Future PLAN orbat discussion

Jura said:

linking what the PLAN may face according to

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Yes.

What we see is that the Chinese military is increasingly comfortable with dominating the areas close to its coastline and to the 1st Island Chain.

So the Navy, Air Force and Rocket Force are now focusing on projecting power to the 2nd Island Chain eg. 3000km out to Guam.

In response, the US military is working to Archipelago Defence using the 1st Island Chain, with land-based missiles and F-35B on these islands.

So these air-defence and anti-ship missiles would prevent Chinese ships and aircraft from breaking out into the open ocean.
The idea is that the US would create its own A2AD zones, as China has done.

But there are some major differences:

1. That's not much urban terrain or land-area to hide amongst
The possible islands are small with barely any population or land area.
For example
Ishigaki: 48000 people and covers 229km2
Miyako-jima: 51000 people and covers 158km2

2. How will these islands and missiles be resupplied?
You're looking at 1 runway and 1 port (at best) for most of these islands. These are fixed targets.
Plus it is relatively easy to detect and hit incoming resupply ships and aircraft, as these islands are only 500km from mainland China.
The US Marines already assume they will be cut off from resupply.
So what happens when the missile units run out of ammunition, or the F-35Bs run out of parts?
And going forward, I reckon the Chinese Air Force and Navy could establish continuous air/maritime superiority over Ishigaki in the future.

3. The Marines have the idea that they can shuttle missile vehicles between islands undetected, but is it realistic?
From the Chinese perspective, it is relatively easy to detect ships at sea versus missile vehicles on land.
And any ship is going to be targeted as part of a blockade, given there are so few civilian boats in the area.

4. Suppose the Chinese Navy and Air bypass islands?
The Bashi Strait is to the South of Taiwan, and are also a viable route for the Chinese Navy and Air Force to reach the open ocean.
But unlike Japan, the Philippines is far more vulnerable to Chinese economic, political and military pressure. So it could be neutral in any conflict.

AndrewS said:

We had the discussion on PPP a few months back in this thread.
But for those who don't believe in PPP, this makes the same point using nominal exchange rates.
That point being: China can already outspend the USA in an arms race, if it CHOOSES to.

We should see more rational and less aggressive behaviour from the USA, as this point becomes more widespread.

---

The Australian government figure is China growing to twice the size of USA in the 2030-2035 timeframe - in terms of PPP.
But economic theory suggests that in the long-run, the nominal exchange rate should catch up to PPP, so eventually there is no difference.
It also means GDP per capita (PPP) of $35K-$40K in China.

It's in the latest Foreign Affairs white paper, and their assumptions are still valid today.

Click to expand...

It's better to avoid mentioning the PPP-nominal-spending gap between US and China. Not that it doesn't contribute but it is really flawed as there are a lot of unknowns in such an exercise. It's a recurring theme in Economics and Geopolitics related threads and it usually ends with polarized views, back and forth and whatnot.

China is a developing country. It cannot spend willy-nilly on defence without taking care of its citizens and staying true to its development agenda.
U.S is a developed country. It is self sufficient in a broad spectrum of categories of national importance. You name it, they got it. U.S can choose to spend 10% or even 30% of gdp if there is popular support and momentum.

Another thing to note is not GDP but the annual Budget of countries. A huge untaxed informal/ shadow economy may negatively affect this GDP-Defence spending exercise.
The total tax collections and efficiency thereof for US and China are quite different. The annual budget of these countries and the share allocated for defence must be compared.

China's total budget is 3.5 trillion while that of US is 6 trillion.

Xsizor said:

It's better to avoid mentioning the PPP-nominal-spending gap between US and China. Not that it doesn't contribute but it is really flawed as there are a lot of unknowns in such an exercise. It's a recurring theme in Economics and Geopolitics related threads and it usually ends with polarized views, back and forth and whatnot.

Click to expand...

Normally I would agree.

But the US-China military balance is arguably the most important military question in the world now.

---

Just noticed that there is another yet another academic paper (from CNA/University of Birmingham) which tries to measure military spending in terms of PPP versus "market exchange rate". It looks at Russia specifically, but the same arguments apply to China.

