Future PLAN orbat discussion

AndrewS · Oct 19, 2019

Jura said:
Andy over the years I've noticed you base your ginormous PLAN on PPP (and its future growth), now looked at top-20
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(I took the IMF 2019 estimates, gee now have to remove the flags because of graphics limit here):

1
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
27,438,284
2
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
21,410,231
3
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
11,436,697
4
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
5,794,426
5
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
4,558,680
6
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
4,322,616
7
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
3,764,176
8
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
3,550,295
9
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
3,141,211
10
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
3,085,675
11
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
2,707,391
12
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
2,479,090
13
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
2,465,090
14
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
2,248,308
15
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
1,946,211
16
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
1,921,484
17
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
1,901,713
18
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
1,858,584
19
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
1,389,606
20
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
1,382,361

and, with due respect to all the involved navies, let me re-rank as:

2
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
21,410,231
6
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
4,322,616
1
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
27,438,284
10
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
3,085,675
9
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
3,141,211
12
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
2,479,090
4
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
5,794,426
14
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
2,248,308
3
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
11,436,697
20
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
1,382,361
15
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
1,946,211
17
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
1,901,713
7
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
3,764,176
8
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
3,550,295
5
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
4,558,680
16
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
1,921,484
13
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
2,465,090
19
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
1,389,606
18
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
1,858,584
11
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
2,707,391

the point is your PPP doesn't correlate with naval strength; or it does?

I think it would be obvious that the size of an economy correlates with the capacity to build a large navy in the long-run.
But of course, a country has to decide how big a navy it actually needs.

And naval ships have a typical lifespan of 30+ years.
30 years ago, the USSR was a naval superpower and the Chinese navy was small.
Today, we can still see the legacy of the ships built by the USSR and the lack of ships built by China

Also, the vast majority of countries have accepted that the US Navy has primacy because:

1. they're fine with a situation where the US Navy can achieve naval supremacy off their coastlines
and/or
2. their domestic economies are too small to support a peer challenger to the US Navy

The sole exception is China, which already has:

1. the economic capacity to build a much bigger navy in the long run
and
2. multiple reasons for building a bigger navy - to protect its global trading interests and support its maritime territorial disputes in the Western Pacific

Xizor · Oct 19, 2019

AndrewS said:
I think it would be obvious that the size of an economy correlates with the capacity to build a large navy in the long-run.
But of course, a country has to decide how big a navy it actually needs.

And naval ships have a typical lifespan of 30+ years.
30 years ago, the USSR was a naval superpower and the Chinese navy was small.
Today, we can still see the legacy of the ships built by the USSR and the lack of ships built by China

Also, the vast majority of countries have accepted that the US Navy has primacy because:

1. they're fine with a situation where the US Navy can achieve naval supremacy off their coastlines
and/or
2. their domestic economies are too small to support a peer challenger to the US Navy

The sole exception is China, which already has:

1. the economic capacity to build a much bigger navy in the long run
and
2. multiple reasons for building a bigger navy - to protect its global trading interests and support its maritime territorial disputes in the Western Pacific

Maybe China is also fine with US doing the world policeman role ? China's navy is compelled to being "Blue Water" for the reasons of "protecting trade routes". Why should China have 11 Aircraft Carriers or more? Why should China have 11 more LHDs ? Who'd maintain these ships? What about the supply and logistics networks so important for a blue water fleet? How can China keep pace with the latest technological breakthroughs in naval warfare if it is bogged down by an aging fleet ?
There are N*3 number of reasons for China to not match upto USN in tonnage for every N number of reasons to do so.
Be Pragmatic. Think Long Term.

Iron Man · Oct 19, 2019

ZeEa5KPul said:
1. Who told you that PPP calculation only used common consumer items? 2. Among common consumer items are a lot of high-tech electronics, products requiring sophisticated manufacturing capability like cars, services like plane and train travel, etc. that do have a relation to military production. It's you who's smoking some really bad stuff if it makes you think that PPP is calculated using only food and rent (even that has an effect on military production since it factors into cost of living which in turn factors into salaries). You should consider laying off it, or at least not smoking it and opining in public.

Here is the list again:

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)

How much of this has military application? One item? Two? Maybe YOU have a better list of what is included in the "basket of goods" used to calculate PPP. Go ahead and include it. Maybe you can spindoctor some fake-ass "sophisticated manufacturing capability" from your list that you couldn't from mine. LOL

Tam · Oct 19, 2019

Xsizor said:
There are N*3 number of reasons for China to not match upto USN in tonnage for every N number of reasons to do so.
Be Pragmatic. Think Long Term.

Think Chinese.

Lethe · Oct 19, 2019

I think folks are coming at this from the wrong direction. Given that China will, in the long-run, have the economic and technological resources to match the United States' military, the question isn't why would they do this but rather why wouldn't they?

