Air Division, Regiments, ... Bases, Brigades, etc


tamsen_ikard

Junior Member
Registered Member
Latest estimate of fighter regiments and orbat of the PLAAF number around 2200 jet fighter with 50% modern fighter like J10, J11, Su27, Su 30MKK etc via Icloo
translated Only 400 J7 left. they are making progress on fleet modernization It was not too long ago that PLAAF look like antiquated Air Force
By now it should be equal or larger than combine first tier fighter of Taiwan+ Japan +Korea say 350+350+450
But US Pacom is the elephant in the room

Total fighter Jets The total number of fighters: 2134

Modern fighter Jets The total number of advanced fighter: 1173 (SU-30MKK+SU-30MK2+SU-35SK+J-11B/BS+J-11BH/BSH+J-15+J-16+J-20+J-10 Series


Fighter Jets estimation done by eagle CJDBY on 2019-8-13, cut off date at 2019 July. Poster put on caveat : No Guarantee on accuracy as data came from unofficial sources.

Celebrate the August 1st Army Day, today is a rabbit Statistics on fighter power, statistics include the Rabbit Air Force and Naval Air Force. All data comes from roadside agencies and does not guarantee authenticity and accuracy. The time is up to July 2019.

SU Series : 161
Sukhoi Series: 161

SU-27SK/UBK: 40 (Air Force Sniper Aviation 4th, 16, 41, 55 Brigade)

SU-30MKK: 73 (Air Force Cangzhou Base Flight Training 3, Air Force Sniper Aviation 6th, 54th, 85th, and 99th brigade)

SU-30MK2: 24 (

Qinghai Air Strike Air Force 4th Brigade) SU-35SK: 24 (Air Force Sniper Air Force 6th Brigade)


J11/15/16 series: 597
J-11 /15/16 Series: 597

J-11A: 105 (Air Force Test Flight, Air Force Sniper Aviation 4th, 16, 41, 55 Brigade)

J-11B/BS: 220 (Air Force Cangzhou Base Flight Training 2, Air Force Dingxin Base Weapons Test Mission, Air Force Dingxin Base Blue Army Brigade, Air Force Sniper Aviation 1st, 19th, 89th, 95th, 111th Brigade)

J-11BH/BSH: 72 (Navy Aviation University, Haihang Sniper Aviation 8th Brigade)

J15 : 40
J-15: 40 (a group of Hainan Xingcheng carrier aircraft base)

J16: 160
J-16: 160 (Air Force Cangzhou Base Flight Training 3rd Regiment, Air Force Dingxin Base Evaluation and Test Center, Air Force Dingxin Base Blue Army Brigade, Air Force Sniper Aviation 3rd, 7th, 40th, 83rd, 98th Brigade)


J20: 30
J-20 series: 30

J-20: 30 (Air Force Zhangzhou Base Flight Training 3rd Group, Air Force Dingxin Base Evaluation and Test Center, Air Force Sniper Aviation 9th Brigade)


J10 series : 530
J-10 Series: 530

J-10A : 192 (Air Force Cangzhou Base Flight Training 1st Regiment, Air Force Ding New Base Blue Army Brigade, Air Force Sniper Aviation Brigade 8, 26, 34, 43, 70, 124, 130 Brigade)

J-10AH: 16 (Haihang Sniper Aviation 4th Brigade )

J-10AY: 8 carrier (Air Force flight demonstration team Bayi)

J-10B: 58 stand (Cangzhou Air Force base to fly a training mission, the Air Force fighter aviation brigade first 5,56,61)

J. 10C-: 120 carrier (Air Force Cangzhou Base Flight Training 1st Regiment, Air Force Dingxin Base Evaluation and Test Center, Air Force Dingxin Base Blue Army Brigade, Air Force Sniper Aviation 2nd, 5th, 72nd, and 131st Brigade)

J-10S: 124 (Air Force Cangzhou Base Flight Training 1st Regiment, Air Force Dingxin Base) Evaluation Test Center, Air Force Dingxin Base Blue Army Brigade, Air Force Sniper Air Force 2nd, 5th, 8th, 26th, 34th, 43rd, 56th, 61st, 70th, 72nd, 124th, 130th, and 131th Brigade)

J-10SH: 8 (Haihang sniper Air

Force 4th Brigade) J-10SY: 4 (Air Force Bayi Air Show Team)


J8 series : 132
J-8 Series: 132

J-8F/DF/HF: 96 (Air Force Sniper Aviation 78th, 109th Brigade, Sea Air Sniper Air Force 5th Brigade)

J-8FR: 36 (Air Force Reconnaissance Aviation Forces 46th, 93rd Regiment)


