Future PLAN orbat discussion

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
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.

It's not my claim that China's GDP in PPP terms will be twice the size of the USA by 2030-2035

It's the official position from the recent White Papers published by the Australian Defense Department and Foreign Affairs Department.
And what I find interesting, is that there is a conspicuous silence from US officials on this projection.
Which is not surprising, since it has also appeared in an older semi-official US Treasury paper, that I'm aware of.

So you're going to have to argue with them if you disagree.

And if you read again, you can see that I posit 2 scenarios.

A low-estimate where the PLAN only aims for parity with the US Navy. That implies 100 destroyers requiring 3 per year.
A high-estimate where the PLAN aims for US Navy x2. That implies 200 destroyers requiring 6 per year.

And we previously saw China settle on 3 destroyers per year
But in the past 2 years, that has accelerated to 6+ per year.

So how many destroyers do you think China will build?
 
inside
It's not my claim that China's GDP in PPP terms will be twice the size of the USA by 2030-2035

It's the official position from the recent White Papers published by the Australian Defense Department and Foreign Affairs Department.
And what I find interesting, is that there is a conspicuous silence from US officials on this projection.
Which is not surprising, since it has also appeared in an older semi-official US Treasury paper, that I'm aware of.

So you're going to have to argue with them if you disagree.

And if you read again, you can see that I posit 2 scenarios.

A low-estimate where the PLAN only aims for parity with the US Navy. That implies 100 destroyers requiring 3 per year.
A high-estimate where the PLAN aims for US Navy x2. That implies 200 destroyers requiring 6 per year.

And we previously saw China settle on 3 destroyers per year
But in the past 2 years, that has accelerated to 6+ per year.

So how many destroyers do you think China will build?
there's a tidbit about "parity with the US Navy" well it's a question what the USN will exactly do to ever go beyond the Burkes (while getting rid of Ticos as soon the Pentagon can:
Once again, the US Navy looks to scrap its largest combatants to save money
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

dated March 18 of this year);

the second most expensive item under 2020 long-term shipbuilding plan is over 100b for 61 imaginary Future Large Surface Combatants which is kind of 'uncovered cheque' issued by those who may be gone tomorrow; CBO: Navy’s Next Nuclear Attack Submarine Could Cost $5.5B a Hull
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

is the most recent on this

so what may actually happen, with 1t and growing Fed deficit and so on, is the USN using a shrinking number of Burkes during decades to come
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
inside
there's a tidbit about "parity with the US Navy" well it's a question what the USN will exactly do to ever go beyond the Burkes (while getting rid of Ticos as soon the Pentagon can:
Once again, the US Navy looks to scrap its largest combatants to save money
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

dated March 18 of this year);

the second most expensive item under 2020 long-term shipbuilding plan is over 100b for 61 imaginary Future Large Surface Combatants which is kind of 'uncovered cheque' issued by those who may be gone tomorrow; CBO: Navy’s Next Nuclear Attack Submarine Could Cost $5.5B a Hull
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

is the most recent on this

so what may actually happen, with 1t and growing Fed deficit and so on, is the USN using a shrinking number of Burkes during decades to come

Yes. There may be a shrinking number of Burkes in the future.

But what will remain constant is that the US Navy and the Chinese Navy will see each other as their respective pacing threats.

So once again, how many destroyers do you think the Chinese Navy will build?
 

