the effect of corruption on procurement is likely not as significant as in any other military in the world. the big thing remains to be readiness. on the surface it seems that PLA's readiness is top notch, but in reality you just never know until you actually go into a fight. perhaps PLA will end up like the russians and just crap the bed, or it is just as likely that ROCAF is in terrible shape and you get a one sided slaughter like in the gulf war.
PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency
- Thread starter pugachev_diver
- Start date
You can't be serious when you suggest China would lack projects to spend money on!
Compared with the USAF, the PLAAF has a gap of some 500 air transports and 450 tankers. The PLAN has a gap of some 600 tactical fighters compared to the USN and another 150 in EW fighters.
In terms of submarines, the gap is between 40-50 SSN/SSBNs.
China has 0 long range strategic bombers and no current way to reliably and sustainably strike CONUS with conventional weapons.
PLA missile inventory is a bit opaque but a 10,000+ cruise missile inventory like the one the US is building now would be most necessary.
Last edited:
My opinion is that all extant militaries have horrible readiness for the kind of warfare they are about to face. The one with the greatest industrial capacity will eventually triumph not through skill but through endurance.
Rather than doing that, why China not just send their Special Force to capture those PRC criminals who hide in Myanmar?
And what would China do with 500 large air transports?
The US military is designed for distant power projection globally.
However, China's core interests are in the Western Pacific, next to China's coastline.
This will only change once China has built up a Navy which can contest for control of the broader oceans.
And this will take a minimum of another 10 years.
---
A similar calculation applies to airborne tankers, where heavyweight fighters taking off from mainland China can easily reach Taiwan or Korea. It's really only Japan and potentially the Philippines which are at the limits of fighter range, plus operations against the US Navy. I would think an absolute maximum of 1000 sorties per day would be required or is practical, which would require around 250 tankers.
Then compare this to current production rates of the Y-20, which is 12-24? per year. Presumably this is all the MRTT variant which can undertake both the Tanker and Transport missions.
If Y-20 production was doubled, assuming 12 per year, an extra 12 Y-20 would be $1.8 Bn per year.
If we assume Y-20 production is currently at 24 per year, an extra 24 Y-20 would be $3.6 Bn per year. Even this figure would only account for 1.4% of a $260 Bn military budget increase, assuming it went from 1.7% to 3% of GDP. Yet producing 48 Y-20 would mean it only takes 5 years to reach the previously mentioned 250 tanker requirement.
---
So in summary, there are 2 main points:
1. It would be nice to have more tankers or transports sooner yes, but there comes a point where you build up a huge supply chain and production capacity, only to have to shut it down very quickly. And you don't actually shave off many years in terms of acquiring the capability you're looking for.
2. There is no need for China to increase its military spending from 1.7% to 3% of GDP. Even an increase from 1.7% to just 2% would mean an extra $60 Bn per year. Roughly speaking, this alone would be enough to double Chinese military procurement rates. Hence my view that from a national security perspective, if you had another 1% of GDP available ($200 Bn per year), you're better off using this for the dual-circulation strategy, which aims to cut Chinese dependency on foreign imports, make the world more dependent on China and also build up world-class Chinese companies in literally every industry and sub-sector. This will also provide more jobs and economic growth.
Cost out what you are suggesting.
China is currently at 3 SSNs per year. Roughly speaking, we see a pattern where Chinese naval ships cost half that of the US.
So even assuming a doubling to 6 Type-095 SSNs per year, that only comes to $12 Billion per year, which is less than 5% of a $260 Bn budget increase, if military spending were to go from 1.7% to 3% of GDP.
---
China and the US are simply too far apart for long-range strategic bombers to reach other.
---
The US is going with large numbers of long-range expensive cruise missiles because it has no choice.
There are only a handful of floating airbases (US aircraft carriers)
Plus the US only has access to a small number of land bases, all of which could be expected to come under continuous attack. All of Japan is within 1300km of mainland China, which is within range of heavyweight air superiority fighters and affordable missiles. Even Shaheeds costing $20k? can launch from China and reach Japan. In comparison, it isn't credible for the US to launch larger numbers of equivalent munitions, given that the Chinese military would likely be capable of blockading of Japan for example.
Plus we can see that China isn't going with cruise missiles but hypersonic missiles.
Again, work out what 10000 missiles like the DF-17. would cost. Over a 5 year production run and assuming a cost of $2Mn, that would only be $4 Bn per year. Yet this would be so much overkill given that Chinese aircraft can follow up on an initial missile strike and also launch cheaper missiles/drones afterwards.
---
NB. I've mostly omitted operating costs because they aren't too relevant to the analysis.
Another thing to note is Chinese shipyards are currently eating South Korean / Japanese shipyards' lunch. They have lost an insane amount of market share and this means over time those shipyards must shrink, reducing capacity and the pool of skilled labor. That means construction and maintenance costs for their navy will also skyrocket. You can't sustain shipyards only off of military orders, a cursory glance at the state of the USN tells you that.
