Future PLAN orbat discussion

Iron Man said:

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.

Click to expand...

The US military has a rule of thumb that a doubling of the procurement rate typically results in a 20% decrease in cost.
Depending on how you interpret this, this translates to cost saving of 20-40%
And for a technical service like the Navy or Air Force, equipment procurement/maintenance costs account for the majority of the Total Lifecycle Cost.
There are published studies on this. For lack of any better analyses, this estimate will suffice.

PPP is the correct way to measure military spending for China.
The vast majority of Chinese military development, production and operating costs are incurred with a domestic Chinese cost base.
We can see this with the published export prices of various Chinese military equipment.

---
Your commercial ship construction comparison as a internationally traded good fails.
Look at the cost difference between Chinese yards and US yards for commercial ships.
And the US military is not going to be producing ships overseas, but will be using high-cost shipyards located in the USA.
---

Estimating future PLAN fleet strength is a big question, but from a resourcing point of view, as I said previously:

1. My low estimate is now 3 destroyers per year - which results in around 100 in total.
That just aims for parity with the US Navy.
That would already be "affordable" given China's GDP is 30% larger in terms of PPP.

2. My high estimate is 6 destroyers per year - which results in 200 in total.
That aims for twice the size of the US Navy, which would be more than enough for overmatch.
With economies of scale, this would cost 60%-80% over the low estimate.
And would be really affordable if China's GDP grows to twice the size in 10-15years. And that only needs China is sustain 5-6% growth per year.

Sure, you can disagree with the high estimate of 200 destroyers, but let's say China only aims for a fleet only 30% larger.
That is almost certainly sustainable given economies of scale and how China's GDP in already 30% larger today in terms of PPP.

No matter how you look at it, the point remains that China should be able to build a larger naval fleet that could dominate the 1st Island Chain and then beyond.

And from a requirements perspective, China will probably build a larger navy because it wants:
1. Military security for the mainland Chinese coast
2. To protect its global trade/investment interests (it is the largest trading nation)
3. For Taiwan contingencies

Peter2018 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Not required at all. Certain countries do NOT trust their own allies/ client states or vice versa. It is in their interests to see their allies NOT become too self-reliant or independent. Its nothing sinister. China ought to undertake calculated and concrete steps to ensure technological equivalence / counter strike capability / security in all fields. If all this can be achieved with even a 200 strong surface combat fleet and One CATO BAR aircraft Carrier, then that shall be what China would need to build. Nothing more or nothing less.
China's adversaries are finding it harder to fund their own military. They have overextended themselves and find it hard to maintain the once enjoyed overwhelming superiority. Pulling out of the treaties ( IRBM) and denigrating allies for not "doing-their-part" are all symptomatic of certain harsh realities and troubles.
I'm completely satisfied with the pace of Chinese surface combatant induction. I want progress in ASW and Underwater Fleets (strategic as well as theatrical).

Regards the Top posts,

I don't think the PLAN, Nation or government sees any benefit to having a Navy the size of America with task force and fleets for every part of the world. Nor would the chinese economy grow that far beyond america's given that by then, they would have slowed into the tertiary economic stage like most 1st world nations. Waste of money....


Anyways,

anyone has any news on any new Long range SAM Missiles for ground or Navy? Heard rumors of 9C ages ago but nothing since.... aside from HHQ-9 still using the older HQ-9 missiles instead of the improved ones the army gets?

Rowdyhorse4 said:

Nor would the chinese economy grow that far beyond america's given that by then, they would have slowed into the tertiary economic stage like most 1st world nations.

Click to expand...

No. China has more than four times the population of the US. It is already significantly larger than the US economy by PPP. It will be multiple times larger before it becomes a "tertiary" economy and slows.

Xsizor said:

Not required at all. Certain countries do NOT trust their own allies/ client states or vice versa. It is in their interests to see their allies NOT become too self-reliant or independent. Its nothing sinister. China ought to undertake calculated and concrete steps to ensure technological equivalence / counter strike capability / security in all fields. If all this can be achieved with even a 200 strong surface combat fleet and One CATO BAR aircraft Carrier, then that shall be what China would need to build. Nothing more or nothing less.
China's adversaries are finding it harder to fund their own military. They have overextended themselves and find it hard to maintain the once enjoyed overwhelming superiority. Pulling out of the treaties ( IRBM) and denigrating allies for not "doing-their-part" are all symptomatic of certain harsh realities and troubles.
I'm completely satisfied with the pace of Chinese surface combatant induction. I want progress in ASW and Underwater Fleets (strategic as well as theatrical).

Click to expand...

The Chinese probably need 6 catobar aircraft carrier. Using the US as an example, they have 1/3 of their CV idled for long term/short term maintenance or vacation at any given time. The Chinese need at least 3-4 CV ready for combat or patrol duties within the Indo-Pacific area at any given time.

They can slow down from 10-12 DDG per year to 3-6 DG per year, once they have reached parity in terms of total capability.

AndrewS said:

The US military has a rule of thumb that a doubling of the procurement rate typically results in a 20% decrease in cost.
Depending on how you interpret this, this translates to cost saving of 20-40%
And for a technical service like the Navy or Air Force, equipment procurement/maintenance costs account for the majority of the Total Lifecycle Cost.
There are published studies on this. For lack of any better analyses, this estimate will suffice.

PPP is the correct way to measure military spending for China.
The vast majority of Chinese military development, production and operating costs are incurred with a domestic Chinese cost base.
We can see this with the published export prices of various Chinese military equipment.