ZeEa5KPul

Colonel
Registered Member
I don't think I need to be the one "presenting" squat to you, actually. PPP estimation is based on a "basket of goods" which would include things like (taken from Wikipedia):
  • Food and Beverages (breakfast cereal, milk, coffee, chicken, wine, full service meals, snacks)
  • Housing (rent of primary residence, owners' equivalent rent, fuel oil, bedroom furniture)
  • Apparel (men's shirts and sweaters, women's dresses, jewelry)
  • Transportation (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance)
  • Medical Care (prescription drugs and medical supplies, physicians' services, eyeglasses and eye care, hospital services)
  • Recreation (televisions, toys, pets and pet products, sports equipment, admissions)
  • Education and Communication (college tuition, postage, telephone services, computer software and accessories)
  • Other goods and Services (tobacco and smoking products, haircuts and other personal services, funeral expenses)
Do you see any 23mm autocannon rounds in that basket? No? How about a Z-10 rotor blade? No? How about a milspec gallium nitride MMIC? Or an HHQ-9B missile? Or a Type 99A tank? Or a Type 022 missile boat? Or a J-20 fighter? Or a Type 055 cruiser? Let's see, that would be no, no, no, no, no, and NO.

No, sport. It is up to YOU to present strong evidence that the basket of goods used to calculate PPP GDP has ANY significant relevance to military products, not idle conjecture.
You should present something if you want to be taken seriously, otherwise you'll just be noise. Not that I think that would bother you much, there's plenty of pseudo-intellectual noise around here so it won't be anything out of the ordinary.

Why would your list of military articles differ significantly from PPP cost? Why would the Chinese economy have a certain level of efficiency at producing one class of good, and then have that efficiency cut in half when producing another class with significant overlap? The default assumption is that the efficiencies between the classes are roughly equal, if they deviate significantly then evidence should be presented for that.
 
...

So once again, how many destroyers do you think the Chinese Navy will build?
thought you had asked Iron specifically

me? I stick to
#267 Jura, Jul 28, 2017

the endgame in terms of the number of
  1. aircraft carriers
  2. Type 055 cruisers (please don't nitpick about the classification, possible later designation of a class with A or for example X or whatever)
  3. Type 052 destroyers
  4. Type 054 frigates
  1. 6
  2. 24
  3. 24
  4. 36
sum = 90 major (4k+) surface combatants including aircraft carriers
(at that point they wouldn't grow, but would be retiring older copies while replacing them with either newly built, or with ships which are currently unknown)

about four dozen, to answer your question, in the 'endgame' context as above
 

Xizor

Captain
Registered Member
I think @Iron Man has a point ( actually,points). Two of which i'd like to comment on -
1.US ships cannot be compared in the sense that they are presumed to be quality wise superior. Many US ships(all carriers) undergo Shock trials which see charges detonated (underwater) near the ships and resulting effects on the ships studied ( damage to structure, electronics etc). It is a very risky and costly process( one reason why G.R.Ford Carrier was "allowed" to postpone it). The reasoning that US equipment are quality wise superior and therefore cannot be effectively compared with Chinese components are not entirely based on emotions/pride/jingoism etc. It would be very wrong to ignore or discredit the very time consuming and comprehensive Q&A process that US has established , over three quarters century of experience, to ensure tip top shape of its overused Navy.
2. Competition is rife within the Military Industrial Complex. Billion dollar mega-Corporations compete to win the Billion Dollar ( Trillion dollars even) military contracts. It would be really ignorant to judge the products of these corporations, which depend upon a network of universities, partners,suppliers and R&D establishments both within and outside United States, as technologically/quality wise/performance wise lacking. (They don't turn out to be top of the line, all the time, either.They aren't perfect and can be outdone)


There has risen, evidently, over the past two decades, a situation, where the US can be seen expending a lot for achieving less. I am quite confident to the position that the US Military Industrial Complex has become a huge cash drain for the country. Oligarchic and even Monopolistic hold on the supply of certain military equipment ( actually, every military equipment/subsystem) has seen very bad "Bang-for-Buck" products get delivered to the Pentagon. The costs escalate while the quality and some improvements "claimed" to be made are questionable and even gimmicky from a military robustness and reliability point of view. It'd make really good "PowerPoint presentation" material though.
I'd like to comment further but ...i hope people get it. It is quite eye opening to see that unbridled capitalism itself is the enemy here. Corporations are robbing America in broad daylight.
All is NOT sunshine and rainbows in Pentagonville.