So instead of ordering more naval ships, crowding out civilian orders for a slightly faster build up, use that money to invest in your economy. Use it to, for example, make your shipyards even more competitive by reducing logistic costs, increasing automation, etc. As your economy grows, so does the amount of money you can spend on the military even if your % spending never rises. At the same time, the increased competitiveness is dealing serious damage to the adversaries budget. Winning the civilian sphere is also winning in the military sphere. The military needs a functional economy behind it.
So instead of ordering more naval ships, crowding out civilian orders for a slightly faster build up, use that money to invest in your economy. Use it to, for example, make your shipyards even more competitive by reducing logistic costs, increasing automation, etc. As your economy grows, so does the amount of money you can spend on the military even if your % spending never rises. At the same time, the increased competitiveness is dealing serious damage to the adversaries budget. Winning the civilian sphere is also winning in the military sphere. The military needs a functional economy behind it.
This should be part of an overall strategy for China to degrade and deconstruct the pillar industries which are keeping the economies of South Korea, Japan and also Taiwan up.
Not just in the shipbuilding domain, but also various others - Semiconductors, ground-based transportations, clean energies, high-end industrial machineries, equipment & precision instruments, AI & ML, supercomputing & quantum computing etc - China must snatch all these delicious lunches from their plates, making them weak and suffer from hunger.
The goal here is to 穷台废台，穷韩废韩，穷日废日.
Without the necessary economic size and industrial prowess to support their military expenditures, they will only be left with two choices - Scale down their military spending and thus making their defenses weak, or maintain/spike their military spending at the cost of quality of life of their citizens. Choosing either won't make their overall situations any better.
Last edited:
Weak, regional powers have their interests clustered near their borders. Superpower's interests extend throughout the global.
Nonsense. With strategic airlift alone, China can project power throughout the Middle East. With access to Russian airspace, airlift can reach Europe. Palletized cruise missile or air launched ballistic missiles from airlifters can reach North America.
China should expand its fighter fleet and add an additional drone fleet, all of which requires additional tankers. Bombers and ISR aircrafts are even more fuel hungry.
MRTT tanker requirement would significantly exceed 250. The full lifecycle cost of an aircraft significantly exceed the flyaway cost.
The whole point of an increased budget is so that the total size of the force is increased. With increased production, this results in similar program length.
Buying made-in-China high tech products is the dual-circulation strategy. There is nothing that would "build up world-class Chinese companies in literally every industry and sub-sector" more than aerospace.
The 3 SSNs are 093Bs. 095 are expected to be larger and more expensive. You are also ignoring the sustainment cost. That being said, having ~20% of the budget increase going to the SSN program is very reasonable.
Are you serious? US B-52/B-1B (home based in CONUS) routinely fly around SCS and ECS (yet again demonstrating the value of tankers). Chinese bombers can reach CONUS by flying over Russia, refueling over the North Pole and back.
The exact ratio of cruise/ballististic/HGV is besides the point. What China needs is the magazine depth that it currently lacks.
-------
Quite frankly, I am disgusted by your response. Your cowardice surpass that of the Song and your insularity surpass that of the Ming. Why would any country choose to ally with China instead of the US if China cannot project force when necessary? China today has the means and the technology, and what it lacks is simply vision.
When it comes to warfare, you want to completely overwhelm your opponents if you need to fight or scare them so much that they will leave the field anyway. You want enough dominance that your opponent's vassal switch sides.
At the current PLA strength level, they are doing none of that. Instead they are making vassals like Japan, Taiwan enough scared to be an even stronger ally to US, and increase military budgets to counter PLA growth but not too scared that they switch sides to China.
I do think a large budget increase is not a bad thing for PLA. But I think China's biggest gap in terms of air power is fighter count.
China currently has 1500 4th gen+ fighters. It needs to be twice the size of 50% of US and all of allies combined. Or lets say atleast US size. Only when PLA achieves that, they will attain total dominance of the first island chain.
So, PLA modern fighter count should be raised to atleast 4000+ planes. Ideally, 3000+ 5th gen planes. With current rates, China will need 25+ years to get there. So, This is a huge gap.
Moreover, China's Carrier count should be increased to 10+ just to gain dominance in the western pacific. The current slow rate they are going, again it will take 20+ years to get there.
If China's goal is complete dominance of the near seas, then they need to move faster and increase budgets much more.
At the current PLA strength level, they are doing none of that. Instead they are making vassals like Japan, Taiwan enough scared to be an even stronger ally to US, and increase military budgets to counter PLA growth but not too scared that they switch sides to China.
I do think a large budget increase is not a bad thing for PLA. But I think China's biggest gap in terms of air power is fighter count.
China currently has 1500 4th gen+ fighters. It needs to be twice the size of 50% of US and all of allies combined. Or lets say atleast US size. Only when PLA achieves that, they will attain total dominance of the first island chain.
So, PLA modern fighter count should be raised to atleast 4000+ planes. Ideally, 3000+ 5th gen planes. With current rates, China will need 25+ years to get there. So, This is a huge gap.
Moreover, China's Carrier count should be increased to 10+ just to gain dominance in the western pacific. The current slow rate they are going, again it will take 20+ years to get there.
If China's goal is complete dominance of the near seas, then they need to move faster and increase budgets much more.
i agree, we are normally surprised by how badly militaries perform on a contingency.