It then goes back to how you quantify hard power of each side then. Do you believe China or the US+allies have more and more capable missiles, ships, and aircrafts to contest the island chains? If China does then the blockade will be successful, if the US+allies do then it won't. This is because all those capabilities are available to both sides, so it's mostly a matter of the difference in quantity and quality.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PLA strike strategies in westpac HIC
- Thread starter SEAD
- Start date
China is certainly behind in numbers but not in quality. China still operates on a 1.5% GDP baby military budget while US and allies are talking about getting to 5%.It then goes back to how you quantify hard power of each side then. Do you believe China or the US+allies have more and more capable missiles, ships, and aircrafts to contest the island chains? If China does then the blockade will be successful, if the US+allies do then it won't. This is because all those capabilities are available to both sides, so it's mostly a matter of the difference in quantity and quality.
Sooner or later China will have to massively boost budget or they will lose in terms of numbers even more.
BTW, if you go by official numbers then its 1.1% of GDP.
For ships and aircraft China should have a fairly decisive numerical advantage within the next few years. Missiles are different as they're expendable, the production is much more easily ramped, and all militaries have just a pitiful stockpile right now so the actual difference in quantity is negligible. So what China really needs is just to keep roughly the current pace in aircraft and ship building, and have a plan for production ramp for missiles while not actually acquiring too many right now as tech is progressing very quickly with much shorter development cycle compared to ships and aircrafts.China is certainly behind in numbers but not in quality. China still operates on a 1.5% GDP baby military budget while US and allies are talking about getting to 5%.
Sooner or later China will have to massively boost budget or they will lose in terms of numbers even more.
BTW, if you go by official numbers then its 1.1% of GDP.
China is certainly behind in numbers but not in quality. China still operates on a 1.5% GDP baby military budget while US and allies are talking about getting to 5%.
Sooner or later China will have to massively boost budget or they will lose in terms of numbers even more.
BTW, if you go by official numbers then its 1.1% of GDP.
Just to expand on the 5% NATO target, which incidentally was accompanied by the NATO chief calling Trump "Daddy"
It's a 2035 target of 3.5% in direct military spending and 1.5% in military-related spending.
Direct military spending in the US is already at the 3.5% level, so it is the "allies" who have to increase their spending.
---
I haven't seen any good estimates for the latest in Chinese military spending, but I'd be very surprised if it was still at 1.5% of GDP, given what we've seen in the past 2 years.
---
Will Chinese be outproduced?
1. In the Air Force, we're now talking about China producing 150-200 stealth fighters per year. In contrast, Lockheed Martin is still planning on 150 per year for all customers.
2. In the Navy, annual Chinese warship construction looks about twice the US construction rate. This is visually confirmed for every category of warship, pending aircraft carriers. But there are indications that China has started construction of 2 carriers, which implies 2 carriers every 5 years, which is double the US
3. The USAF reports that China has a 20x cost advantage in hypersonic weapons in the Western Pacific.
So even with US allies increasing military spending to 3.5% of GDP, I just don't see the Chinese Air Force, Navy or Rocket Force being outproduced.
In fact, it looks like the military balance will continue to shift drastically towards China by 2035.
China is certainly behind in numbers but not in quality. China still operates on a 1.5% GDP baby military budget while US and allies are talking about getting to 5%.
Sooner or later China will have to massively boost budget or they will lose in terms of numbers even more.
BTW, if you go by official numbers then its 1.1% of GDP.
Looking at the Chinese Air Force:
Today, there's 2100? tactical fighter jets, of which about 400 are stealth fighters.
By 2030, there would be at least 1000 stealth fighters.
Plus another 1100-1400 4.5 Gen fighter-bombers, depending on how many airframes they retire.
And note that that the retiring airframes would be 20-25 years old, so still have another 5-10 years left.
In contrast, the opposing Air Forces are predominantly comprised of airframes which are old and should have already been retired.
But they aren't buying anywhere near enough new aircraft for them to be replaced.
