Future PLAN orbat discussion


jimmyjames30x30

Junior Member
Registered Member
That is obvious. It's what the Chinese military have been doing for decades, and what I've posted previously.

These comments still do not address your assertion that an excessively large Chinese military would deter the smaller ASEAN nations from embracing more trade with China.

Do you still believe this assertion to be accurate?
You need both deterrence and assurance. This is why I advocate equivalent numbers, but not more.

China already has the logistical advantage to the US in the ASEAN area. She also has land connection with ASEAN, that means any ASEAN nations that dare to turn adversarial towards China would face the wrath of China that the US would have no guarantee to protect. This is enough deterrence to the ASEAN.

On the the flip side, these countries would feel assured that China is not entirely unconstrained, because China does not have overwhelming advantage to let her get away with bullying or crossing the bottom lines of, for example, national sovereignty of these nations.

This is why I am very happy that the US has bridged its own Middle East Theatre and Asia Pacific to form the Indo-Pacific. This actually give China a lot more space to expand her naval forces. Now China could say that she has legitimacy in ramp up her navy to the equivalent of all of the US Indo-Pacific naval forces, and the ASEAN nations will only feel that those expanding PLAN naval forces are aimed at the USN.
 
Last edited:

jimmyjames30x30

Junior Member
Registered Member
No, it's far from idiotic. You can't just say "technology" and hand-wave carriers away. If anyone followed your ridiculous strategy seriously, they'd never build anything since tomorrow will always bring better technology. But I suspect that isn't the case with you - I suspect you're a Southeast Asian concerned about what China will do with real naval power, so you couch your wish for an enfeebled China in terms like "asymmetry". If you care to dispute my characterization, do explain your insistence that China not scare its neighbours by being too "excessive".

Yes, China will very likely practice gunboat diplomacy when it has the power to do so. No neighbouring state will be allowed the freedom to threaten China's national security by allying with foreign powers and basing foreign troops. If you want security, be sure to keep that in mind and get on the winning side.
我啥时候成了东南亚人了?我祖籍江苏靖江,母亲是武汉人,出生于武汉。成长于深圳。在加拿大读的高中、大学和研究生。现在在加拿大工作。你们这种说不清道理,就随便给人扣帽子的行为简直是下流无耻。

There you go, how's that? Is that enough to prove to you my national identity now?
 

jimmyjames30x30

Junior Member
Registered Member
I actually see China primarily using economic diplomacy in the future.
But it'll be more like how the US does it.

There are limits to militarised gunboat diplomacy, which the US has amply demonstrated.
Eventually, the outcome will come out exactly as you say, because the US will not stop putting more of her naval forces in the Indo-Pacific region until they are out of resources.

I am not deny that in 15-20 years from now, China will highly likely to have many operational super carriers and many more in the making to reach the same or even more than the USN. This is because I believe the US will play this silly arms race game with China.
What I am objecting, is to say that China needs 10-12 super carrier now, without define why and how, and by which decision mechanism and paradigm.

I am objecting to your idea that just because China has the money, she would absolutely have to expand her navy to be 30% more than the USN in 20 years. My objection would be, what if by some random reason, the US all of a sudden give up all hope of containing and antagonizing China, and withdraws from Asia Pacific, does it still mean that China need to spend more money on expand its navy to 16 super carriers? Of course, I am not saying this would happen. I am just using this hypothetical example to demonstrate that you didn't clearly state your reasoning, that there are holes to your logic.
 

jimmyjames30x30

Junior Member
Registered Member
No, it's far from idiotic. You can't just say "technology" and hand-wave carriers away. If anyone followed your ridiculous strategy seriously, they'd never build anything since tomorrow will always bring better technology. But I suspect that isn't the case with you - I suspect you're a Southeast Asian concerned about what China will do with real naval power, so you couch your wish for an enfeebled China in terms like "asymmetry". If you care to dispute my characterization, do explain your insistence that China not scare its neighbours by being too "excessive".

Yes, China will very likely practice gunboat diplomacy when it has the power to do so. No neighbouring state will be allowed the freedom to threaten China's national security by allying with foreign powers and basing foreign troops. If you want security, be sure to keep that in mind and get on the winning side.
I am gonna use what I reply to @AndrewS to you:

You need both deterrence and assurance. This is why I advocate equivalent numbers, but not more.

