Future PLAN orbat discussion

AndrewS said:

I would actually argue that excessive Chinese military power does not hurt relations with small nations who want a deeper trade relationship.

Note that China is the world's largest trading nation, sits at the centre of the Asian trade network, and also has ASEAN as a larger trading partner than the USA. So the growth of Chinese seapower and airpower means China is better able to defend China's trade and the global trading system against the US military. From that standpoint, a stronger Chinese military means trade relations with China are more secure than with the USA.

The key thing is that Chinese aircraft and ships can't conquer and hold territory.
And that China doesn't share a land border or has settled its land borders with its ASEAN neighbours, so they don't feel that the Chinese Army will be used against them, unless they join an anti-China military alliance.

So a larger Chinese military also deters the smaller ASEAN nations from joining any anti-China military alliance that the USA wants to create.

Click to expand...

What you are saying is true for now, but have you ever thought of why they are true?
Let me ask you a question, what constitute as "excessive"? How many ships? How many planes? How many submarines? How many ballistic missiles?
The truth is that "excessive" of anything is bad.

jimmyjames30x30 said:

Oh, okey, uhm, this is quite complicated, it will take me a long time and a lot of effort to explain. So I won't be bothered, I will just give you some hint.
Have you ever heard of "中国地形的三大阶梯"? Check out relevant Chinese articles and books about how the "三大阶梯" relate to the strategic national security of China. China's highest priority core safety/security is her ecological security/safety （生态安全）.

Click to expand...

I still don't understand why you think Central Asia and South Xinjiang are vulnerable.

China holds the high ground in these lands, controls the water sources, and also has military and economic superiority over the neighbouring lands.

So you should try to explain your reasoning.

jimmyjames30x30 said:

What you are saying is true for now, but have you ever thought of why they are true?
Let me ask you a question, what constitute as "excessive"? How many ships? How many planes? How many submarines? How many ballistic missiles?
The truth is that "excessive" of anything is bad.

Click to expand...

True.

But your point was specifically that excessive Chinese military power was BAD for relations between China and the smaller nations in ASEAN.

AndrewS said:

True.

But your point was specifically that excessive Chinese military power was BAD for relations between China and the smaller nations in ASEAN.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's right. And to me, what constitute an excessive Chinese military power are forces that doesn't really have a clear foe. For example, if the US hypothetically decide to only assign 30% (3-4 super carriers) of its navy in Asia Pacific, and China, on the other hand, has 10 super carriers all deployed to Asia Pacific. Will you not think that's excessive? To me, that would be a waste of money and resources, and it earns nothing but fear, suspicion and ill will from neighbors. They will become a budgetary drain, while at the same time, worsening China's relations with its neighbors and far away countries.

For me, the US is actually playing in China's hand by gradually reassigning all its forces in the Asia Pacific region. Because the Chinese navy is on the rise, and China has the clear logistical advantage, because China is much closer. The USA's mind set of containing China is idiotic. Reassigning more percentage of US naval force to Indo-Pacific only works to legitimize China's expanding navy.

Just think about it, if China has four 003 deployed to Hainan Island and South China Sea. How many US super carriers would be needed in order to "show force"? At least 8 to be two to one, and that's not enough because China has naval land-based aircrafts on SCS islands, and PLAAF aircrafts and Rocket Force advanced missiles from the Southern Military District. This is what I would call "四两拨千斤"。

AndrewS said:

That assumes the USA has the military strength and resolve to reverse Chinese gains in Taiwan or South Korea for example.

You're talking about the US conducting a successful amphibious invasion of Taiwan or South Korea, in the face of an entrenched Chinese Army. And suppose a political settlement is agreed between China-Taiwan or China-South Korea. Remember these countries are approaching a situation where their exports to China are more important than to the rest of the world combined.

So what political goal would the US achieve in continuing a war?

Click to expand...

I don't want to get into the specifics of a hypothetical conflict too much as we are already toeing the line carefully in terms of discussions about hypothetical conflict.
However, I think that your underlying reasoning is that the US would not have the political resolve to pursue a high intensity, expansive and long duration conflict to determine the geopolitical and strategic balance of the western pacific in event of conflict.


I simply do not think that is a viable assumption for the PLA's strategic planners to make.

I'm not discounting the possibility of a long-drawn out war.
But China pursuing a symmetric strategy in building a navy for blue water air/sea control will take at least 15-20 years.

There is no realistic way to drastically speed this up even with significant extra funding, because the carriers and carrier aircraft need another 5-10 years of development time.

So realistically from a technical and budgetary point of view, it's better to spend the next 10 years on producing platforms that leverage mainland Chinese bases, whilst developing blue-water naval capabilities so they are mature and ready for mass-production.

Click to expand...

I think I've mentioned in my last few posts that my vision for the true form of a PLAN high capability blue water fleet would only begin to emerge post 2030. But if they want that capability they need to get started on development and procurement now in many respects.

