Future PLAN orbat discussion

I

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
ZeEa5KPul said:
You've established nothing, Rusted Iron Man. I actually bothered to check the literature to assuage the minuscule iota of doubt I had, and look what I turned up:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Let me quote the relevant passage:

Your attempt at a list is about 2450 items short, and that's just the consumer goods.
Click to expand...
Oh, back again for more pain, eh? I thought the conversation was over, no? :rolleyes:

Listen white noise, I'm still waiting for your list of military goods that are included in the PPP calculation. My suspicion is that the PPP is far more weighted towards more common items than items with more military applications, but I'm waiting for that list of yours. I know I'm about 2,450 items short, but you are about 2,500 items short, so I'm comfortably ahead. By the way, as far as iotas of doubt are concerned, let's have Charles Bukowski weigh in: "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence".

Xsizor said:
@Iron Man I think other members have a point when they say PPP has the upper hand in determining the "economics" of military procurement rather than GDP. This is true especially for a country like China, which focuses on indigenizing on all levels. There have been multiple reports on the "actual size of Chinese military spending viz-a-viz US spending" conducted by think tanks in the US and elsewhere almost always concludes with two key points
1. The Chinese actually spend 25 to 15% higher on military than officially stated - and this is simply GDP (not PPP). This is not so out of malicious intent. There are many dark spending by the chinese on strategic arsenals ( read nukes and stuff) and secret projects. This is quite similar to US spending on Department of Energy.It is also difficult to account for the massive spending on internal security. The chinese do however try to insure that less attention is given to the military spending figures. It makes them " uncomfortable". Quite pragmatic considering the fragile regional balance.
2. A huge part of military budget goes towards personnel costs - remuneration, pensions, public services discounts, rebates, tax concessions etc. ( One quarter of the budget) It is very much the open truth that US spends a lot on the very large military it has. Considerably much more than what the Chinese or Russians spend on their soldiers. Truth is, PPP is better suited to evaluate atleast these personnel costs. The US does not, however, include all the military personnel support expediture in its Defence budget ...so it is actually bigger than what is stated. China's is quite the reverse. Almost everything is accounted for BUT the internal security forces expenditures.

@ZeEa5KPul - What's with the name calling? No one wins by calling names. There is nothing to win or lose here btw.
Click to expand...
PPP adjustment for military spending and understated military spending are two completely different things. IMO we can (crude/gorilla math) estimate the latter more easily than we can the former, at least on SDF, given that we have seen military experts weigh in on this several times before. I suspect nobody on SDF has the expertise to say with any level of confidence how much closer the effective Chinese military spending is to one or the other pole of nominal vs PPP GDP.
 
Xizor

Xizor

Captain
Registered Member
Iron Man said:
Oh, back again for more pain, eh? I thought the conversation was over, no? :rolleyes:

Listen white noise, I'm still waiting for your list of military goods that are included in the PPP calculation. My suspicion is that the PPP is far more weighted towards more common items than items with more military applications, but I'm waiting for that list of yours. I know I'm about 2,450 items short, but you are about 2,500 items short, so I'm comfortably ahead. By the way, as far as iotas of doubt are concerned, let's have Charles Bukowski weigh in: "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence".


PPP adjustment for military spending and understated military spending are two completely different things. IMO we can (crude/gorilla math) estimate the latter more easily than we can the former, at least on SDF, given that we have seen military experts weigh in on this several times before. I suspect nobody on SDF has the expertise to say with any level of confidence how much closer the effective Chinese military spending is to one or the other pole of nominal vs PPP GDP.
Click to expand...

Exactly. We can't / won't know the exact figures. I merely pointed out that even the numbers on the spending (on GDP basis) would be false considering the understated military spending. And I stand by my assumption that the Chinese spending is better evaluated using PPP as the base. The whole "how much spending on Defence" is,to be honest, an exercise in vain.

The US has almost a century of constant stream of high Defence spending that is insurmountable in certain ways to the Chinese. These spending ( 400 billion dollars every year for a three quarter of a century) is reflected upon not entirely on the equipment but on the Institutions, Supply Chain, Quality Control etc. While on the other hand, Chinese spending on the Defense ( That started to by 2005 optimally,say) cannot and WILL NOT create these above mentioned assets of the U.S.
iu

If we can agree on the first point...Then why are we even comparing the spending of the countries ? We do that for the sake of comparison. We assume that both countries are comparable. We forget and turn a blind eye to the many other accumulated (often intangible) assets of the two countries ( especially US). One such asset of China is the low-per-capita income. Other assets of China include State owned Enterprises and Top-down model of control and strict scrutiny and oversight.
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Xsizor said:
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.
Click to expand...

Uh, you can see the USA trying to be the world policeman against China in lots of areas.