J7 series: 396
J-7 Series: 396

J-7G: 72 (Air Force Sniper Aviation, 34th, 44th, 52nd Brigade)

J-7L: 72 (Air Force Sniper Aviation, 21st, 53nd Brigade)

J-7E: 144 (Air Force Sniper Aviation, 25th, 88th, 97th, and 132nd Brigade)

J-7H: 108 (Air Force Sniper Aviation, 18th, 63rd , 125 Brigade)


JH7 series : 288
Flying Leopard Series: 288

JH-7: 32 (PLAN Aviation 6th regiment)
JH-7: 32 (Haihang sniper bombing aviation 6th brigade)

JH-7A : 256 (PLAAF Dinxing Weapon Testing Brigade, PLAAF Dinxing OPFOR Blue Force, PLAAF brigades 15, 31, 83, 110, 126th, PLAN Aviation University, PLAN 2nd training brigade, PLAN Aviation 5th regiment, PLAN Aviation 9th regiment)
JH-7A: 256 (Air Force Dingxin base weapons The test regiment, the Air Force Dingxin Base Blue Army Brigade, the Air Force Sniper Bombing Aviation, the 15th, 31st, 83rd, 110th, and 126th Brigade, the Naval Air University, the HNA Training Base 2nd Brigade, the Haihang Sniper Aviation 5th Brigade, and the Hainan Air Strike Bombing Air Force 9th Brigade)

total fighter Jets The total number of fighters: 2134

Modern fighter Jets The total number of advanced fighter: 1173Rack (SU-30MKK+SU-30MK2+SU-35SK+J-11B/BS+J-11BH/BSH+J-15+J-16+J-20+J-10 Series


its been 2 years, since these numbers were posted. Any update on what the current number is in terms of the numbers of Modern 4th Gen+ fighters?

I think this number will be the ultimate determinator of China's power. China's advances in the Navy or Ground Force matters much less compared to Air power which will determine if China can fight the US in the first Island Chain, within the range of its fighters and win. If China for example far surpasses US in modern fighter quality and quantity, then it will essentially force US out of East Asia since China's Air power will nullify whatever bases, ships and submarines US can bring. Air Power pretty much rules them all. Even Submarines cannot hide from Sub-hunting planes.

If China has enough modern fighters then it will achieve air superiority and dominate this entire region. Even Japan will not be safe from Chinese long range fighters like J-11 or J-20. China can essentially become the Israel of East Asia who can fly wherever they want and even in the air space of other countries and no one dares to shoot them down. Like Israel China can impose its will on everyone within the range of its fighters when they reach sufficient numbers.

If we look China's map and the range of J-11 and J-20, China can dominate South East Asian Countries like Myanmar, Vietnam and Thailand from its borders and even dominate Indonesia and Philippines from its South China Islands. Sufficient Air Power will even nullify India and it is even possible to project power all the way to Middle-East from Kashgar if H-20 comes online.

China's geographic position in the heartland of Asia allows it to project power all around asia with just Air Force planes alone. No need for Even Carrier based air power.

I think Once China's total number of Modern planes surpasses US, that will be end of US dominance of East Asia and South East Asia. So, I focus on this number the most.
 
Last edited:

caohailiang

Junior Member
Registered Member
As far as i've tried to follow the US procurement rates, this year they should get delivered the following:
90-ish F-35 of all three kind. Exact figure is a bit hard to tell, as delivery timetables get shifted around, and not just due to Covid.
15 or so F-18E/F
2 or so F-15EX

So roughly 110 fighter jets.


Chinese delivery rates require even more guesswork than that. But I'll try.
Given the rate at which J-16s are getting reported in new brigades and given the alleged 150 J16 in service so far, it would appear that at the very least 24 are delivered per year. Possibly up to 30.

For J-10 we did not get a proper update for a long time. We do know that some years ago the total S/C variant production went little over 40 airframes per year. Whether that figure went down, for example due to more J-20 produced at the same factory, is unknown. I do think it's unlikely the figure went up. As we'd have more units reported of using J10C by then.

J-15 is obviously getting made. Hard to gauge the number, but purely from the requirements perspective, I'd say 6 to 12 per year is a decent stab at the annual figure.

H-6 is continuing its production. Assuming the same rate is still going on as we've witnessed in the previous decade, some 10 airframes sounds like a reasonable guess.

J-20 is likely still ramping up so it's hard to deduce the current output based on previously known units using it. I'll say 15 to 20 airframes, but that's really a guess not based on much.

Overall anywhere between 85 and 102 fighters and bombers.