China should always aim to totally decimate and dismantle any threat. Doesn't matter if China allegedly leads in the numbers by 2030. Facts are: China has to expant even more so on those numbers. Having an "edge" is not enough. The enemy forces need to understand that only "supreme" and pure massacre awaits them if they go against China.Looking at the Chinese Air Force:
Today, there's 2100? tactical fighter jets, of which about 400 are stealth fighters.
By 2030, there would be at least 1000 stealth fighters.
Plus another 1100-1400 4.5 Gen fighter-bombers, depending on how many airframes they retire.
And note that that the retiring airframes would be 20-25 years old, so still have another 5-10 years left.
In contrast, the opposing Air Forces are predominantly comprised of airframes which are old and should have already been retired.
But they aren't buying anywhere near enough new aircraft for them to be replaced.
Think how the so-called "Western" -in essence - Imperial forces from 1800s think. It is as follows: Any country that can resist is considered a "threat".
It is insane just by the fact that U.S. thinks it can just send destroyers in the strait. Imagine PLA Navy just sending destroyers precisely outside Louisiana and Mississippi, just to irritate Orange Dumpsters, then visiting Mexico and Cuba, and putting some forces in Havana as well.
For far too long, its been normalized that Imperial forces can just have ships outside China's coast. China needs to also make it clear that Chinese reaction will be different to that of Russia and Iran.
While Russia and Iran have experienced being bombed in several major cities, China needs to make sure that shit will never fly in China's case. Meaning, if just one conventional missiles flies towards any Chinese city (being able to penetrate that is), the enemy bases on several islands will be double-tapped with tactical nuclear strikes. Simple as that. The same way the U.S. would not have tolerated that a Chinese missile hits an city in the U.S.
In order to have this as credible threat, China should push towards 5% defence spending or at least as close to that number as possible. Expanding brutally on conventional and - of course - nuclear forces, and making it very clear that also nuclear ones will be used, get rid of "No First Strike Policy".
I also think tough policies are required if China wants to avoid war. The US still thinks it can fight China and keep the war limited to west-pac alone. It thinks it can dial up or down. That thinking needs to be challenged with open declaration that any involvement of US means US CONUS will be severely attacked and US will suffer great damage. Only that kind of posture will ensure deterrence.China should always aim to totally decimate and dismantle any threat. Doesn't matter if China allegedly leads in the numbers by 2030. Facts are: China has to expant even more so on those numbers. Having an "edge" is not enough. The enemy forces need to understand that only "supreme" and pure massacre awaits them if they go against China.
Think how the so-called "Western" -in essence - Imperial forces from 1800s think. It is as follows: Any country that can resist is considered a "threat".
It is insane just by the fact that U.S. thinks it can just send destroyers in the strait. Imagine PLA Navy just sending destroyers precisely outside Louisiana and Mississippi, just to irritate Orange Dumpsters, then visiting Mexico and Cuba, and putting some forces in Havana as well.
For far too long, its been normalized that Imperial forces can just have ships outside China's coast. China needs to also make it clear that Chinese reaction will be different to that of Russia and Iran.
While Russia and Iran have experienced being bombed in several major cities, China needs to make sure that shit will never fly in China's case. Meaning, if just one conventional missiles flies towards any Chinese city (being able to penetrate that is), the enemy bases on several islands will be double-tapped with tactical nuclear strikes. Simple as that. The same way the U.S. would not have tolerated that a Chinese missile hits an city in the U.S.
In order to have this as credible threat, China should push towards 5% defence spending or at least as close to that number as possible. Expanding brutally on conventional and - of course - nuclear forces, and making it very clear that also nuclear ones will be used, get rid of "No First Strike Policy".
China should always aim to totally decimate and dismantle any threat. Doesn't matter if China allegedly leads in the numbers by 2030. Facts are: China has to expant even more so on those numbers. Having an "edge" is not enough. The enemy forces need to understand that only "supreme" and pure massacre awaits them if they go against China.
Think how the so-called "Western" -in essence - Imperial forces from 1800s think. It is as follows: Any country that can resist is considered a "threat".