I am thinking long-term, in that China could easily build a bigger and more modern navy than the USA, if it chooses to do so.

And that if the US does pursue a cold-war containment strategy, that is likely what will happen.
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
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
Click to expand...

Let's use a cruiser, destroyer and frigate comparison for China/USA with the known procurement costs.

Cruiser - 5x more expensive
Type-55 - $850M (6 Billion RMB)
Zumwalt - $4240M

Destroyer - 4x more expensive
Type-52D - $425M (3 Billion RMB)
Burke - $1700M

Frigate - 4x more expensive
Type-54A - $200M (1.4 Billion RMB)
LCS with module - approx $800M

Whilst these ship types are not exactly the same, it does suggest that an equivalent Chinese warship is at least 3x cheaper than the US equivalent.

Plus remember that ship construction costs are directly comparable with ship maintenance and shipyard repair costs, because they are very similar activities.
And that these elements account for the vast majority of the Total Lifetime Cost (as per the Arleigh Burke cost study by the US government)

---

Using PPP exchange rates suggests Chinese warships would be 2x cheaper than their US equivalents.
But real-life suggests Chinese warships are 3x cheaper to buy and then sustain.

So I don't think there should be any issue against using PPP exchange rates for warships, because it likely underestimates how Chinese industry produces modern warships at low cost
 
Last edited:
Xizor

Xizor

Captain
Registered Member
AndrewS said:
Uh, you can see the USA trying to be the world policeman against China in lots of areas.

I am thinking long-term, in that China could easily build a bigger and more modern navy than the USA, if it chooses to do so.

And that if the US does pursue a cold-war containment strategy, that is likely what will happen.
Click to expand...
There is NO containing China. That ship has sailed way past the horizon. Containment wasn't what the Cold war was about. If you are implying military containment of China then... I think US hasn't really been very successful in doing that.
Why should a PLAN be a threat to USA ? Is the PLAN trying to invade Tasmania? Maybe Antarctica? Maybe Madagascar?
I don't know what "containment" means in this day and age where Chinese surface combatants make frequent port visits to Europe, Africa, Latin America and even "enemy" USA. I don't see any role for PLAN outside the first island chain other than trade security. Are you saying that U.S will impose a naval blockade of China in the year 2050 ? With what ? Antimatter warheads?
The fact that China has a submarine force that is predominantly populated by Diesel electrics with limited range, points to the reality that the China is self-contained.
 
I

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
AndrewS said:
Let's use a cruiser, destroyer and frigate comparison for China/USA with the known procurement costs.

Cruiser - 5x more expensive
Type-55 - $850M (6 Billion RMB)
Zumwalt - $4240M

Destroyer - 4x more expensive
Type-52D - $425M (3 Billion RMB)
Burke - $1700M

Frigate - 4x more expensive
Type-54A - $200M (1.4 Billion RMB)
LCS with module - approx $800M

Whilst these ship types are not exactly the same, it does suggest that an equivalent Chinese warship is at least 3x cheaper than the US equivalent.

Plus remember that ship construction costs are directly comparable with ship maintenance and shipyard repair costs, because they are very similar activities.
And that these elements account for the vast majority of the Total Lifetime Cost (as per the Arleigh Burke cost study by the US government)

---

Using PPP exchange rates suggests Chinese warships would be 2x cheaper than their US equivalents.
But real-life suggests Chinese warships are 3x cheaper to buy and then sustain.

So I don't think there should be any issue against using PPP exchange rates for warships, because it likely underestimates how Chinese industry produces modern warships at low cost
Click to expand...
I'm not even going to bother to rebut this utterly ridiculous comparison except to say that it is utterly ridiculous.
 
I

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
Jura said:
Iron do rebut, do rebut (LOL)
Click to expand...
This guy is (e.g.) comparing a 7,500t 052D to a 9,800t Burke and saying it's 4 times cheaper. No comparison of systems, no knowledge of internals, no understanding of maintenance standards, etc. etc. etc. He casually dismisses both the vast differences between the ships being compared as well as his own lack of knowledge of the necessities with a simple "whilst these ship types are not exactly the same..." as if this somehow works like a magic wand to make the comparisons any less malodorous. Need I say more?
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
Iron Man said:
This guy is (e.g.) comparing a 7,500t 052D to a 9,800t Burke and saying it's 4 times cheaper. No comparison of systems, no knowledge of internals, no understanding of maintenance standards, etc. etc. etc. He casually dismisses both the vast differences between the ships being compared as well as his own lack of knowledge of the necessities with a simple "whilst these ship types are not exactly the same..." as if this somehow works like a magic wand to make the comparisons any less malodorous. Need I say more?
Click to expand...
yes please:
Burke x Type 052D
AndrewS said:
Destroyer - 4x more expensive
Type-52D - $425M (3 Billion RMB)
Burke - $1700M
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top