely that many of these projects will have been little more than feasibility studies, doing little more than highlighting areas of technological shortfall preventing serious R & D from getting started.

These situations will have changed significantly over the last few years on the basis of the rapid growth and advancement of China's technology sectors.

Two key projects spring to my mind Engine Development and the H8

Certainly in respect of Engine Development where their is a time factor which is near impossible to shift on account of long term testing, I would be loath to finance a project today that will give me an engine in the mid 20's that is only as good as the engines I could buy from Russia today. I would be far more interested in looking to leapfrog this and work on the next generation and even new forms of Power Plant altogether. I also believe that this is what we are seeing happen in practice.

Regarding the H8, it would be highly questionable; in the light of the revelations of the J20 and J31 not to insist that the H8 project now take advantage of these stealth technologies to build a full L/O strategic bomber, even if it is still a medium bomber rather than a Heavy, in the first instance.

I am curious to learn the opinions of other members in regards to other similar background projects that could now be re-evaluated in exactly the same way.
 

Norfolk

Junior Member
VIP Professional
So here goes.
I am very keen to look at the world of Chinese Military Investment from the perspective of the cheque book holder; the Minister that is responsible for directing and managing policy and its associated expense.

In that capacity I try to imagine what I would say at the meetings of my top Generals and Industrialists as I try to determine how best to spend the money for value returns over short, medium and long terms.

I find two basic questions keep suggesting themselves whenever discussions of the material needs of the PLA are discussed.

1) What can we package now and produce at very short notice?
2) Where will the cutting edge be by 2025?

Question one is no doubt self explanatory and means to ensure that everybody is on their toes with regard to the levels of technology currently achieved to a production standard.
Question 2 however is about understanding the costs of processes that cannot be rushed and where time is a critical and immutable factor. It would make no sense to me to commission a project today that gives me today's technology in twenty years time. I want to leapfrog this and get to the same point as our competitors, if not beyond, by that same date.

How would you military men and industrialists answer me?

Sampan, I would offer that the two questions you have identified are complemented by two others: 1. Given the resources that may be required (especially, by other programs), what is the "greatest good" - that is, the resources are (hopefully) apportioned where they may be of the greatest political/economic/technological/whatever benefit to the system as a whole; and in that light, 2. What constitutes "good enough" for the purposes of attaining the ostensible objective of a given program? Is there a political will and/or an overriding/imminent need for some technology/capability? And if so, who is in charge? (A Lord Fisher/Hyman Rickover type, or some lesser creature, and with probably lesser political clout?)
 
Top