Except for the number of 052, that is about what I expect. I am expecting twice the number of 052 (052D and later versions, I presume) to be at least 49 (13 x 052D, 36 x 052DL). As for 055 cruisers/destroyers, I think 24 is pretty much the maximum amount. I don't think there will be any more 054 frigates. Sum would be about 100 major combatants.
Again, such a fleet would still mean the PLAN would be accepting a fleet size significantly inferior to the US Navy.
I think the major point of disagreement is how large the Chinese economy will be in the future. So I'll summarise my reasoning below.
The key indicator for me is R&D spending.
20 years ago, China was a low-income country but still sustained R&D spending of 1% of GDP. That is at the top end for even a middle-income country.
But now China is a middle-income country, and Chinese R&D spending has steadily grown to 2.2%. And we only see wealthy hi-tech countries sustain anything over 2%. And it doesn't matter whether R&D spending is a cause or an effect of economic growth. What matters is that we can make certain empirical correlations.
If China is falling into the middle trap with slow or stagnant growth, we should see R&D spending crashing down to half of what it is today.
But we actually see R&D spending growth accelerating in China, and the National Science Foundation is already saying China is spending more on R&D than the US this year. Note the vast majority of Chinese spending is conducted by private companies, using a Chinese cost base, seeking profit in the world's largest market for most categories of goods and services.
So this will drive technological upgrading and productivity improvements, and is why I expect relatively fast growth of 5-6%. That would be consistent with the estimates from the Australian Defense and Foreign Affairs departments, which are planning for a world where the Chinese economy grows to twice the size of the US in PPP terms by 2030-2035. That is from 30% larger today.
And in the long run, we can expect China's currency to appreciate to match the PPP exchange rate.
---
But let's say for argument that the Chinese economy does stagnate with only 3-4% growth. That means Chinese GDP in PPP terms only grows from 30% larger today to 50% larger in 2030-2035.
That would still allow China to comfortably field the equivalent of a US navy.
And remember that PPP is a better measure of military spending/capabilities than the exchange rate, given:
1. The vast majority of Chinese military spending is incurred domestically with a Chinese cost base. So imports and the cost of raw materials aren't significant.
2. The difference in costs that we see between the US and Chinese/Russian ships. That applies to both the civilian and military ship costs, where they are known.
On the requirements side, China's major territorial challenges are at sea - in the SCS, ECS and Taiwan.
Plus China is the world's largest trading nation and depends on seaborne imports for raw materials, as well as for exports of manufactured goods.
So the military, government, business and the general population are all in agreement that a large navy is required.
Hence my view that the Chinese Navy will seek a minimum of parity with the US Navy.
Plus can you ever imagine China settling for anything less than being an equal to the US?