There are relatively few nations that choose to "punch below their weight" in military terms. Mostly these are small nations whose level of military investment can make little difference to their level of external security (e.g. Iceland, Tuvalu), or developing nations lacking strong institutions and governance structures that in turn limit federal revenues and force greater attention to the higher priority task of simply holding the nation together (e.g. Indonesia, Philippines). The only Tier 1/2 nations that choose to punch significantly below their economic weight in military terms are Japan and Germany. Both of these nations previously sought regional hegemony but were soundly defeated by the current hegemon and have subsequently chosen to accept its dominance in exchange for relatively stable external relations that broadly serve their domestic interests.

Those who would argue for future Chinese military forces significantly inferior to those of the United States are essentially arguing that China should adopt the geopolitical posture of Japan or Germany without the historical circumstances that led to that outcome, without experiencing the benefits of being allied with the global hegemon, and indeed while there are several real and potential major sources of friction with that hegemon which could plausibly lead to conflict, namely Taiwan/ROC, SCS and strategically sensitive trade, most significantly oil. Such a course of action would be unwise, and I am confident that it will not occur. That is to say, the CCP will not call an artificial early halt to China's military expansion and development. Absent such self-limitation, the capability of China's military forces will increasingly converge with those of the United States.

ZeEa5KPul · Oct 20, 2019

Iron Man said:
Here is the list again:

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)

How much of this has military application? One item? Two? Maybe YOU have a better list of what is included in the "basket of goods" used to calculate PPP. Go ahead and include it. Maybe you can spindoctor some fake-ass "sophisticated manufacturing capability" from your list that you couldn't from mine. LOL

Where'd you get that ridiculous list? What kind of moron would one have to be to think PPP adjustment is calculated from a list with fewer than 50 items? It's almost as moronic as believing there are two wholly separate economies: one that has 98.6% of GDP with its own price level, and the remaining 1.4% where prices for everything magically double. How dumb is it to think Huawei's world-leading technological sophistication has no bearing on China making AESA radars, or that China building half the world's ships has no relation its naval expansion. Almost as dumb as believing this (and all the rest of China's military buildup) can be done with the equivalent of 150 billion dollars.

I suppose it might be natural for an American to think that prices for military equipment should be some outrageous multiple of the prices of comparable goods. After all, this is the same military that buys $1,280 coffee cups. But China isn't America - it's illegal in China to have the kind of price fixing and gouging that routinely takes place in America, and unlike America, China actually enforces the law when the powerful break it. Fortunately, Bill Maher has just aired a very amusing monologue that superbly highlights America's rampant, rancid, all-pervasive corruption:

This is the end of this sorry conversation. I'm not going to wade through the economics literature to dispel the fallacies of an economics illiterate on a forum with fewer people than the number of items in his PPP representative basket.

Iron Man · Oct 20, 2019

ZeEa5KPul said:
Where'd you get that ridiculous list? What kind of moron would one have to be to think PPP adjustment is calculated from a list with fewer than 50 items? It's almost as moronic as believing there are two wholly separate economies: one that has 98.6% of GDP with its own price level, and the remaining 1.4% where prices for everything magically double. How dumb is it to think Huawei's world-leading technological sophistication has no bearing on China making AESA radars, or that China building half the world's ships has no relation its naval expansion. Almost as dumb as believing this (and all the rest of China's military buildup) can be done with the equivalent of 150 billion dollars.
I suppose it might be natural for an American to think that prices for military equipment should be some outrageous multiple of the prices of comparable goods. After all, this is the same military that buys $1,280 coffee cups. But China isn't America - it's illegal in China to have the kind of price fixing and gouging that routinely takes place in America, and unlike America, China actually enforces the law when the powerful break it. Fortunately, Bill Maher has just aired a very amusing monologue that superbly highlights America's rampant, rancid, all-pervasive corruption:

This is the end of this sorry conversation. I'm not going to wade through the economics literature to dispel the fallacies of an economics illiterate on a forum with fewer people than the number of items in his PPP representative basket.

This is a representative list taken from Wikipedia, which is taken from this site (notice it's a .gov site):

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

10. What goods and services does the CPI cover?
The CPI represents all goods and services purchased for consumption by the reference population (U or W). BLS has classified all expenditure items into more than 200 categories, arranged into eight major groups (food and beverages, housing, apparel, transportation, medical care, recreation, education and communication, and other goods and services). Included within these major groups are various government-charged user fees, such as water and sewerage charges, auto registration fees, and vehicle tolls.

In addition, the CPI includes taxes (such as sales and excise taxes) that are directly associated with the prices of specific goods and services. However, the CPI excludes taxes (such as income and Social Security taxes) not directly associated with the purchase of consumer goods and services. The CPI also does not include investment items, such as stocks, bonds, real estate, and life insurance because these items relate to savings, and not to day-to-day consumption expenses.

For each of the item categories, using scientific statistical procedures, the Bureau has chosen samples of several hundred specific items within selected business establishments frequented by consumers to represent the thousands of varieties available in the marketplace. For example, in a given supermarket, the Bureau may choose a plastic bag of golden delicious apples, U.S. extra fancy grade, weighing 4.4 pounds, to represent the apples category.

