This is a wild fantasy. You keep forgetting that the USN's current size is totally unsustainable and is NOT supported by its current economic size. If China wants to also deficit spend itself into oblivion like the US, it can collapse eventually like the US will too.
Future PLAN orbat discussion
- Thread starter kwaigonegin
- Start date
That is because frequent overuse for war. Had USA sit there doing nothing like China they would not be in such trouble.
China probably has the better economies of scale, with a bigger population and industrial base. The US has overpaid for those big military contracts. It looks like China can sustain a destroyer fleet with 300 ships, but probably 200 ships will be enough for China.
Jura The idiot
General
A Chinese fleet which is twice the size of the US fleet is not a fantasy.
Given economies of scale for a predominantly technical branch like the Navy, it would likely cost 60-80% more than aiming for a fleet the same size.
Remember that we're likely to see China's economy grow to 2x the US in 10-15 years time. Then continue onwards to 3x larger.
It would be the US that would be at risk of bankrupting itself in such an arms race.
At the same time, China would likely end up as an economic hegemon in the Western Pacific, and would not need to resort to the military.
Yes, it's a fantasy. You actually have no idea the specifics of the comparison, for example your "60-80%" which you obviously made up out of thin air. We are also NOT going to see China's economy grow to double the size of the US in 10-15 years time, another fantasy that you have no support for, and especially with the exchange rate now being increased as a trade war weapon. And please don't try to pull a fast one by using PPP instead of nominal GDP in this fantasy. Try buying any internationally-traded commodities (such as are used in ship construction) in 'PPP dollars' and see what happens. You'll get some savings from 'economies of scale' and labor, but you really have absolutely no idea how much this is, much less derive a future PLAN fleet strength from it, and whatever benefits can be gotten from these advantages certainly do NOT translate into China's full GPD, either nominal or PPP.
The US will never allow PLAN to have as many capable tonnage as the USN. The US economy is still around and they won't be sitting on their hands watching the PLAN build up without increasing their own tonnage and moving forwards with technology, which they have been constantly doing but without the media fear mongering that PLAN receives or with the same showiness the Russians employ.
The day PLAN has more and better tonnage than the USN is several decades away from when PRC's nominal economic size undeniably overtakes the US. Not in adjusted terms or growth rates or projections. And even then it still becomes a matter of necessity. The thing is China does not need to equal US naval size if it stays regional with ability to project. It doesn't need nor should it patrol the world's waters and get used as some sort of henchman for its politicians. It'll make the PRC as bad if not worse than the eras of American hegemony. This is something to avoid no matter what. Protecting its trade routes, access to waters, and deterring war in regional waters/countries can be done pretty comfortably now but it still needs to continue in build up and progressing its technology because the US is continuing to improve its airforce and navy to take away China's ability to defend itself well enough.
The day PLAN has more and better tonnage than the USN is several decades away from when PRC's nominal economic size undeniably overtakes the US. Not in adjusted terms or growth rates or projections. And even then it still becomes a matter of necessity. The thing is China does not need to equal US naval size if it stays regional with ability to project. It doesn't need nor should it patrol the world's waters and get used as some sort of henchman for its politicians. It'll make the PRC as bad if not worse than the eras of American hegemony. This is something to avoid no matter what. Protecting its trade routes, access to waters, and deterring war in regional waters/countries can be done pretty comfortably now but it still needs to continue in build up and progressing its technology because the US is continuing to improve its airforce and navy to take away China's ability to defend itself well enough.
Without an increase in budget, China won’t exceed America numerically.
As things stand, the PLAN is most similar to the JMSDF as a self Defence Force operating on a low budget. China is not constitutionally bound to always have a low budget, but the public isn’t interested in investing too much.
It would be unnecessary to have as many ships as the USN, but China should keep widening the individual capability gap by developing new technology, which will also ultimately benefit the public.
A navy of ~75 fleet combatants vs USN’s ~100 seems reasonable, if China maintains a budget that’s 1/3rd of the US’ while having a 50% larger total money pool to draw from.
If many of those new destroyers can field railguns and other futuristic systems, that would be sufficient to defend and deter aggression on all major sea lanes, except ones where logistics forbid consistent operations.
Ships designed for littoral fighting would fill out the capabilities as well, especially if upgraded with next gen weapons.
Having a large navy is only one part. The Spanish Armada was the largest navy of it’s time, but was totally destroyed by the numerically smaller British who had home field advantage and better individual ships. There’s a lesson here for the PLAN.
As things stand, the PLAN is most similar to the JMSDF as a self Defence Force operating on a low budget. China is not constitutionally bound to always have a low budget, but the public isn’t interested in investing too much.
It would be unnecessary to have as many ships as the USN, but China should keep widening the individual capability gap by developing new technology, which will also ultimately benefit the public.
A navy of ~75 fleet combatants vs USN’s ~100 seems reasonable, if China maintains a budget that’s 1/3rd of the US’ while having a 50% larger total money pool to draw from.
If many of those new destroyers can field railguns and other futuristic systems, that would be sufficient to defend and deter aggression on all major sea lanes, except ones where logistics forbid consistent operations.
Ships designed for littoral fighting would fill out the capabilities as well, especially if upgraded with next gen weapons.
Having a large navy is only one part. The Spanish Armada was the largest navy of it’s time, but was totally destroyed by the numerically smaller British who had home field advantage and better individual ships. There’s a lesson here for the PLAN.
The Chinese navy needs to match up, in terms of both numbers and capability, with its biggest adversary and its so-called allies. That would mean the Chinese need to have more warships than the US itself. The adversary's capability is also improving as well. Right now, there is an urgent need to field more ships, to make up for the capability deficit. The Chinese shipyards certainly have the ability to crank out 12 type 052 + type 055 per year. That would mean around 50-60 very capable DDG in a few years. This is just a minimum requirement for defending against the adversary navy's pivot to the Indo-Pacific arena.