China already has the logistical advantage to the US in the ASEAN area. She also has land connection with ASEAN, that means any ASEAN nations that dare to turn adversarial towards China would face the wrath of China that the US would have no guarantee to protect. This is enough deterrence to the ASEAN.

On the the flip side, these countries would feel assured that China is not entirely unconstrained, because China does not have overwhelming advantage to let her get away with bullying or crossing the bottom lines of, for example, national sovereignty of these nations.

This is why I am very happy that the US has bridged its own Middle East Theatre and Asia Pacific to form the Indo-Pacific. This actually give China a lot more space to expand her naval forces. Now China could say that she has legitimacy in ramp up her navy to the equivalent of all of the US Indo-Pacific naval forces, and the ASEAN nations will only feel that those expanding PLAN naval forces are aimed at the USN.
 

ZeEa5KPul

Junior Member
Registered Member
我啥时候成了东南亚人了?我祖籍江苏靖江,母亲是武汉人,出生于武汉。成长于深圳。在加拿大读的高中、大学和研究生。现在在加拿大工作。你们这种说不清道理,就随便给人扣帽子的行为简直是下流无耻。

There you go, how's that? Is that enough to prove to you my national identity now?
这是互联网。您可以成为任何人。

I'm not the Inquisition; like you, I'm an internet nobody - you don't have to prove anything to me.
You need both deterrence and assurance. This is why I advocate equivalent numbers, but not more.
I agree with the former, I don't know what you mean by "assurance", however. What are you trying to assure neighbouring countries of? That China won't attack them because it can't? Why should they be assured of that? It's much better to have the capacity to attack them and then establish what your red lines are. What happens next is up to them.
This is enough deterrence to the ASEAN.
Clearly not, since several ASEAN nations host US forces and balance the US against China, some even have formal alliances with the US. This is incomplete deterrence at best.
On the the flip side, these countries would feel assured that China is not entirely unconstrained, because China does not have overwhelming advantage to let her get away with bullying or crossing the bottom lines of, for example, national sovereignty of these nations.
Once again, why should they be assured of this?
This is why I am very happy that the US has bridged its own Middle East Theatre and Asia Pacific to form the Indo-Pacific. This actually give China a lot more space to expand her naval forces. Now China could say that she has legitimacy in ramp up her navy to the equivalent of all of the US Indo-Pacific naval forces, and the ASEAN nations will only feel that those expanding PLAN naval forces are aimed at the USN.
Why are you happy about it? I'm happy about it because I want a pretext for China to build its two-dozen supercarrier navy. You (and this isn't me guessing your intentions or background, this is by your own admission) think this is excessive and shouldn't be pursued to "reassure" ASEAN.
 

AndrewS

Major
Registered Member
What I am objecting, is to say that China needs 10-12 super carrier now, without define why and how, and by which decision mechanism and paradigm.
At no point did I say China needs 10-12 supercarriers now. Please find my statement saying this.
I've been very clear that I think that whilst Chinese carrier development should continue, mass production should wait till after 2030, and only if required.

I am objecting to your idea that just because China has the money, she would absolutely have to expand her navy to be 30% more than the USN in 20 years. My objection would be, what if by some random reason, the US all of a sudden give up all hope of containing and antagonizing China, and withdraws from Asia Pacific, does it still mean that China need to spend more money on expand its navy to 16 super carriers? Of course, I am not saying this would happen. I am just using this hypothetical example to demonstrate that you didn't clearly state your reasoning, that there are holes to your logic.
There's no holes to the logic.

If the US withdraws from the Asia-Pacific, China still has the same requirement to protect China's interests as the world's largest trading nation, which I've clearly stated.

That inevitably means China will use the US Navy as pacing threat.

Also remember the US believes in its exceptionalism.
Do you see them willingly embracing a successful Chinese-led order which is so at odds with US ideology?

China is non-Western, non-Democratic, non-White, Statist and also places the group over the individual for example.
 

jimmyjames30x30

Junior Member
Registered Member
这是互联网。您可以成为任何人。

I'm not the Inquisition; like you, I'm an internet nobody - you don't have to prove anything to me.

I agree with the former, I don't know what you mean by "assurance", however. What are you trying to assure neighbouring countries of? That China won't attack them because it can't? Why should they be assured of that? It's much better to have the capacity to attack them and then establish what your red lines are. What happens next is up to them.

Clearly not, since several ASEAN nations host US forces and balance the US against China, some even have formal alliances with the US. This is incomplete deterrence at best.

Once again, why should they be assured of this?

