PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

BoraTas

Captain
Registered Member
That's just incorrect. The US has vastly bloated costs because it has a political system riven with corruption and its industrial economy has been entirely hollowed out. It's not just procurement costs that are low in China because of its vast and efficient industrial economy, although the Chinese MIC certainly benefits greatly from that, all costs are low because of how China is structured and governed.

Defense companies in China are entirely state-owned, meaning they provide arms and munitions basically at cost because the customer is also the owner. Defense companies in the US are profit-driven, meaning they are heavily incentivized to rip off the US government coming and going; add to that the parliamentary corruption in the US and government capture by large corporations and the grift gets turbocharged.

Maintenance is just another function of industry. Chinese warships are regularly maintained without any untoward cost increases because it's the same SOEs doing maintenance in the same efficient and well-run shipyards. No grifting allowed.

Personnel costs in the US are out of control because costs like healthcare are out of control. That's just another part of the dysfunction and corruption of the US political system. The US is unique among developed countries in having an entirely privatized healthcare system, and the results are predictable: grift, corruption, waste, theft, not to mention the horrific human toll when people are denied and screwed out of healthcare. No reason it should just be defense contractors grifting the Pentagon, why shouldn't the American "healthcare" system get its slice of the cake?

The point I'd like to get across to Americans is that you have no hope of competing with China militarily or otherwise. None whatsoever. There is no "decade of concern" or "window of opportunity" or collection of magic acronyms coming to save you. It looks bad for you today and it's going to look worse tomorrow; that's going to be true in perpetuity.
US MIC actually has controlled profit margins. The problem they have is industrial inefficiency exacerbated by politics even further. Just look at how all NASA and US military contracts use subcontractors from throughout the US. The military and weapons industry is seen as a way to generate jobs and thus votes by the politicians. This is especially important for politicians of so-called flyover states. There is no way a project passes the congress without scattering production throughout the USA. Not that the US industry is very efficient otherwise but this makes things much worse.

A recent example: The A-10 is being kept alive for jobs
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

56860

Senior Member
Registered Member
What most folks usually don't realized is that a substantial portion of the US defence budget goes to salaries, benefits, and other personnel related costs including overhead and bureaucracy.
An even bigger portion goes to maintenance and operations and since the US Armed Forces are deployed globally including forward deployments, overseas bases etc. it takes a sizeable chunk out.
Less than 1/4 of the defence budget actually goes to procurements and acquisitions.
Presumably PLA personnel cost goes per head is significantly lower than the US and operational expense would be miniscule by comparison as well.
A CSG alone cost over $20B in operating cost.
As such a bigger % of PLA's defence budget can be allocated to procurement initiatives.
But as China's numerical fleet and aircraft expand, the operating cost will exponentially increase as well.
It cost a LOT more to operate 10 ships on overseas deployment than 30 ships basking at a port.

Patchwork Chimera:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Full comment:

You are indeed giving way too much credit to our 700+ billion dollar a year budget. Lol. There's a whooole lot to get into in that front, but the PLA's military expenditure is essentially on par with ours in real terms. A lot of people like to look at the numbers on the tin and compare from there, but if you want to get an idea of what it actually means, you're better off looking at how the money is spent, what it's spent on, and what it yields.

Firstly, the US's procurement system is an abject, straight up disaster. This isn't just my opinion either. You're free to ask almost anyone - active duty, reserve, contractor, IC, etc. - and they'll tell you the same. There's a pretty funny quote by (iirc) the Commandant of the Marine Corps that goes something like, "If you want China to start losing, just convince them to adopt our procurement system."

We're practically allergic to on-budget and on-time post-cold-war, with only a handful of notable successes (VA, San Antonio, JASSM sorta, and a couple more). An enormous amount of money goes down the drain, every single year, due to absolutely asinine project management. I've given the example in another comment, but while the PLA is currently set to launch 20+ DDGs and 20+ FFGs in the next 5 years, we've recently reduced our planned procurement of Constellation-class Frigates from 17 in the same time period, to 7 vessels by 2027. We're also only building 1 Burke Flt3 this fiscal year, but are super promising we'll build more next year (we probably will, but the point is that we are consistently and systematically unable to meat our planned goals). We've got an enormous amount of old vessels currently in need of decommission which we were sinking vast amounts of money into in order to maintain them (we're going to lose about half our Ticos by the end of FY23 iirc, and all of them within 5 years, not to mention DDG decomms). As a result of all this, we quite simply aren't going to be able to keep up with PLA hull, VLS, and tonnage metrics until we seriously get our shipbuilding game in order. The problem is, we can't. Practically all of the Navy yards are at capacity sustaining our Burkes, and public yards are a pretty rough option to try and squeeze some extra capacity in. Our shipbuilding has also been positively gutted, which is depressing.