AndrewS said:

And suppose China decided to build a Navy and Air Force that was twice the size of the US?

Click to expand...

No one knows how long that would take. Or what would happen in the meantime. right now China has some 2000 combat planes, while US and Japan have some 3400. In other assets, such as transport planes, tankers, MPA planes and helicopters etc etc the disparity is likely closet to a few hundred compared to 1500.

Navy wise, china is at around 130 corvette sized ships and higher. Compared to 175 frigate sized ships and higher for US/Japan.
Subs wise, it's some 70 subs for China compared to some 90 subs for US/Japan. Of which some dozen Chinese subs are nuclear fueled, compared to some 70 subs for the US side.

So... Even if the US/Japan don't do anything and don't increase their numbers, China would, to get to twice as many ships/planes, have to increase its size by nearly 350 % in combat planes, and possibly over 1000% in other planes. And would have to increase its navy ships by close to 300%. And subs by 250% if going by sheer numbers, or some 1100% if going after nuclear subs.

Is all that doable? In theory yes. But it'd take A LONG time. Lets say China could keep churning out carriers, one every three years. (so far it's on track to commission 3 carriers in 11 years). We're looking at 60 years to build those additional 20 carriers, to get to total of 22. Over US' 11. Even if one carrier can be churned out every two years, that's 40 years from now.
Nuke subs wise, with 4 new nuke subs per year, we're looking at 32 years.

One'd need to replace old ships, built at the start of the big build-up by then. So further increase in total numbers would be minimal.

Planes wise, that's 4800 additional combat planes to be put into service. With the current build rate of 80 something per year, the current numbers can be maintained or perhaps elevated to 2500. So to build and upkeed the addtional 4300 planes, - additional 100 planes would need to be put into service each year. And in 43 years the grand total of 6800 might be achieved.

That's calling for plane production to jump from 80 per year to 180 per year. That's no small feat. Also, the US production is ramping up to 120+ F35 per year. So it's already higher than total Chinese production. If China DOES go on such a shopping spree, the US and Japan would not sit still. US would keep producing F35s in higher numbers. Japan would be expaning its forces, naval and air. While US may not have as much room to increase its military, Japan does. Japan could double its air force and navy in a similar timeframe as China could.

And just as we are seeing with the new Cold war, US may be more inclined to start a hot war with China, way before Chinese military grows too big for them to handle. One could argue that the whole point of the decoupling of China from the US, and in part even from other economies in the world, is to give US that option - to go to actual war with China one day, when needed. As then the repercussions of such war, with China mostly decoupled, would be less severe than if China was still a large part of US/European trade.

Given how we're talking decades and decades into the future here, I don't think any of this is really meaningful. Who knows what'd really happen in 40-50 years time?

Still looking forward to a 30,000 ton Sino-Kirov circa. 2030.

Totoro said:

No one knows how long that would take. Or what would happen in the meantime. right now China has some 2000 combat planes, while US and Japan have some 3400. In other assets, such as transport planes, tankers, MPA planes and helicopters etc etc the disparity is likely closet to a few hundred compared to 1500.

Navy wise, china is at around 130 corvette sized ships and higher. Compared to 175 frigate sized ships and higher for US/Japan.
Subs wise, it's some 70 subs for China compared to some 90 subs for US/Japan. Of which some dozen Chinese subs are nuclear fueled, compared to some 70 subs for the US side.

So... Even if the US/Japan don't do anything and don't increase their numbers, China would, to get to twice as many ships/planes, have to increase its size by nearly 350 % in combat planes, and possibly over 1000% in other planes. And would have to increase its navy ships by close to 300%. And subs by 250% if going by sheer numbers, or some 1100% if going after nuclear subs.

Is all that doable? In theory yes. But it'd take A LONG time. Lets say China could keep churning out carriers, one every three years. (so far it's on track to commission 3 carriers in 11 years). We're looking at 60 years to build those additional 20 carriers, to get to total of 22. Over US' 11. Even if one carrier can be churned out every two years, that's 40 years from now.
Nuke subs wise, with 4 new nuke subs per year, we're looking at 32 years.