Why are you happy about it? I'm happy about it because I want a pretext for China to build its two-dozen supercarrier navy. You (and this isn't me guessing your intentions or background, this is by your own admission) think this is excessive and shouldn't be pursued to "reassure" ASEAN.
老子他娘的就是无法忍受随便扣帽子的人:道理讲不过就扣帽子,混蛋下流胚子行为。

Assurance is very simple, exactly what I have said at the very beginning: non-excessive means the forces has well defined goal and aims which people can clearly see and convince themselves what these are for. They would be assured because they can see what it would cost you to step out of the line to hurt them.

Again you're nitpicking what I said and putting them out of context. What I said was consistent with what I said before: if China has the equal number of super carriers as what the USN assign and deployed to the Indo-Pacific region, it would be enough to deter any ASEAN countries from trying to ally with the US to try to antagonize China. Does China has the same number of super carrier now as USN in the Indo-Pacific region? NO. So your counter argument is meaningless.

I am happy, because it give China a legitimate reason and rhetoric to justify its naval force build-up/expansion, both domestically and abroad. I have clearly stated this, why are you not understanding what I am saying?
 

jimmyjames30x30

Junior Member
Registered Member
Why are you happy about it? I'm happy about it because I want a pretext for China to build its two-dozen supercarrier navy. You (and this isn't me guessing your intentions or background, this is by your own admission) think this is excessive and shouldn't be pursued to "reassure" ASEAN.
This is nothing but idiotic tough-talk. Do you know how long it would take to built two-dozen super carriers? The Ford class would need to take all the way to perhaps the 2055 at the fastest, to be commissioned. The first Nimitz class was laid down in 1968, and the last (10th) Nimitz is commissioned 2009. That's 40 years for 10 ships. The first Ford class was laid down 2009, and the last one (10th) might take up until 2055 to be put into commission. That's almost a century for only 20 ships.

What make you think this current little situation justify a project that could take up to a century for China to fully realize? Even if China builts them twice as fast as the US, it would still take 50 years for 24 super carriers. Do you even understand what 50 years mean? Do you even know how much the world would change, how much geopolitical balance will change, and how much technology will change in 50 years?
 

AndrewS

Major
Registered Member
I am gonna use what I reply to @AndrewS to you:

You need both deterrence and assurance. This is why I advocate equivalent numbers, but not more.

China already has the logistical advantage to the US in the ASEAN area. She also has land connection with ASEAN, that means any ASEAN nations that dare to turn adversarial towards China would face the wrath of China that the US would have no guarantee to protect. This is enough deterrence to the ASEAN.
Military deterrence and economic reassurance.

Trade and investments should be provide economic reassurance, as both China and the other trading partner see mutual benefit. That is far better than wasting money on an actual war.

---
Also, a factual correction for you.

ASEAN is only a low-level trade bloc. It doesn't even have a parliament like the European Union for example.

And the China-Vietnam border is the only realistic possibility in terms of a land war.
The Philillpines is completely offshore, and cannot be reached by the Chinese Army.

You need to improve your understanding of the geopolitics, geography and the balance of power.
 

ZeEa5KPul

Junior Member
Registered Member
This is nothing but idiotic tough-talk.
You seem quite agitated. Perhaps it would help if you learned to control your temper and understand what I've actually written instead of what you think I've written.
Do you know how long it would take to built two-dozen super carriers?
I know that it depends entirely on the number of shipyards working on the project simultaneously. Before you ask, yes, I think the current shipyard capacity China has dedicated to naval construction is inadequate and should be at least doubled. There should be at least two other yards like DN and JNCX.
What make you think this current little situation justify a project that could take up to a century for China to fully realize?
The "current little situation" is China's rise from an agrarian backwater to a moderately prosperous country to a superpower to a peerless hyperpower. That requires a naval buildup on the scale I stated.
Do you even understand what 50 years mean?
Yes, it's around the time it took for China to make it halfway through its rise. The next half will see it become the wealthiest, most technologically advanced, and most militarily powerful state on Earth. For the Dream to be realized, China must have an indomitable navy that eclipses all others.
Do you even know how much the world would change, how much geopolitical balance will change, and how much technology will change in 50 years?
I know that the Earth would still be covered by vast oceans and that the tectonic plates would be in more or less their present configuration. That's all I need to know to understand that projecting power across those oceans will still be a thing, and carriers are the best way to do that. The only technological change is even better carriers.
 

Top