Meanwhile, the PLA is currently building 5 DDGs in a single drydock at Dalian. They are doing so at an exorbitantly lower cost as well - due to their enormous shipbuilding industry (and thus highly efficient, skilled, and extensive infrastructure and personnel-pool), the lack of anywhere near the same degree of military-industrial "graft" (most of the companies involved are state-owned and dual-use. They are thus able to secure profit from their civilian-sector work, and just have to break even on military work, while being able to leverage the R&D, experience, etc.), and are able to leverage their advantageous currency properties to create the situation we find ourselves in, where a Type 055A DDG costs ~800 Million USD, whereas a Constellation Class FFG costs ~1.2 Billion USD. Again, it's depressing. Luckily the story is better for the cutting-edge Aerospace sector, and we have parity there (PLAAF is currently accepting anywhere between 32 and 48 new J-20s per year with the expansion at CAC by our metrics, and Plant 42 delivers ~48 - though that number has shrunk due to Blk4 problems - F-35As to the Air Force per year). Things get a little less rosy when we consider the non-SOTA aerospace sector, in which the PLA gets to pick J-10Cs from the flowerbed at a cool $35-55 Million USD a pop by our metrics.

I'm sure you see what I'm getting at.

This isn't counting the fairly sizable overseas commitments we have, the difference in soldier pay, the other various overpricings the DOD finds itself subject to, or the myriad of other sources of increased relative price we experience.

This is certainly not to say the PLA is getting more out of their budget than we are, but I want to hammer home just how bad things have gotten, and to illustrate that they most certainly are getting close to doing so.
 

ZeEa5KPul

Colonel
Registered Member
US MIC actually has controlled profit margins.
In a sense, that makes things even worse than what I described. If it were purely a problem of defense companies charging insane markups, then send a couple of CEOs to prison and problem solved. The real problem is their entire cost structure is out of whack for the reasons you described and for the more fundamental reason: The US just doesn't have an industrial economy any longer. It's a "service economy" with such contributors to GDP as lawyers and TikTok twerkers. Lawyers and twerkers don't build and maintain warships and, given the way Boeing is going to its grave inshallah, they won't build and maintain warplanes either.
 

HighGround

Junior Member
Registered Member
Patchwork Chimera:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Full comment:
It’s painfully sad when JASSM is considered a “success”. Its program development is problematic at best, and while it is certainly an excellent missile today, the F-35 is also an excellent aircraft today and I wouldn’t call that program a “success”.

Neither program is a failure. They’re not Zumwalt or the LCS program, but if the JASSM program is what passes the minimum threshold of success…

Lol, we’re fucked.
 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
That's just incorrect. The US has vastly bloated costs because it has a political system riven with corruption and its industrial economy has been entirely hollowed out. It's not just procurement costs that are low in China because of its vast and efficient industrial economy, although the Chinese MIC certainly benefits greatly from that, all costs are low because of how China is structured and governed.

Defense companies in China are entirely state-owned, meaning they provide arms and munitions basically at cost because the customer is also the owner. Defense companies in the US are profit-driven, meaning they are heavily incentivized to rip off the US government coming and going; add to that the parliamentary corruption in the US and government capture by large corporations and the grift gets turbocharged.

Maintenance is just another function of industry. Chinese warships are regularly maintained without any untoward cost increases because it's the same SOEs doing maintenance in the same efficient and well-run shipyards. No grifting allowed.

Personnel costs in the US are out of control because costs like healthcare are out of control. That's just another part of the dysfunction and corruption of the US political system. The US is unique among developed countries in having an entirely privatized healthcare system, and the results are predictable: grift, corruption, waste, theft, not to mention the horrific human toll when people are denied and screwed out of healthcare. No reason it should just be defense contractors grifting the Pentagon, why shouldn't the American "healthcare" system get its slice of the cake?

The point I'd like to get across to Americans is that you have no hope of competing with China militarily or otherwise. None whatsoever. There is no "decade of concern" or "window of opportunity" or collection of magic acronyms coming to save you. It looks bad for you today and it's going to look worse tomorrow; that's going to be true in perpetuity.
What was incorrect? I was merely stating the breakdown of the DoD's budget and pointed out that most of it don't go to new ships, planes or missiles.
I did not claim it was efficient, inefficient or otherwise.
I actually do agree that in certain cases a state run enterprise may get more bang for the buck.
 

yungho

Junior Member
Registered Member
Why is the Japanese invasion of Taiwan rarely talked about as a example of how an invasion of Taiwan would look like? There's lots of superficial similarities plus they invaded Taiwan. It could be a good barometer of any successful invasion of the island.

The conflict took around 6 months and was then followed by years of counterinsurgency.
 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
What I bolded in my quote, namely your claim that as China accumulated advanced military hardware, its operational costs (personnel, maintenance, sustainment, etc.) would rise exponentially.
Of course it will. If you move to a mansion and buy more Ferarris your insurance, gas, etc. will go up as well.
Unless of course you think PLA is somehow immune to basic economic laws.
 

56860

Senior Member
Registered Member
Why is the Japanese invasion of Taiwan rarely talked about as a example of how an invasion of Taiwan would look like? There's lots of superficial similarities plus they invaded Taiwan. It could be a good barometer of any successful invasion of the island.

The conflict took around 6 months and was then followed by years of counterinsurgency.
Seriously? That happened over 100 years ago. The technological and geopolitical landscape is completely different.
 
Top