The US near future will see end of Superhornet production. Last plan said deliveries to USN would end in 2023.
F-15EX will ramp up, likely at least 12 a year, but possibly more.
F-35 will maybe not ramp um much at all anymore, as I've been reading the current figures represent the apex of money USAF has around to spend each year on F-35.
And of course, in a few years we might see a very slow ramp up of B-21 deliveries.


Predicting Chinese deliveries in the near future is next to impossible, though. I doubt we'll see a drop in deliveries. But whether there will be an added ramp up or not - is unknown.
another important figure is the rate at which J11B fleet is being upgraded to J11BG. I wonder what would be guesstimate on that?
 

MarKoz81

New Member
Registered Member
Hello everyone.

I made a map illustrating the geographical distribution of combat and advanced training units of PLAAF and PLANAF listing their respective theatres of operation (W,N,C,E,S), brigade/regiment unit and the nominal aircraft type. I only listed combat aircraft and did not include training or auxiliary (AEW, EW, ELINT) aircraft.

I used scramble.nl for information including geographical locations. I'd like to ask the community for comments about any errors, missing information etc. Any and all constructive feedback is very welcome.

The colors indicate aircraft type - orange is for long range 5th gens, yellow is for long range 4th gens, red is for short range 4th gens, beige/tan is for legacy 3rd gens, dark blue is for frontline bombers and ground attack aircraft and light blue/teal is for strategic/long range bombers. The two green labels are test units from the CTO and the three white ones are bases for rotation of brigade detachments in the WTO.

The image has resolution of 2400x1500 pixels so it might be more convenient to open it in a separate tab. I am not sure yet how this website displays large res images.

PLA aviation OrBat.jpg

In case the text is not legible here's the direct link to the image on imgur:


Regarding tamsen_ikard's comment above about combat radii of long-range fighters here is another map.

pacific aircraft ranges.jpg

The circles are indicative combat radii of 600 and 1200km respectively from select bases in China, Japan and the Philippines. Similar ranges for other locations can be easily imagined.

The image shows how combat operations of F-35A are hampered by the distances in the region. American planes have been developed with European theatre in mind and F-35 follows directly from the development of Cold War designs. Even taking into account its larger fuel capacity and range compared to F-16s it is a "small" aircraft in terms of size, that happens to have very large MTOW. Even if you include the theoretical combat radius of 1400km you have to account for payload which for any air-to-surface weapon will seriously decrease the actual combat radius. At the end of the mission the aircraft has to enter contested airspace over China with numerous airborne and ground-based systems defending it. Even if we consider good tactics and low observability there is simply not enough energy for any maneuvers or a supersonic run because these would require additional fuel tanks which compromise LO features.

What good is your invisible jet if it can't see its way to the target?

I think this image explains why there is very little talk about F-35 when just a few years ago the F-35 was the answer to everything. It has nothing to do with the capabilities of the plane itself. It's just that you can't land an F-35A on a deck like the B/C variant.

The above map does not indicate the three airfields in the Spratlys or the base in Cambodia which provide the PLA with good starting point for operations and diverts.

It's like that saying: amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics.

Hope this helps.
 

MarKoz81

New Member
Registered Member
What are the latest PLA fighter numbers? Are they still producing at a very slow production rate? US produces like 150+ planes per year. And I read here before that PLA produces around 80. At this rate they will need several decades to catch up to US total number of modern fighters.

The Total Aircraft Inventory of USAF, US Navy and USMC does not reflect the actual capabilities of the formations.

First of all Total Aircraft Inventory is a composite of all categories:

TAI = PMAI + PTAI + PDAI + BAI +AR

where:

TAI - total aircraft inventory
PMAI - primary mission aircraft inventory
PTAI - primary training aircraft inventory
PDAI - primary development aircraft inventory
BAI - backup aircraft inventory
AR - attrition reserve

The share of airframes is calculated as follows for minimum required values:

PTAI = 25% PMAI
PDAI = 5% (PMAI + PTAI)
BAI = 10% (PMAI + PTAI + PDAI)
AR = 10% (PMAI + PTAI + PDAI + BAI)
PDAI + BAI + AR = 27% (PMAI + PTAI)

and as a result we can approximate the number of active aircraft in combat and training units:

PMAI + PTAI = 79 % TAI
PMAI= 63% TAI

This means that the TAI provided by DoD needs to be amended. The table below provides some indication as to what the actual numbers are as well as details the distribution of aircraft types between USAF, Air National Guard, Air Force Reserve, USN, Naval Air Reserve Force and USMC:

USA TAI.jpgThen you have to account for the availability and readiness of pilots. This is from the 2019 Almanac:

2018 USAF pilots.jpg
Combining the PMAI/PTAI figures and recalculated monthly pilot hours per airframe we get the approximate figure of pilot hours per active (USAF, USN, USMC) and reserve (ANG, AFR, NARF) formations as well as number of active aircraft.

