Future PLAN orbat discussion

AndrewS said:

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?

Click to expand...

ZeEa5KPul said:

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.

Click to expand...

Iron Man said:

Oh, you are seriously mistaking my disagreement with you. I don't have a problem with the estimation that China's GDP by PPP could possibly be double that of the US by 2030-35. What I have a problem with is your conclusion that because the Chinese GDP will be double that of the US in X years, then therefore China should and will have a navy that is double the size of the USN. This is a fantasy which only the wildest of other fanboi fantasies can surpass. Note that should and will are both integral parts of your previous claim, both of which are baseless, IMO.

Your other fallacy is assuming that China's current rate of production has any relation to China's rate of production even just 10-15 years from now. This is yet another baseless assumption for which you haven't, and are totally unable to have, any evidence this will be the case moving forward.


You're the one making the white noise here. The "basket of goods" concept and the PPP adjustment based on it is measured using commonly consumed/used items and services that a normal person would encounter every day. If you think that a E/O turret ball for a helicopter or the parts or the labor that goes into making it is something that would typically be utilized or consumed by the average person, you're smoking some good stuff. You should go back to smoking it and leave the discussion to people not producing the white noise.

Click to expand...

jimmyjames30x30 said:

If those are just fan boy fantasies. I would have no problem with that. In fact, I think Chinese leadership would be very much against the idea of a huge navy (larger than the USN) even if China has all the GDP or capability to do so. Because that would be a waste of resources that serves not strategic interest but added a lot of burden and negative repercussions.

If any Chinese politician or strategist would suggest to the leadership that a matching (or a significantly bigger navy) to the USN would be a good idea under the current geopolitical situation, I would not hesitate to call this guy out. Because such a strategist, if not a grossly under-qualified one, would be a traitor or spy who has ulterior motives to hurt China's core interest.

But for fan boys and fan girls, it is understandable. Let them have their fun with their fantasy.

Click to expand...

Iron Man said:

This is exactly right. Only fanboistic attitudes can result in surreal claims like "mine is twice as big as yours".

Click to expand...

Iron Man said:

You're the one making the white noise here. The "basket of goods" concept and the PPP adjustment based on it is measured using commonly consumed/used items and services that a normal person would encounter every day. If you think that a E/O turret ball for a helicopter or the parts or the labor that goes into making it is something that would typically be utilized or consumed by the average person, you're smoking some good stuff. You should go back to smoking it and leave the discussion to people not producing the white noise.

Click to expand...

AndrewS said:

Again, such a fleet would still mean the PLAN would be accepting a fleet size significantly inferior to the US Navy.

I think the major point of disagreement is how large the Chinese economy will be in the future. So I'll summarise my reasoning below.

The key indicator for me is R&D spending.

20 years ago, China was a low-income country but still sustained R&D spending of 1% of GDP. That is at the top end for even a middle-income country.

But now China is a middle-income country, and Chinese R&D spending has steadily grown to 2.2%. And we only see wealthy hi-tech countries sustain anything over 2%. And it doesn't matter whether R&D spending is a cause or an effect of economic growth. What matters is that we can make certain empirical correlations.

If China is falling into the middle trap with slow or stagnant growth, we should see R&D spending crashing down to half of what it is today.

But we actually see R&D spending growth accelerating in China, and the National Science Foundation is already saying China is spending more on R&D than the US this year. Note the vast majority of Chinese spending is conducted by private companies, using a Chinese cost base, seeking profit in the world's largest market for most categories of goods and services.

So this will drive technological upgrading and productivity improvements, and is why I expect relatively fast growth of 5-6%. That would be consistent with the estimates from the Australian Defense and Foreign Affairs departments, which are planning for a world where the Chinese economy grows to twice the size of the US in PPP terms by 2030-2035. That is from 30% larger today.

And in the long run, we can expect China's currency to appreciate to match the PPP exchange rate.

---

But let's say for argument that the Chinese economy does stagnate with only 3-4% growth. That means Chinese GDP in PPP terms only grows from 30% larger today to 50% larger in 2030-2035.

That would still allow China to comfortably field the equivalent of a US navy.

And remember that PPP is a better measure of military spending/capabilities than the exchange rate, given:
1. The vast majority of Chinese military spending is incurred domestically with a Chinese cost base. So imports and the cost of raw materials aren't significant.
2. The difference in costs that we see between the US and Chinese/Russian ships. That applies to both the civilian and military ship costs, where they are known.

On the requirements side, China's major territorial challenges are at sea - in the SCS, ECS and Taiwan.
Plus China is the world's largest trading nation and depends on seaborne imports for raw materials, as well as for exports of manufactured goods.

So the military, government, business and the general population are all in agreement that a large navy is required.
Hence my view that the Chinese Navy will seek a minimum of parity with the US Navy.

Plus can you ever imagine China settling for anything less than being an equal to the US?

Click to expand...

Lethe said:

I anticipate that PLAN will eventually grow to a rough parity with the US Navy, which is not to say that they will be similarly structured. This will not occur out of a direct desire to match or displace the US Navy, but rather is the natural outcome of China's strategic position. The threat is naval blockade or the land-based disruption of oil supplies and other critical inputs to the Chinese economy, and the capability that is required is the ability to effectively deter and, if necessary, defeat such hostile actors, most plausibly the United States.

While the US military would not be able to devote its full strength to strangling China in this manner, and while it is possible that China can effectively deter and defeat the United States without matching its forces in dollar for dollar terms, the other major complication is the presence of US allies and/or other nations that have outstanding issues with China, that could potentially join or be drawn into any such conflict. Chiefly we are speaking of Japan, but also South Korea, India, Vietnam, Australia, Malaysia, etc. It is the prospect of all these nations operating in concert to strangle China that must form the basis for China's future force planning, and therefore China's strategic planners will rightly argue for more and more forces at least until rough parity with the US military alone is achieved. And in the long term, the economy will be in a position to deliver that parity.

Click to expand...