It is insane just by the fact that U.S. thinks it can just send destroyers in the strait. Imagine PLA Navy just sending destroyers precisely outside Louisiana and Mississippi, just to irritate Orange Dumpsters, then visiting Mexico and Cuba, and putting some forces in Havana as well.
For far too long, its been normalized that Imperial forces can just have ships outside China's coast. China needs to also make it clear that Chinese reaction will be different to that of Russia and Iran.
While Russia and Iran have experienced being bombed in several major cities, China needs to make sure that shit will never fly in China's case. Meaning, if just one conventional missiles flies towards any Chinese city (being able to penetrate that is), the enemy bases on several islands will be double-tapped with tactical nuclear strikes. Simple as that. The same way the U.S. would not have tolerated that a Chinese missile hits an city in the U.S.
In order to have this as credible threat, China should push towards 5% defence spending or at least as close to that number as possible. Expanding brutally on conventional and - of course - nuclear forces, and making it very clear that also nuclear ones will be used, get rid of "No First Strike Policy".
To push the US out of the Western Pacific, it's not about increased defence spending at this point.
1. It's the time required to develop the J-36 and associated systems to operate to the Second Island Chain.
2. And the time required to develop a mature aircraft carrier design and also the J-50. Then it takes time to build up a fleet.
It then goes back to how you quantify hard power of each side then. Do you believe China or the US+allies have more and more capable missiles, ships, and aircrafts to contest the island chains? If China does then the blockade will be successful, if the US+allies do then it won't. This is because all those capabilities are available to both sides, so it's mostly a matter of the difference in quantity and quality.
I see it as a binary situation.
1. If the USA can apply more military power in the region, then the First Island Chain could become a stranglehold surrounding China.
2. If China can apply more military power, then the First Island Chain islands will be under blockade, and rendered militarily useless.
Remember the First Island Chain islands are a bunch of small, scattered, isolated islands which are very densely populated and with few natural resources.
Looking at the Chinese Air Force:
Today, there's 2100? tactical fighter jets, of which about 400 are stealth fighters.
By 2030, there would be at least 1000 stealth fighters.
Plus another 1100-1400 4.5 Gen fighter-bombers, depending on how many airframes they retire.
And note that that the retiring airframes would be 20-25 years old, so still have another 5-10 years left.
In contrast, the opposing Air Forces are predominantly comprised of airframes which are old and should have already been retired.
But they aren't buying anywhere near enough new aircraft for them to be replaced.
Well, it doesn't matter, because we don't know what weapons that will be used when the war is actually started. There are a lot of variable here. But I agree, China has outpaced US in term of military technology development. And that's what matter.
China should always aim to totally decimate and dismantle any threat. Doesn't matter if China allegedly leads in the numbers by 2030. Facts are: China has to expant even more so on those numbers. Having an "edge" is not enough. The enemy forces need to understand that only "supreme" and pure massacre awaits them if they go against China.
Think how the so-called "Western" -in essence - Imperial forces from 1800s think. It is as follows: Any country that can resist is considered a "threat".
It is insane just by the fact that U.S. thinks it can just send destroyers in the strait. Imagine PLA Navy just sending destroyers precisely outside Louisiana and Mississippi, just to irritate Orange Dumpsters, then visiting Mexico and Cuba, and putting some forces in Havana as well.
For far too long, its been normalized that Imperial forces can just have ships outside China's coast. China needs to also make it clear that Chinese reaction will be different to that of Russia and Iran.
While Russia and Iran have experienced being bombed in several major cities, China needs to make sure that shit will never fly in China's case. Meaning, if just one conventional missiles flies towards any Chinese city (being able to penetrate that is), the enemy bases on several islands will be double-tapped with tactical nuclear strikes. Simple as that. The same way the U.S. would not have tolerated that a Chinese missile hits an city in the U.S.
In order to have this as credible threat, China should push towards 5% defence spending or at least as close to that number as possible. Expanding brutally on conventional and - of course - nuclear forces, and making it very clear that also nuclear ones will be used, get rid of "No First Strike Policy".
No 5% spending for China! I think it is wiser for China to stay in 1.5% GDP spending. And I wish US and NATO will raise their spending to 10% of their GDP.