First of all the pilot hours for ANG and AFR resulting from the calculations are around 80 hours per year. This is considered the minimum to preserve basic skills but any pilot who flew 80hrs for a number of years needs to be retrained which takes 1-2 years depending on the pilot and schedule before they can be used in combat. Such pilots are good only for the routine intercepts of domestic airspace.

Secondly the number of available aircraft is reduced as per the table and at this point it becomes more practical to count squadrons like we do with the PLA. Those can be found with little effort - I'll quote The Military Balance 2020 by IISS.

The number of "combat coded" F-22A is publicly known and stands at 148, the rest being useless for anything other than spare parts and basic training due to lack of two-seaters. There are six active squadrons. The number of F-15Es falls to reflect 137 in combat units and those correspond to six active squadrons (4 in Air Combat Command, 2 in Europe) and two training squadrons. There are only three active F-15C squadrons with the rest being in reserve formations. There are only eleven active F-16s squadrons. The A-10C squadrons can be ignored since this plane is hilariously out of place in a peer contest in the Pacific theatre. Currently there are six F-35A squadrons of which none operates the latest Block 4 aircraft but which fly the Block 3F (at least most of them). There are more training units flying older block models but those are not combat aircraft - against at best basic intercepts in own airspace.

More F-35 will be provided but they will take 2 years minimum before the unit is combat ready even if the pilots are already trained. Furthermore you have toexclude units committed to Europe - two F-15E squadrons, one F-15C squadron and three F-16C squadrons - from considerations in the Pacific since the US can't afford to lose footing in Europe. They must keep Europe under control or risk being stabbed in the back by Euro while they contest the rise of Renminbi and prevent the catastrophic collapse of their financial base in the same manner that provided fatal to the British Empire. This means that six squadrons of F-35A at minimum will be stationed in Europe with additional ones in rotation in times of crisis.

The numbers for USN and USMC aviation are simpler and can be calculated using the squadrons - eleven CAWs for the Navy, each with 24 F-35C (two squadrons provided by Marines) and 30 F/A-18E/Fs and sixteen Marine squadrons with 10 F-35Bs each. Altogether 264 F-35Cs, 160 F-35Bs and 330 F/A-18E/Fs. It all more or less fits the above categories when compared to TAI.

All in all, here is the list of squadrons that can currently be deployed to the Pacific:

pacific USAF.jpg

Keep in mind all that I said about readiness of reserve formations and the current state of F-35 fleet. When you include what the theoretical allies bring to the table - most notably Japan and Taiwan - it doesn't look so great in any scenario which involves aggressive containing of China. As long as China is on the defensive they are good until 2030 and that is completely leaving out the problem of logistics for F-35A which I indicated in the previous post. Unless the US finds a way to base F-35As in the Philippines or Indonesia they are stuck in Singapore and Japan which leaves them unable to contest China's power projection throughout most of South East Asia and Western Pacific since the limited number of aircraft carriers will wear out within a couple of years of intensive use while still providing only a small force of planes that currently have a technological edge over PLA.
 

MarKoz81

New Member
Registered Member
continuing:

Predicting Chinese deliveries in the near future is next to impossible, though. I doubt we'll see a drop in deliveries. But whether there will be an added ramp up or not - is unknown.

I would disagree. I think we can approximate it quite well because there are some very obvious natural directions both for the US and China in the next decade. We assume that the 2020s will be as surprising, chaotic and unpredictable as the 2000s and especially 2010s but that's not true. The 2010s in particular are what in evolutionary theory is called "punctuation". It is what happens when the equilibrium of general evolutionary development of an ecosytem is radically shifted by introduction of new species or discovery of new traits. Like fish walking onto land and then staying there. That's what happened in the 2010s - China walked onto land and stayed there. That move was unpredictable, meaning it was governed by equal probabilities. But now we know it is going to stay there and so we have a good grasp at what's going to happen.

Here's my view:

At this point the PLA has two priorities - modernizing its training system and building more Y-20Us in that order. The PLA does not need any large increase in the production of fighter or AEW aircraft.

With the production rate KJ-500s in recent years they have their basic capabilities covered for the next couple of years. By combining the official numbers and the numbers of finished airframes on pictures I've counted 38 KJ-500s. Together with KJ-2000 and KJ-200 it gives 50 AWACS aircraft. That's more than enough to defend Chinese airspace and immediate surroundings.

As for fighters - the PLA has over 300 Su-27/35/J-11s, 250 Su-30/J-16 and we can safely assume somewhere around 50 J-20s which would put them in the same area as American/Japanese F-15C/J, F-15E and Pacific-deployed F-22A numbers. People tend to forget that in the Pacific range matters and that the Eastern-deployed F-22s won't be moved for security reasons. So if the PLA can match American/Japanese heavy fighters with their own it's sufficient deterrence.

