Is the PLA's main Ground Force modernisation phase complete?

pugachev_diver said:

Majority of the expenses are spent on dailly expenditures and maintenance fees. PLA is too big, even if every one of them grab a burger, it would costs in the tens of millions. Unlike Israel, even if every gun gets broken and have to be replaced, it would still not cost that much

Click to expand...

Actually "PLA is too big" is a myth ... it is not true . PLA Ground force has "only" 1.7M active soldier and soon will be reduced to 1.5M. Israel Defenses Forces has Active personnel of 187K. So PLA ground force is "only" 9x bigger than IDF ..... not that big, considering China has about 200x more population than Israel and China has 460x more area

antiterror13 said:

Ok .. now China' defence budget will increase by 12.7% or roughly $10B more than in 2010 ... it equals to roughly total defence budget of Taiwan or Iran.

I predict this extra $$$ will be used to purchase more 052C++, Varyag, J-10B, Yuan+, 095, and Type-99 and more training and exercise

Click to expand...

(Nothing personal, pal!) I got this good habit of linking topics togather.

Isn't it EXACTLY at this same SDF that people suggesting that PLA is having TOO FEW warhead stockpiles? Now even the publics knows PLA got this much of budget, it would SURELY address some of our fans' concerns, right?

And the "ugly uniform" tpoic? the "insufficient body armor"?...pretty much insufficient of EVERYTHING?

Man, I bet dump all the money inside for these stuff, we can still see the same issues next year.

What's so worry about the statistic two-digit increment of defence budget? Statistically, PRC should have fell apart.. let me see... nine times, already. And with THIS KIND OF spend on defence, surely PRC is going to repeat USSR's fate and fall apart, one more time.

(Sigh...) To anyone humored with this, cheers!

I don't think PLA will be like the soviet. The soviet economic model failed because it is too focus in heavy industry and Politicians control the production. This result in famine. Since CCP reform there policy they now don't have the famine problem.

I think they keep increasing there budget is to give jobs to there state-owned enterprise and the only thing that state-owned enterprise is good at is heavy industry so mostly weapons. I still think CCP still try to keep some of it ideology.

The other thing is that working in state-owned enterprise doesn't function as efficiently as a company under marketing economy.

pugachev_diver said:

Majority of the expenses are spent on dailly expenditures and maintenance fees. PLA is too big, even if every one of them grab a burger, it would costs in the tens of millions. Unlike Israel, even if every gun gets broken and have to be replaced, it would still not cost that much

Click to expand...

Wrong. they have said openly roughly 1/3 go toward salary and welfare of the soldiers,facilities, 1/3 toward training and maintenance,1/3 toward weapon procurement. Research and development is not including in the budget. It will be spread out among budget of other Departments.

Military budget constitute minuscule of 1.5 %GDP or 6 % goverment spending. Soviet Union spend 17 % of GDP or 50% of goverment spending toward defense spending No wonder they were busted. No economy can sustain such heavy expenditure on weapon for long time . Starving civilian economy out of funding

Plus China has thriving civilian economy while soviet union cannot even make a decent car during the cold war . Rmember Lada?

Hendrik_2000 said:

Wrong. they have said openly roughly 1/3 go toward salary and welfare of the soldiers,facilities, 1/3 toward training and maintenance,1/3 toward weapon procurement. Research and development is not including in the budget. It will be spread out among budget of other Departments.

Military budget constitute minuscule of 1.5 %GDP or 6 % goverment spending. Soviet Union spend 17 % of GDP or 50% of goverment spending toward defense spending No wonder they were busted. No economy can sustain such heavy expenditure on weapon for long time . Starving civilian economy out of funding

Plus China has thriving civilian economy while soviet union cannot even make a decent car during the cold war . Rmember Lada?

Click to expand...

I think China should spend 2.5% GDP or ~$150B or approximately 11% of govt spending in 2011

I know China can afford this ... and remember because most China defense spending in local currency ... actually it creates more jobs and good for the economy . Unlike India who gets a lot of weapons from foreigners

Eh, military spending is not as good for economy as other spending. With military spending you get the benefit once (pay out to factories, contractors, salaries), but unless there is a war, you don't get another direct benefit. With civilian spending, you get the benefit twice -- once when you pay people to build a road/bridge etc, and once with the economic benefit brought by the road/bridge etc. So while military spending does make jobs, it is not as effective per amount spent as civilian spending.

RedMercury said:

Eh, military spending is not as good for economy as other spending. With military spending you get the benefit once (pay out to factories, contractors, salaries), but unless there is a war, you don't get another direct benefit. With civilian spending, you get the benefit twice -- once when you pay people to build a road/bridge etc, and once with the economic benefit brought by the road/bridge etc. So while military spending does make jobs, it is not as effective per amount spent as civilian spending.

Click to expand...

I can not agree more. But the spending will have no benefit to the economy if you buy weapons from overseas ( like India )

If military spending prevents wars from happening, then it's contribution to economy is still significant.
It's almost like insurance - but in this case the likelihood of disaster to happen depends on your payment.

RedMercury said:

Eh, military spending is not as good for economy as other spending. With military spending you get the benefit once (pay out to factories, contractors, salaries), but unless there is a war, you don't get another direct benefit. With civilian spending, you get the benefit twice -- once when you pay people to build a road/bridge etc, and once with the economic benefit brought by the road/bridge etc. So while military spending does make jobs, it is not as effective per amount spent as civilian spending.

Click to expand...

This is why military spending is not the silver bullet, nor long-term solutions to economical problems

I'll say that export weapon is more profitable than making weapon for your own use, because you don't have to maintain and may even get paid for maintenance services.