Ok, if all of that was meant to convey the statement that "China has a cost advantage in shipbuilding and electronics", then you have no argument from me. I think it's fairly intuitively easy to come to this conclusion without having any knowledge of even general GDP numbers of either country. I have said on more than one occasion that my disagreement with AndrewS comes in the form of rejecting his claim that in 10-15 years China's GDP will be twice as large as the US's GDP (presumably using a PPP comparison), and that therefore the PLAN will have twice as many ships as the USN. This claim is as wildly fantastical as ever, even after pages of discussion in this thread, not to mention nearly meaningless even if true.
Future PLAN orbat discussion
- Thread starter kwaigonegin
- Start date
I don't know any of the internals of the 055. And neither do any of you. Same for the Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke. And that's exactly my point. None of us (here at least) have any idea to what standards these ships are built, including what internal systems are included in the price tags of these ships. Just because an Arleigh Burke costs more than the 055 doesn't automatically mean all that extra cost was sunk into labor, decreased economies of scale, etc. At least some will have been put into higher quality workmanship, redundancy, armoring, degaussing gear, etc. How much is wasted money, and how much is higher quality shipbuilding and equipment, we don't know. Again, that's the point: we don't know.
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
Well, it is very difficult to forecast 10-15 yrs into the future. GDP aside, it is possible that China at that time will be able to support about twice as many destroyer/cruiser class vessels as the US has currently, but it most likely won't. To do so it will place excessive strain on the economy and will not offer any real benefits. I think the PLAN will be exceeding current USN numbers in about 10-15 yrs, and most likely will try to attain a rough parity in numbers.
EDIT: my previous post was also adding my $0.02 to the nominal vs PPP method for GDP comparisons in general, outside of purely from a naval shipbuilding scope.
Last edited:
Yours is a slight variation on AndrewS's claim. AndrewS seems to be implying that the Chinese economy in 10-15 years can comfortably support twice as many ships as the USN. Your claim seems to be that the PLAN could support twice as many LARGE ships as the USN (which AndrewS was not claiming), but somewhat painfully. Neither claim sounds even remotely reasonable to me. Since none of us have any real numbers to back us up (despite some attempted claims to the contrary), we'll just have to agree to disagree here.
Jura The idiot
General
Today at 6:02 AM you said though (right after "Total nonsense." sentence which has attracted my interest):
so you compared foreign to Type 055, no?
and in the following sentence
you even went to "internals" (LOL)
What are you talking about here? Are you claiming that (e.g.) FREMM variants all have vastly different internals??? I don't have to know anything about the internals of FREMM variants to know that they are mostly the same on the inside from one country to another. Same for F100/Hobart/Fridtjov Nansen. Same for the OHP variants. This ain't rocket science here.
Jura The idiot
General
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
I think my points are significantly different from AndrewS's claims. There is a huge gap between comfortably support and an upper limit hypothetical capacity. Don't you think the USN could also support a larger fleet if it really wanted too or needed too? I do feel that 160 destroyer/cruiser ships could be hypothetically supported by PLAN in about 15yrs time, as it would still remain within China's industrial and economic limits. China would certainly need to increase military spending to a point where it will be detrimental to the economy, hence the reason I don't see it happening. One assumption I did not mention was that I would assume that the PLAN would not also attempt to double or even surpass the USN in the number of carriers and large amphibious assault ships, ship classes which would consume much more resources than destroyers. I wouldn't think that the PLAN would ever approach 160 destroyers/cruisers, unless there was some kind of mad naval arms race type scenario where the USN was also surpassing those numbers.
Last edited:
Jura The idiot
General
in this Internet naval buildups here people should at least mention manning and maintenance requirements/capabilities
for instance, assuming two crews rotations for each of two-hundred destroyers would mean about one-hundred thousand well-trained sailors, LOL
for instance, assuming two crews rotations for each of two-hundred destroyers would mean about one-hundred thousand well-trained sailors, LOL
I suppose that maybe on a wartime footing where the defense budget was the largest share of GDP, it could be possibly be accomplished. I don't know the numbers and I'm sure that neither does anyone else. People always seem to forget that it's not just the cost of building the ship itself, but also everything that goes in after that, including crew, stores, equipment, munitions, fuel, maintenance, all of which are recurring costs. You would also need to build the naval facilities to house that many ships, which then require their own personnel, equipment, fuel, etc. Building a warship has a compounding cost effect on a naval budget not limited to the cost of the ship; this is obvious when pointed out, but so easily forgotten in the middle of a fantastical dream.