China's Defense Spending Thread

A

antiterror13

Brigadier
B.I.B. said:
Compared with the US, how much more bang for its $ does China get in military procurement?
Click to expand...

I'd say (purely my opinions)
* For Salary and wages : 4x (on average Chinese soldiers and officers get roughly 25% of the US)
* For Weapon system : 1.5x (Chinese 50% cheaper)
* Operational & Maintenance : 2x

So if the three components above roughly the same weight ...... PLA is roughly get 2.5x more bangs than the US
 
Lethe

Lethe

Captain
KIENCHIN said:
I don't belief by ratcheting up defence spending will achieve anything since China can't freely print money the rest of the world gladly laps up.
Click to expand...

While increasing defence spending by 10% instead of ~7% would certainly have material implications for the PLA and thereby Chinese national security, the greatest value would lie in the symbolism.

Breaking the pattern of linking defence spending growth to broader economic performance would send a signal to Washington (and other nations) that China recognises the inflammatory rhetoric and actions of the new US President, and asserts that China will not be intimidated but will respond in a measured fashion to ensure the nation's security.

The other benefit of such a response is that it is modest enough that it could not be accused of being escalatory in and of itself. It does not increase the risk of confrontation, and it also implicitly suggests that the increase could be reverted if the US administration adopts a more measured and less confrontational tone. It therefore leaves the ball in Washington's court.

Such a measure:

(1) protects China's interests
(2) asserts that China will not be intimidated
(3) whilst not being escalatory
(4) and allowing for further changes (increase or decrease) in response to future American actions and rhetoric.
 
Last edited:
K

KIENCHIN

Junior Member
Registered Member
Lethe said:
While increasing defence spending by 10% instead of ~7% would certainly have material implications for the PLA and thereby Chinese national security, the greatest value would lie in the symbolism.

Breaking the pattern of linking defence spending growth to broader economic performance would send a signal to Washington (and other nations) that China recognises the inflammatory rhetoric and actions of the new US President, and asserts that China will not be intimidated but will respond in a measured fashion to ensure the nation's security.

The other benefit of such a response is that it is modest enough that it could not be accused of being escalatory in and of itself. It does not increase the risk of confrontation, and it also implicitly suggests that the increase could be reverted if the US administration adopts a more measured and less confrontational tone. It therefore leaves the ball in Washington's court.

Such a measure:

(1) protects China's interests
(2) asserts that China will not be intimidated
(3) whilst not being escalatory
(4) and allowing for further changes (increase or decrease) in response to future American actions and rhetoric.
Click to expand...
10% which is pretty close to where it was before the economic slow down but to raise it to 15% would just give the US the excuse and reason to overwhelm China. Remeber Trump odolise Reagan and what he iwould probably try to do is what Reagan did to the USSR with Trump characteristics
 
Lethe

Lethe

Captain
Latest GDP projections from PWC are out, so time to update military spending projections:

Using a 67/33 weighted average of MER/PPP GDP projections for 2030 from PWC, coupled with 5yr average of military spending as a proportion of GDP according to SIPRI, if current allocations are maintained we can project the following "effective" military budgets in 2030, in 2016 USD:

USA: $939bn
China: $576bn
India: $293bn
Russia: $128bn

Of course there is uncertainty both with respect to the underlying economic projections, and an even greater level of uncertainty regarding future resource allocations (i.e. military spending as a proportion of GDP).
 
In4ser

In4ser

Junior Member
I suspect in a future war, China will have a 2nd mover advantage in costs while the US will face the Dreadnaught problem that Royal Navy faced in WWII, which was a large reason why the Great Britain went bankrupt.

"Generals always fight the last war." War tends to accelerate development of new technologies and tactics while making others obsolete. Should another large war occur, I believe that the US will be faced with large inventories and high upkeep costs of outdated technology and be forced to pay enormous costs in its rush to meet the demands of the latest designs and innovations on the battlefield.

I think the USN large fleet of Aircraft Carriers and LHDs fit in that category with the advent of more advance and precise missiles and submarines. Therefore if the US wants to win a convention war with China it must make it decisive quickly or otherwise face the same problem Nazi Germany did against the USA's industrial prowess.
 
I

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
In4ser said:
I think the USN large fleet of Aircraft Carriers and LHDs fit in that category with the advent of more advance and precise missiles and submarines. Therefore if the US wants to win a convention war with China it must make it decisive quickly or otherwise face the same problem Nazi Germany did against the USA's industrial prowess.
Click to expand...
It sure looks like the PLAN is heading in the same exact direction, so I'm not sure how much of a second mover advantage it will have wrt the USN in the coming decades.
 
In4ser

In4ser

Junior Member
Perhaps, but I don't foresee China having 10-11 aircraft carrier. At most maybe 5-7 CVs, especially since China doesn't have same defense obligations as the US faces outside its own borders.

Moreover, so long as the US is dominant and doesn't want have its technological and military capacity gap against China shrink, it will have increasingly sink more and more money into defense and R&D since China is rapidly catching up by modernizing its capabilties. The gap between China and the US was more to do with the backwardness of China as a developing country rather than any inherent advantages between the countries identities.
 
D

delft

Brigadier
In4ser said:
Perhaps, but I don't foresee China having 10-11 aircraft carrier. At most maybe 5-7 CVs, especially since China doesn't have same defense obligations as the US faces outside its own borders.

Moreover, so long as the US is dominant and doesn't want have its technological and military capacity gap against China shrink, it will have increasingly sink more and more money into defense and R&D since China is rapidly catching up by modernizing its capabilties. The gap between China and the US was more to do with the backwardness of China as a developing country rather than any inherent advantages between the countries identities.
Click to expand...
To the contrary Aviation Week had an article about the development of hypersonic technology in US, China and Russia of which a secret report in Washington says that US threatens to be left behind ( I've just thrown away the link ). It suggests that at any rate US is less capable of organizing its R&D. One of the posters below the article called the Russian defence minister the best in the World. o_O
 
Lethe

Lethe

Captain
Trump is requesting a $54bn increase in USA's military budget which represents roughly a 10% increase.

As I argued previously, China should match this with its own 10% increase. Fortunately, China can match the symbolism of USA's move at much lower absolute cost.
 
I

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
Lethe said:
Trump is requesting a $54bn increase in USA's military budget which represents roughly a 10% increase.

As I argued previously, China should match this with its own 10% increase. Fortunately, China can match the symbolism of USA's move at much lower absolute cost.
Click to expand...
It is best to let the bureaucrats decide on the proper military budget rather than take some kind of symbolic action that will be appreciated by only a few and actually cared about by even fewer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top