For lighter fighters the problem is not that great since geography provides the first barrier (see the previous post) and the total numbers for American aircraft are misleading (see above). But also there is something confusing about the numbers of produced J-10s reported by Deino (approx. 600) which were higher even than the 468 number reported by Japanese MoD when you compare it with the estimates based on the number of J-10 brigades. There seem to be too many J-10s produced for the J-10s deployed. I counted 15 brigades with J-10s of all variants - that is 360 aircraft total. Add some in test units and you realize that either the J-10s have 40% attrition reserves unlike every other primary aircraft or... the reason for the disparity must be bottleneck in training that prevents all remaining J-7 and J-8 units to swap type.

I don't think PLA has the same problems with recruitment as the US seeing as they have four times the population pool for a smaller air force so the main bottleneck is insufficient aircraft in training units. If we compare the fleets of American and Chinese trainers - including combat-capable two-seaters - we get the following figures for single-seater aircraft (data for 2020):

USA: 500 T-38, 200 T-45 (subsonic), 20-25% two-seaters in all non-F-35 units.
PLA: 366 JL-8 (subsonic), 70 JL-9, 32 JL-10, 100 (?) J-10S, maximum 40 Su-27UBKs and an unspecified number of J-11BS - probably less than 50.

The main training aircraft capable of supersonic speed is the completely obsolete J-7 which has unwieldy aerodynamics being derived from the flying coffin (MiG-21). MiG-21 requires good piloting skill to be flown competently in combat. It is a horrible plane to learn your chops if you are moving to a FBW relaxed stability machine like J-11 or J-10. This essentially requires re-training of basic habits. If you learn to fly on a subsonic jet like JL-8 which has a comfortable speed of about 700-800km/h you lack basic skills for supersonic flight which is over 1200km/h and much more dangerous because the forces and reaction times changes are not linear but geometric.

That means that limited resources have to be prioritized for heavy fighter units since they are the first line of defense. The J-10 units can be left to lag a bit since they are only relevant in two theaters - in southeast Asia over land (Myanmar, Vietnam) and in defense of capital region and in the north. Anywhere else range (and by extension payload) is the undisputed king.

So to return to original considerations of fighter production rate - I think the only thing PLA really needs is a reliable or even slightly increased production rate of J-20 (WS-15 compatible) to keep it at 12 to 18 airframes per year and a speedy introduction of a stealthy/stealthier JH-7 that will reach 3 to 4 brigades by 2030. As for the rest 16 J-16s and 16 J-10Cs per year and modernization of older aircraft is sufficient for deterrence.

Consider that by the end of the decade:

At 12 airframes per year the J-20 will replace all of J-11As and Su-27s.
At that point the USAF will have F-15EX as the long-range equivalent. It's better to direct resources to NGAD equivalent rather than trying to fill a gap that exists only in an incorrect interpretation of reality (like the famous Soviet "gaps") with obsolescent 5th gens. If J-11Bs can be upgraded with AESA radars and modern sytem they will be F-15EX equivalent.

At 16 airframes per year the J-16 will replace all of Su-30MKK and JH-7 (not A).
Su-30MKK is obsolescent and if I recall correctly requires Russian engine support. JH-7 has lower payload due to structural limitations which only allow it to carry 2 large AShMs. If we consider that for practical reasons it is worthwhile to retain the Su-30MK2 brigade and one Su-30MKK brigade - we get even better proportion with more JH-7As replaced or new units with J-16D - if or when it enters service.

At 16 airframes per year the J-10C will replace all J-7/J-8 and some J-10A units.
No explanation necessary, just look at the map in the previous post.

Those rates of production provide room for J-15, J-31 and other aircraft.

With those milestones achieved the only real gap will be in F-35As which have insufficient range to threaten Chinese mainland and which require land basing to threaten Chinese maritime assets. The idea that China has to match American F-35 numbers is wrong. America shouldn't match American F-35 numbers but the F-35 is the world's most successful procurement disaster and they have no other options at this point.

A 5-th gen carrier-based fighter and most importantly a stealthy attack aircraft and strategic bomber are the main priority since they extend the defensive perimeter further away from the mainland. The B-2s are next to useless due to low numbers and availability. The B-1Bs and B-52s are the only reliable weapon in USAF's arsenal but they lack armaments and their readiness (B-1B especially) is rather dismal. This is why Americans are testing palletized JASSM deployment from transport planes. B-21 should be here yesterday but it won't enter service before 2026-27. China has only to match American bomber force at 1:2 ratio for deterrence considering geography. In the meantime a LO plane with 2000-2500km combat radius and capability to carry stealthy AShMs internally will do great to push naval assets even further out which will help to clear space around Taiwan and in South China Sea.