One'd need to replace old ships, built at the start of the big build-up by then. So further increase in total numbers would be minimal.

Planes wise, that's 4800 additional combat planes to be put into service. With the current build rate of 80 something per year, the current numbers can be maintained or perhaps elevated to 2500. So to build and upkeed the addtional 4300 planes, - additional 100 planes would need to be put into service each year. And in 43 years the grand total of 6800 might be achieved.

That's calling for plane production to jump from 80 per year to 180 per year. That's no small feat. Also, the US production is ramping up to 120+ F35 per year. So it's already higher than total Chinese production. If China DOES go on such a shopping spree, the US and Japan would not sit still. US would keep producing F35s in higher numbers. Japan would be expaning its forces, naval and air. While US may not have as much room to increase its military, Japan does. Japan could double its air force and navy in a similar timeframe as China could.

Click to expand...

Couple of points.

We're assuming that military systems procured today remain relevant.
But suppose new technologies make existing stockpiles of military weapons (procured in the past 20 years) relatively obsolete?
Then everyone starts at zero again, so the timescales could be compressed to 20-30 years.

Yes, Japan could double military spending.
But note that Chinese GDP is some 5-6x larger than Japan in PPP terms.
Furthermore China is still adding a Japan-sized economy every 3-4 years

And just as we are seeing with the new Cold war, US may be more inclined to start a hot war with China, way before Chinese military grows too big for them to handle. One could argue that the whole point of the decoupling of China from the US, and in part even from other economies in the world, is to give US that option - to go to actual war with China one day, when needed. As then the repercussions of such war, with China mostly decoupled, would be less severe than if China was still a large part of US/European trade.

Given how we're talking decades and decades into the future here, I don't think any of this is really meaningful. Who knows what'd really happen in 40-50 years time?

Click to expand...

Decoupling from China is easier said than done. We're looking at Chinese GDP being 2x the USA in 2030-2035.
If US-China relations do descend into a really hostile cold war, I can see a scenario where China does decide to bankrupt the US in arms race.
But hopefully relations won't get that bad.

We can also suppose a rain of meteorites can hit the US or China and basically ruin them as countries. Sure, I am being facetious, but I want to accentuate that such "What if" speculation is pointless.

If aliens grant someone death ray tech, then yeah, there could be a reset of most of weapon systems in service today. But let's be realistic, that's not likely to happen.

It is also not likely to happen China will get even near to having double the military of US/Japan in the next 50 years. Nor that it will match US/Japan numbers when it comes to aircraft and navy in the next 15-20 years.

Also, if US GDP grows 2% and Chinese 6% from today to 2029, (which in itself is unrealistic, given those values are upon us even today) that's the year when the two GDPs would be equal. In nominal dollar value. Calculating future PPP value a decade from now, is subject to too much conjecture so I won't attempt it. I would just appeal for this thread NOT to go into GDP discussions or any other kind of economic discussions, as I've seen it far too many times how such digressions hijack the whole thread.

And why exactly would Japan be there to fight China (its largest trading partner)?

Unless China decides to take action against foreign military bases operating from Japanese soil or decide upon the fate of the disputed islands... Unless these things happen - I don't think Japan will be ever interested in a war or confrontation with China. And that is even considering that in the future tense Japan had completed a makeover of its post war constitution.

What does defeating China achieve for Japan? What does it take for "defeating" China? How much is Japan ready to pay for defeating this country? What does "defeating" China look like ?
If anything, it will make China stronger than ever. Public support would be sky high. China will be like an elephant in musth.

I think Japanese actions against China would be very defensive (aggressive defense at best).

Totoro said:

We can also suppose a rain of meteorites can hit the US or China and basically ruin them as countries. Sure, I am being facetious, but I want to accentuate that such "What if" speculation is pointless.

If aliens grant someone death ray tech, then yeah, there could be a reset of most of weapon systems in service today. But let's be realistic, that's not likely to happen.

It is also not likely to happen China will get even near to having double the military of US/Japan in the next 50 years. Nor that it will match US/Japan numbers when it comes to aircraft and navy in the next 15-20 years.