Additional information about published items and item classification structure is available in the CPI section of the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

So somewhere in "(food and beverages, housing, apparel, transportation, medical care, recreation, education and communication, and other goods and services)" is your AESA radar. hahahahaha

Yes, my little SDF economics expert, this conversation is definitely over.

FriedRiceNSpice · Oct 20, 2019

Neither PPP nor nominal GDP are that relevant for estimating naval shipbuilding capacity nor fleet support capacity for a nation. However, if you had to choose one, PPP will be more accurate relative to nominal. That is something economists and military analysts alike universally agree on when comparing defense spending between countries. This is not equivalent to stating that defense spending should be measured in PPP, rather that the true value of defense spending lies somewhere in between the PPP and nominal values, but generally substantially closer to PPP. To get a true accurate value of of defense spending, you'd have to compare what money is being spent on and the relative prices of what is being purchased: essentially a military specific PPP value. This PPP vs nominal debate is always being repeated, hope the issue can just be settled once and for all.

Iron Man · Oct 20, 2019

Lethe said:
I think folks are coming at this from the wrong direction. Given that China will, in the long-run, have the economic and technological resources to match the United States' military, the question isn't why would they do this but rather why wouldn't they?

There are relatively few nations that choose to "punch below their weight" in military terms. Mostly these are small nations whose level of military investment can make little difference to their level of external security (e.g. Iceland, Tuvalu), or developing nations lacking strong institutions and governance structures that in turn limit federal revenues and force greater attention to the higher priority task of simply holding the nation together (e.g. Indonesia, Philippines). The only Tier 1/2 nations that choose to punch significantly below their economic weight in military terms are Japan and Germany. Both of these nations previously sought regional hegemony but were soundly defeated by the current hegemon and have subsequently chosen to accept its dominance in exchange for relatively stable external relations that broadly serve their domestic interests.

Those who would argue for future Chinese military forces significantly inferior to those of the United States are essentially arguing that China should adopt the geopolitical posture of Japan or Germany without the historical circumstances that led to that outcome, without experiencing the benefits of being allied with the global hegemon, and indeed while there are several real and potential major sources of friction with that hegemon which could plausibly lead to conflict, namely Taiwan/ROC, SCS and strategically sensitive trade, most significantly oil. Such a course of action would be unwise, and I am confident that it will not occur. That is to say, the CCP will not call an artificial early halt to China's military expansion and development. Absent such self-limitation, the capability of China's military forces will increasingly converge with those of the United States.

Which people here are arguing for "future Chinese military forces significantly inferior to those of the United States"? Please by all means, link and quote. Link and quote.

FriedRiceNSpice said:
Neither PPP nor nominal GDP are that relevant for estimating naval shipbuilding capacity nor fleet support capacity for a nation. However, if you had to choose one, PPP will be more accurate relative to nominal. That is something economists and military analysts alike universally agree on when comparing defense spending between countries. This is not equivalent to stating that defense spending should be measured in PPP, rather that the true value of defense spending lies somewhere in between the PPP and nominal values, but generally substantially closer to PPP. To get a true accurate value of of defense spending, you'd have to compare what money is being spent on and the relative prices of what is being purchased: essentially a military specific PPP value. This PPP vs nominal debate is always being repeated, hope the issue can just be settled once and for all.

I'm sure you have a source for this and can provide a link: "That is something economists and military analysts alike universally agree on when comparing defense spending between countries. This is not equivalent to stating that defense spending should be measured in PPP, rather that the true value of defense spending lies somewhere in between the PPP and nominal values, but generally substantially closer to PPP."

Nobody doubts that military spending capacity estimates based on GDP will lie somewhere between nominal and PPP-calculated GDP; this is not even an argument being disputed by anyone here. Is it closer to PPP than nominal? That's for you to prove. But let's not lose sight of the original claim: that because China's GDP will be twice as large as that of the US in 2030-35 as adjusted by PPP, that therefore China can and will have a navy that is twice the size of the USN.

FriedRiceNSpice · Oct 20, 2019

Iron Man said:
Which people here are arguing for "future Chinese military forces significantly inferior to those of the United States"? Please by all means, link and quote. Link and quote.

I'm sure you have a source for this and can provide a link: "That is something economists and military analysts alike universally agree on when comparing defense spending between countries. This is not equivalent to stating that defense spending should be measured in PPP, rather that the true value of defense spending lies somewhere in between the PPP and nominal values, but generally substantially closer to PPP."

For one, I actually have deep knowledge of economics. But for an article that goes over this exact same issue in depth:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Future PLAN orbat discussion

AndrewS

Brigadier

Xizor

Captain

Iron Man

Major

Tam

Brigadier

Lethe

Captain

ZeEa5KPul

Colonel

Iron Man

Major

FriedRiceNSpice

Captain

Iron Man

Major

FriedRiceNSpice

Captain