Other than that larger numbers of modern, supersonic trainer jets and tankers are the immediate priority for PLAAF in the upcoming decade. 40 supersonic trainers a year are more important than 40 new 4th gen fighters a year because they allow PLAAF to maintain pilot numbers and quality. I believe that 20 tankers a year doesn't require explanation. Once China has 100 tankers it can breathe more easily on all fronts.

The future of air warfare doesn't lie in greater numbers or even quality of aircraft but most people haven't woken up to that reality yet.

I apologize for the length of this post but it is Saturday Morning Lengthy Post Massacre time. I'll finish my coffee now.
 

MarKoz81

New Member
Registered Member
A parting thought:

We all have to remember that America is not fighting for its territory or national survival but its position in the world.

American contest against China is about the ability to enforce the status of US dollar as world's primary reserve currency due to threat of force establishing US dollar monopoly on energy trade.

In short: buy US dollars to buy energy or you will be liberated.

Energy is the replacement for the gold standard abolished in 1971. If global energy markets can be established with payments in other currency - we'll see a shift away from dollar as for all buyers of energy diversification is security. This rule applies to both sources of energy as source of means of payment.

This can happen even without a major conflict when the US is tied up in the Pacific and thus unable to counter any emerging markets with force. Consider the following:

Operation Desert Storm happened because the Soviet bloc was collapsing thus preventing Soviet power projection into Western Europe.

Operation Desert Storm established American power projection in the Gulf which resulted in the artificial demand for the US dollar and reversed the trend from the 70s and 80s when German Mark and Japanese Yen were the surging currencies. Those who remember the wave of Japan-mania in American culture - that's the background. Look up historic GDP values and you see the trend being reversed in the 90s - precisely as a result of American plunder of the Gulf.

I'm using the word "plunder" here in literal sense. By destabilizing the Gulf and selling "protection" the American managed to provide demand for continuing monetary expansion for the US dollar which would otherwise be economically unsustainable. The 2008 crash and the subsequent decade of the second great depression is the inevitable consequence of that.

The reason why I am mentioning it here is because people who are interested in military matters often lose sight of why wars are fought. Wars happen when you can't convince someone to give you what you want. The threat of military intervention is what keeps the potential rebels in the dollar system. When that military intervention is made impractical or outright impossible they will do what they wanted to do in the first place.

Hence if China can deter American power projection sufficiently to expand into its natural sphere of influence which covers all of eastern Asia it will remove from American influence markets and countries with over 2 billion people (1,4 billion in China, 200 million in Vietnam, Philippines, 200 million in Japan and Koreas, over 200 million in Indonesia, 200 million in Myanmar, Thailand and Malaysia which were hitherto dependent on US dollars. With removal of US dollar status as the "only permissible" currency China might decide to not only share the spot but further weaken America by supporting the Euro as a third currency which has its own natural market with significant circulation. That should knock the US dollar to a share of below 40% in global reserves (from current 65%) in a matter of 1-2 decades provided that Renminbi becomes fully convertible which should happen sometime after 2030. When that happens the US military will start to collapse and since it needs certain threshold of funding to maintain global power projection - necessary due to America's geography - that collapse will be matched by the collapse of direct American political power.

Because of that China doesn't have to win against America to achieve its long-term goals. It only has to lose in a way that will wound America fatally.

Sun Tzu wrote that to defeat the enemy is of lesser importance when compared to preserving your own force. As long as you have your army you are in the fight and the enemy has to expend resources. If anything any major decisive battle might be the worst of all ideas - especially when your enemy's resources depend on their alleged invincibility.

Perhaps that strategic view will explain why I think that what PLA planners are doing is both intentional and grounded in understanding of strategic reality.
 

Yodello

Junior Member
Registered Member
A parting thought:

We all have to remember that America is not fighting for its territory or national survival but its position in the world.

American contest against China is about the ability to enforce the status of US dollar as world's primary reserve currency due to threat of force establishing US dollar monopoly on energy trade.

In short: buy US dollars to buy energy or you will be liberated.

Energy is the replacement for the gold standard abolished in 1971. If global energy markets can be established with payments in other currency - we'll see a shift away from dollar as for all buyers of energy diversification is security. This rule applies to both sources of energy as source of means of payment.

This can happen even without a major conflict when the US is tied up in the Pacific and thus unable to counter any emerging markets with force. Consider the following:

Operation Desert Storm happened because the Soviet bloc was collapsing thus preventing Soviet power projection into Western Europe.