---
Your commercial ship construction comparison as a internationally traded good fails.
Look at the cost difference between Chinese yards and US yards for commercial ships.
And the US military is not going to be producing ships overseas, but will be using high-cost shipyards located in the USA.
---

Estimating future PLAN fleet strength is a big question, but from a resourcing point of view, as I said previously:

1. My low estimate is now 3 destroyers per year - which results in around 100 in total.
That just aims for parity with the US Navy.
That would already be "affordable" given China's GDP is 30% larger in terms of PPP.

2. My high estimate is 6 destroyers per year - which results in 200 in total.
That aims for twice the size of the US Navy, which would be more than enough for overmatch.
With economies of scale, this would cost 60%-80% over the low estimate.
And would be really affordable if China's GDP grows to twice the size in 10-15years. And that only needs China is sustain 5-6% growth per year.

Sure, you can disagree with the high estimate of 200 destroyers, but let's say China only aims for a fleet only 30% larger.
That is almost certainly sustainable given economies of scale and how China's GDP in already 30% larger today in terms of PPP.

No matter how you look at it, the point remains that China should be able to build a larger naval fleet that could dominate the 1st Island Chain and then beyond.

And from a requirements perspective, China will probably build a larger navy because it wants:
1. Military security for the mainland Chinese coast
2. To protect its global trade/investment interests (it is the largest trading nation)
3. For Taiwan contingencies

Click to expand...

What the USN or USAF estimates for its costs are not directly translatable to the PLAN or PLAAF. And "depending on how you interpret this" on internet forums really just means "I'm about to use this number to make up any conclusion that I want".

A lower domestic Chinese cost base is primarily driven by lower R&D and labor costs, not by materials costs, which are pretty stable across international boundaries. A bauxite mine located in China isn't going to sell the Chinese military its ore at a cheaper price or it will go out of business. At most you can save a little money on transportation costs for local production (though China also imports massive quantities of bauxite despite being 2nd largest producer). Also, the more high-end you go in terms of hardware, the closer Chinese prices are going to be to international prices. All that gallium used in AESA panels isn't going to be 20-40% cheaper in China that's for sure.

China may or may not end up with a larger navy than the US. I don't find this point particularly interesting or certain enough to agree or disagree with it. What I find to be unsupportable is the claim that China's economy is going to be twice as large as the US in 10-15 years and that somehow someway because of this China's navy is also going to be twice as large. Neither is true, at least not in the next "10-15 years".

According to IMF, China's PPP GDP will be twice as large of USA by 2024, thats because China GDP is manufacturing so their own left hand can and will give their own right hand a special discount, USA GDP is services consumption, Finance Real Estate Insurance, healthcare and lawyers etc. If there's a bauxite mine located in China it will be China price because natural resources are state owned there's no capitalist profit motive.

Consider the US debt load burden within the next 18 months international central banks will probably lose faith in Dollar instead hold gold instead back to the Bretton Woods gold standard, then Dollar nominal strength will lose 50% just like when the Pound Sterling lost its Reserve status. The recent FED Repo is basically a mini QE so QE#4 debt monetization is coming, better hold some gold/silver

azesus said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

According to IMF, China's PPP GDP will be twice as large of USA by 2024, thats because China GDP is manufacturing so their own left hand can and will give their own right hand a special discount, USA GDP is services consumption, Finance Real Estate Insurance, healthcare and lawyers etc. If there's a bauxite mine located in China it will be China price because natural resources are state owned there's no capitalist profit motive.

Consider the US debt load burden within the next 18 months international central banks will probably lose faith in Dollar instead hold gold instead back to the Bretton Woods gold standard, then Dollar nominal strength will lose 50% just like when the Pound Sterling lost its Reserve status. The recent FED Repo is basically a mini QE so QE#4 debt monetization is coming, better hold some gold/silver

Click to expand...

I do hold both gold and silver, but try buying either in "PPP dollars". Again, the point is that commodities aren't much cheaper in China if at all. It's the labor, locality, and economies of scale. How much each of those contributes to a lower-costing radar, engine, or tank is anyone's guess. Certainly nobody on SDF is capable of making such an estimation, regardless of how many over-simplifications and gloss-overs are used.

azesus said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

According to IMF, China's PPP GDP will be twice as large of USA by 2024, thats because China GDP is manufacturing so their own left hand can and will give their own right hand a special discount, USA GDP is services consumption, Finance Real Estate Insurance, healthcare and lawyers etc. If there's a bauxite mine located in China it will be China price because natural resources are state owned there's no capitalist profit motive.

Consider the US debt load burden within the next 18 months international central banks will probably lose faith in Dollar instead hold gold instead back to the Bretton Woods gold standard, then Dollar nominal strength will lose 50% just like when the Pound Sterling lost its Reserve status. The recent FED Repo is basically a mini QE so QE#4 debt monetization is coming, better hold some gold/silver

Click to expand...

The notion that private profit in the long run reduce productivity and efficiency while government price control and command allocation increases either reflects a very deep misunderstanding of the power of the market that can perhaps be traced to some remnant of the most flawed parts of Marxism.

Richard Santos said:

The notion that private profit in the long run reduce productivity and efficiency while government price control and command allocation increases either reflects a very deep misunderstanding of the power of the market that can perhaps be traced to some remnant of the most flawed parts of Marxism.

Click to expand...

the bottom line (irrespective if for public or private) is planning is a decisive factor, as in Jun 20, 2018

Jura said:

The Navy’s acquisition boss has a plan to get fleet maintenance back on track
me watching

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

I'm guessing a proper planning is much easily achieved by the PLAN than by the USN for the reasons which of course would be political EDIT so I don't give them