That isn't to say they can't simultaneously pursue more regional or so called "asymmetric" forces as well, however it does mean they cannot skimp on developing and procuring the ships and subsystems necessary to form the foundation for an experienced and capable blue water fleet in the future.

jimmyjames30x30 said:

Yes, that's right. And to me, what constitute an excessive Chinese military power are forces that doesn't really have a clear foe. For example, if the US hypothetically decide to only assign 30% (3-4 super carriers) of its navy in Asia Pacific, and China, on the other hand, has 10 super carriers all deployed to Asia Pacific. Will you not think that's excessive? To me, that would be a waste of money and resources, and it earns nothing but fear, suspicion and ill will from neighbors. They will become a budgetary drain, while at the same time, worsening China's relations with its neighbors and far away countries.

For me, the US is actually playing in China's hand by gradually reassigning all its forces in the Asia Pacific region. Because the Chinese navy is on the rise, and China has the clear logistical advantage, because China is much closer. The USA's mind set of containing China is idiotic. Reassigning more percentage of US naval force to Indo-Pacific only works to legitimize China's expanding navy.

Just think about it, if China has four 003 deployed to Hainan Island and South China Sea. How many US super carriers would be needed in order to "show force"? At least 8 to be two to one, and that's not enough because China has naval land-based aircrafts on SCS islands, and PLAAF aircrafts and Rocket Force advanced missiles from the Southern Military District. This is what I would call "四两拨千斤"。

Click to expand...

No, the US assigning all its carriers towards China is not excessive, if the US wants to maintain a credible military deterrent against the Chinese military. After all, the Australian government white papers expect the Chinese economy to be twice the size of the US in 2030-2035.

In such a scenario, it is reasonable for China to seek a certain level of naval superiority in terms of a blue water fleet. Call it 30% or the equivalent of 13 large carriers.

That is not excessive given chinese goals, nor chinese resources.

If this were to happen, Asean countries would reorient their economic and military policies to recognise that they have no choice but to accept Chinese leadership.

AndrewS said:

No, the US assigning all its carriers towards China is not excessive, if the US wants to maintain a credible military deterrent against the Chinese military. After all, the Australian government white papers expect the Chinese economy to be twice the size of the US in 2030-2035.

In such a scenario, it is reasonable for China to seek a certain level of naval superiority in terms of a blue water fleet. Call it 30% or the equivalent of 13 large carriers.

That is not excessive given chinese goals, nor chinese resources.

If this were to happen, Asean countries would reorient their economic and military policies to recognise that they have no choice but to accept Chinese leadership.

Click to expand...

Wait, what is your argument?
My argument was simple, excessive means more than what is needed to achieve a goal. China's goal is to deter its adversaries, as well as striving to minimize the number of adversaries. If the US has only 11 super carriers and deploying them all to the Indo-Pacific region, would it not be excessive for China to have, says, 20 super carriers?

I think China should only strive to match what the US is throwing at Indo-Pacific. That's about 6-7 super carriers at present and the foreseeable future.

jimmyjames30x30 said:

Wait, what is your argument?
My argument was simple, excessive means more than what is needed to achieve a goal. China's goal is to deter its adversaries, as well as striving to minimize the number of adversaries. If the US has only 11 super carriers and deploying them all to the Indo-Pacific region, would it not be excessive for China to have, says, 20 super carriers?

I think China should only strive to match what the US is throwing at Indo-Pacific. That's about 6-7 super carriers at present and the foreseeable future.

Click to expand...

You stated that an excessively large Chinese military would deter the smaller ASEAN nations from embracing more trade with China.

I'm pointing out that if the Chinese military demonstrates a significant margin of superiority over the US military, then the smaller nations of ASEAN will give up trying to use the US military to help balance against China.

Then the smaller nations of ASEAN will prioritise relations with China over the USA, from both a military and economic perspective.

---

Defining an "excessively large Chinese military" is another question and depends on the goal.

From a requirements perspective

I understand you view is that 7 Chinese large carriers would be required to match say ~7 US large carriers assigned to the Indo-Pacific.
And that this is the optimal Chinese response to encourage the smaller ASEAN nations to maximise trade with China.

But my view is that the smaller nations of ASEAN will still see the US as a viable military ally, because they know that once the US redeploys its carriers, the US will be able to control the waters beyond the 2nd Island Chain. That will encourage some factions in ASEAN to resist a deeper economic relationship with China.

In comparison, if China has blue-water navy which is 30% larger than the US Navy (with say 13 large carriers), it's obvious to everyone in ASEAN that a military alliance with the USA is pointless because the US Navy would likely lose control of the high seas globally.

That neuters the factions in ASEAN who advocate closer relations with the USA and more distant relations with China.

And given that China is already the world's largest trading nation, smaller nations can understand if China wants to build a pre-eminent navy to protect its global trading interests.

From a resourcing perspective

Let's say in the 2030-2035 timeframe, China has an economy twice the size (100% larger) than the USA.
It's perfectly reasonable and affordable for China to build a blue-water navy which is 30% larger than the US equivalent.
If you run the figures, that might be possible with China continuing to spend a modest 2% of GDP on the military.
At worst, it would be a maximum of 3% of GDP, which is still significantly less than what the US spends.

jimmyjames30x30 said:

If the US has only 11 super carriers and deploying them all to the Indo-Pacific region, would it not be excessive for China to have, says, 20 super carriers?

Click to expand...

Not excessive in the slightest.

ZeEa5KPul said:

Not excessive in the slightest.

Click to expand...

Why?