Also, if US GDP grows 2% and Chinese 6% from today to 2029, (which in itself is unrealistic, given those values are upon us even today) that's the year when the two GDPs would be equal. In nominal dollar value. Calculating future PPP value a decade from now, is subject to too much conjecture so I won't attempt it. I would just appeal for this thread NOT to go into GDP discussions or any other kind of economic discussions, as I've seen it far too many times how such digressions hijack the whole thread.

Click to expand...

If we're talking about weapons system obsolescence, the biggest question today is whether a hypersonic precision-strike reconnaissance complex (ranging some 2000-3000km from mainland China) will make aircraft carriers and short-ranged fighter jets ineffective. Note these systems account for the vast majority of existing (and future) US military hardware.

Hypersonics are already deployed, and are not hypothetical alien death rays by any measure.
Nor as you suggest, does China need to build twice as many aircraft carriers or fighter jets as the USA, to obtain twice the combat power.
Geography also means China can use secure rear area airbases and can also rely on ground-based missiles.
This could produce twice the effective combat power in the nearby waters of the Western Pacific, which is what matters to China and Japan.

---

Since military development and procurement programmes do last 20 years, the US military and the Chinese military do make certain assumptions about future military spending levels.
In China's case, that is very much dependent on economic growth estimates.
That obliges everyone else to do the same.

---

So what is your read on the following speech by Senator Mitt Romney, who was the Republican presidential candidate who ran against President Obama?

He's probably working to Chinese GDP being 3x USA in 2050 in PPP terms, which is feasible.
By that point, it wouldn't matter what the exchange rate is, because the vast of majority of Chinese output (economic and military) would be produced and spent in local currency.
Personally, I think the US will still remain a (junior) superpower in 2050, because the US will still be unchallenged in the Americas, so the US might as well continue to devote resources to distant power projection.

Will China become the world’s sole superpower?

I remember as a young man reading a science fiction book that described the world in 2100. It referenced the United States as a once powerful country that had been eclipsed by other great powers.

My reaction was that that could never happen—the author was just trying to shock us.

It’s hard for us to recognize that conditions as we have always known them, could change in dramatic and fundamental ways.

The difficulty is even greater when we fervently don’t want things to change, when the specter of a sharply different world is frightening and ugly.

It is human nature to give troubling developments the most beneficent interpretation for which the Chinese Communist Party has long been a beneficiary.

Vice President Biden remarked at the beginning of his campaign that: “[The Chinese] aren’t bad folks..they aren’t competition for us.”

Mayor Bloomberg offered the same somnolent view on China last week.

I believe that a dispassionate analysis of China leads to three possible outcomes:

First, China becomes the sole global superpower—economically, militarily and geopolitically— by the middle of this century.

Second, China’s ascension will be disrupted and halted by internal turmoil.

Or third, China will be dissuaded from seeking global domination and instead becomes a responsible member of the global order.

The first scenario is the most likely because of what China is doing and because of what we are not doing.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Hypersonic weapons will not be a game changer. They will further evolve combat, sure.
US carriers were faced with mach 5 missiles swooping down on them back in 1980s. (Kh-15)
Yes, Tsirkon can do up to mach 10 at high altitude, but that's not an automatic game over for carriers.
What it will do is force US to have more ships in escort and/or more and more powerful missiles to intercept them. ALL of which the US is doing over the last few decades. They just keep adding destroyers and their anti-missile missiles are getting bigger and faster.
Longer reach of overall targeting and engagement system will also force the carriers to be placed farther out into the ocean. Which will mean more planes dedicated to refueling and less planes left for combat sorties. So that will impact the effectiveness of the carrier as well.

But carrier itself is not going anywhere any time soon. Which is why China plans to build at least several of them.

Then again, carriers are of secondary importance for US containment strategy in war. Various forces operating from various Japanese (and other ) islands would be the primary source of firepower and control. But we've already discussed that in other threads so I am not inclined to have a repeat of that here.

I won't comment on specifics of Romney's speech. He's a politician and for the most part politicians don't really rely on precise analysis. I think there's a dozen people here on this forum who could make a more informed speech.