Operation Desert Storm established American power projection in the Gulf which resulted in the artificial demand for the US dollar and reversed the trend from the 70s and 80s when German Mark and Japanese Yen were the surging currencies. Those who remember the wave of Japan-mania in American culture - that's the background. Look up historic GDP values and you see the trend being reversed in the 90s - precisely as a result of American plunder of the Gulf.

I'm using the word "plunder" here in literal sense. By destabilizing the Gulf and selling "protection" the American managed to provide demand for continuing monetary expansion for the US dollar which would otherwise be economically unsustainable. The 2008 crash and the subsequent decade of the second great depression is the inevitable consequence of that.

The reason why I am mentioning it here is because people who are interested in military matters often lose sight of why wars are fought. Wars happen when you can't convince someone to give you what you want. The threat of military intervention is what keeps the potential rebels in the dollar system. When that military intervention is made impractical or outright impossible they will do what they wanted to do in the first place.

Hence if China can deter American power projection sufficiently to expand into its natural sphere of influence which covers all of eastern Asia it will remove from American influence markets and countries with over 2 billion people (1,4 billion in China, 200 million in Vietnam, Philippines, 200 million in Japan and Koreas, over 200 million in Indonesia, 200 million in Myanmar, Thailand and Malaysia which were hitherto dependent on US dollars. With removal of US dollar status as the "only permissible" currency China might decide to not only share the spot but further weaken America by supporting the Euro as a third currency which has its own natural market with significant circulation. That should knock the US dollar to a share of below 40% in global reserves (from current 65%) in a matter of 1-2 decades provided that Renminbi becomes fully convertible which should happen sometime after 2030. When that happens the US military will start to collapse and since it needs certain threshold of funding to maintain global power projection - necessary due to America's geography - that collapse will be matched by the collapse of direct American political power.

Because of that China doesn't have to win against America to achieve its long-term goals. It only has to lose in a way that will wound America fatally.

Sun Tzu wrote that to defeat the enemy is of lesser importance when compared to preserving your own force. As long as you have your army you are in the fight and the enemy has to expend resources. If anything any major decisive battle might be the worst of all ideas - especially when your enemy's resources depend on their alleged invincibility.

Perhaps that strategic view will explain why I think that what PLA planners are doing is both intentional and grounded in understanding of strategic reality.
Thank you, that was quite an interesting read, written in a concise and pointed manner.
Makes too much sense.
 

discspinner

Junior Member
Registered Member
A parting thought:

We all have to remember that America is not fighting for its territory or national survival but its position in the world.

American contest against China is about the ability to enforce the status of US dollar as world's primary reserve currency due to threat of force establishing US dollar monopoly on energy trade.

In short: buy US dollars to buy energy or you will be liberated.

Energy is the replacement for the gold standard abolished in 1971. If global energy markets can be established with payments in other currency - we'll see a shift away from dollar as for all buyers of energy diversification is security. This rule applies to both sources of energy as source of means of payment.

This can happen even without a major conflict when the US is tied up in the Pacific and thus unable to counter any emerging markets with force. Consider the following:

Operation Desert Storm happened because the Soviet bloc was collapsing thus preventing Soviet power projection into Western Europe.

Operation Desert Storm established American power projection in the Gulf which resulted in the artificial demand for the US dollar and reversed the trend from the 70s and 80s when German Mark and Japanese Yen were the surging currencies. Those who remember the wave of Japan-mania in American culture - that's the background. Look up historic GDP values and you see the trend being reversed in the 90s - precisely as a result of American plunder of the Gulf.

I'm using the word "plunder" here in literal sense. By destabilizing the Gulf and selling "protection" the American managed to provide demand for continuing monetary expansion for the US dollar which would otherwise be economically unsustainable. The 2008 crash and the subsequent decade of the second great depression is the inevitable consequence of that.

The reason why I am mentioning it here is because people who are interested in military matters often lose sight of why wars are fought. Wars happen when you can't convince someone to give you what you want. The threat of military intervention is what keeps the potential rebels in the dollar system. When that military intervention is made impractical or outright impossible they will do what they wanted to do in the first place.

Hence if China can deter American power projection sufficiently to expand into its natural sphere of influence which covers all of eastern Asia it will remove from American influence markets and countries with over 2 billion people (1,4 billion in China, 200 million in Vietnam, Philippines, 200 million in Japan and Koreas, over 200 million in Indonesia, 200 million in Myanmar, Thailand and Malaysia which were hitherto dependent on US dollars. With removal of US dollar status as the "only permissible" currency China might decide to not only share the spot but further weaken America by supporting the Euro as a third currency which has its own natural market with significant circulation. That should knock the US dollar to a share of below 40% in global reserves (from current 65%) in a matter of 1-2 decades provided that Renminbi becomes fully convertible which should happen sometime after 2030. When that happens the US military will start to collapse and since it needs certain threshold of funding to maintain global power projection - necessary due to America's geography - that collapse will be matched by the collapse of direct American political power.