But, speaking for the Chinese Navy...It would be amiss to ignore its Q&A process for military components, subsystems and equipment too. Every Navy that takes itself seriously will engage in Q&A validation for its components. China too has a developing network of military-university R&D centers. The engineers produced are very fine and extremely competent. The fruits of their labor has started to show but will take some more time. All depends upon the budget allocation on R&D as well as on military spending. Chinese state media running columns on "civilian-military" cooperation is quite telling. On the topic of Chinese Navy, we have seen many experimental technologies, secret projects, investments etc. ( sailless subs, railguns, EMALS, Gas turbines, radars etc) All these show a vibrant and up-and-coming Naval Technological surge in the PRC.
I'd argue that PLAN is very competent, technology-wise. I'd even wager that China is simply superior to every other country other than US in comprehensive military technological capabilities in the naval realm.

On the PPP-GDP discussion.
Since China has become rather self sufficient in military technologies (largely) , i think PPP would be the better figure to be used. Not just the PPP but the close cooperation and coordination of SOEs ought to also limit the expenditure on the military. There are less leaks in the pipes. Procurement costs can indeed be cut. Procurement can be made much more streamlined and efficient. Also Don't forget China's choke-hold on the world's rare earth supply required for advanced military equipment (seekers, sensors, chips etc). I'd think that the Chinese military industrial complex isn't exactly gloomy at the moment. They are smiling and energetic.
 
Last edited:
the name of this thread is
Future PLAN orbat discussion
so I think it's worth linking here what the Chinese military is going to face according to the most recent piece
Strategy of maritime pressure in the Pacific
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


note there're no hard feelings on my part
 
Today at 11:57 AM
inside
there's a tidbit about "parity with the US Navy" well it's a question what the USN will exactly do to ever go beyond the Burkes (while getting rid of Ticos as soon the Pentagon can:
Once again, the US Navy looks to scrap its largest combatants to save money
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

dated March 18 of this year);

the second most expensive item under 2020 long-term shipbuilding plan is over 100b for 61 imaginary Future Large Surface Combatants which is kind of 'uncovered cheque' issued by those who may be gone tomorrow; CBO: Navy’s Next Nuclear Attack Submarine Could Cost $5.5B a Hull
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

is the most recent on this

so what may actually happen, with 1t and growing Fed deficit and so on, is the USN using a shrinking number of Burkes during decades to come
and now noticed inside

Get rid of darling and pet projects
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


what a pro said, after describing an evolution of the USN heavy cruisers in 1930s, "All ships were needed. A
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, and the Navy is making a mistake by waiting."
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
thought you had asked Iron specifically

me? I stick to
#267 Jura, Jul 28, 2017

the endgame in terms of the number of
  1. aircraft carriers
  2. Type 055 cruisers (please don't nitpick about the classification, possible later designation of a class with A or for example X or whatever)
  3. Type 052 destroyers
  4. Type 054 frigates
  1. 6
  2. 24
  3. 24
  4. 36
sum = 90 major (4k+) surface combatants including aircraft carriers
(at that point they wouldn't grow, but would be retiring older copies while replacing them with either newly built, or with ships which are currently unknown)

about four dozen, to answer your question, in the 'endgame' context as above

You do realise that we can already see the following modern warships laid down or newly commissioned.

1. 3/6 Carriers
2. 8/24 Type-55
3. 25/24 Type-52C/D
4. 32/36 Type-54

In other words, you are saying that the Chinese naval shipbuilding programme, is going to come to a crashing halt in the next year with barely any new orders for the next 20 years.

Note that in the past 2 years, they decided to ramp up naval construction significantly.

That would be a huge mistake if they were only aiming for your ORBAT, and they're not that stupid.

Plus come to think of it, the Chinese have announced a huge expansion to the Marine Corps.
And there is no point in such an expansion, if they didn't expect to be able to achieve maritime superiority for such a force.
 
Last edited:
Top