Because of that China doesn't have to win against America to achieve its long-term goals. It only has to lose in a way that will wound America fatally.

Sun Tzu wrote that to defeat the enemy is of lesser importance when compared to preserving your own force. As long as you have your army you are in the fight and the enemy has to expend resources. If anything any major decisive battle might be the worst of all ideas - especially when your enemy's resources depend on their alleged invincibility.

Perhaps that strategic view will explain why I think that what PLA planners are doing is both intentional and grounded in understanding of strategic reality.

You hit the nail right on the spot. This is all about the maintenance of dollar hegemony. Once that collapses, the US will be in dire straits. I am living in the US now, not sure what my long term plan is when that happens, but it might be within my lifetime in the next 50 years
 

Untoldpain

New Member
Registered Member
A parting thought:

We all have to remember that America is not fighting for its territory or national survival but its position in the world.

American contest against China is about the ability to enforce the status of US dollar as world's primary reserve currency due to threat of force establishing US dollar monopoly on energy trade.

In short: buy US dollars to buy energy or you will be liberated.

Energy is the replacement for the gold standard abolished in 1971. If global energy markets can be established with payments in other currency - we'll see a shift away from dollar as for all buyers of energy diversification is security. This rule applies to both sources of energy as source of means of payment.

This can happen even without a major conflict when the US is tied up in the Pacific and thus unable to counter any emerging markets with force. Consider the following:

Operation Desert Storm happened because the Soviet bloc was collapsing thus preventing Soviet power projection into Western Europe.

Operation Desert Storm established American power projection in the Gulf which resulted in the artificial demand for the US dollar and reversed the trend from the 70s and 80s when German Mark and Japanese Yen were the surging currencies. Those who remember the wave of Japan-mania in American culture - that's the background. Look up historic GDP values and you see the trend being reversed in the 90s - precisely as a result of American plunder of the Gulf.

I'm using the word "plunder" here in literal sense. By destabilizing the Gulf and selling "protection" the American managed to provide demand for continuing monetary expansion for the US dollar which would otherwise be economically unsustainable. The 2008 crash and the subsequent decade of the second great depression is the inevitable consequence of that.

The reason why I am mentioning it here is because people who are interested in military matters often lose sight of why wars are fought. Wars happen when you can't convince someone to give you what you want. The threat of military intervention is what keeps the potential rebels in the dollar system. When that military intervention is made impractical or outright impossible they will do what they wanted to do in the first place.

Hence if China can deter American power projection sufficiently to expand into its natural sphere of influence which covers all of eastern Asia it will remove from American influence markets and countries with over 2 billion people (1,4 billion in China, 200 million in Vietnam, Philippines, 200 million in Japan and Koreas, over 200 million in Indonesia, 200 million in Myanmar, Thailand and Malaysia which were hitherto dependent on US dollars. With removal of US dollar status as the "only permissible" currency China might decide to not only share the spot but further weaken America by supporting the Euro as a third currency which has its own natural market with significant circulation. That should knock the US dollar to a share of below 40% in global reserves (from current 65%) in a matter of 1-2 decades provided that Renminbi becomes fully convertible which should happen sometime after 2030. When that happens the US military will start to collapse and since it needs certain threshold of funding to maintain global power projection - necessary due to America's geography - that collapse will be matched by the collapse of direct American political power.

Because of that China doesn't have to win against America to achieve its long-term goals. It only has to lose in a way that will wound America fatally.

Sun Tzu wrote that to defeat the enemy is of lesser importance when compared to preserving your own force. As long as you have your army you are in the fight and the enemy has to expend resources. If anything any major decisive battle might be the worst of all ideas - especially when your enemy's resources depend on their alleged invincibility.

Perhaps that strategic view will explain why I think that what PLA planners are doing is both intentional and grounded in understanding of strategic reality.

A very insightful and illuminating write-up. Thank you for your post.
 

Yodello

Junior Member
Registered Member
A very insightful and illuminating write-up. Thank you for your post.
Hmmm..... So they are already planning it before it even starts. Maybe those Chinese and Asians who so proudly call themselves as 'United States' citizens' will have a rude awakening.
Don't kid yourselves, you will never belong. As long as you keep your head down and shut up, you will be allowed to 'live', once you open your mouth and act on your own behalf, you will be cast out.
Better wake up before the reality bites.
 

Top