Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: sstevens06

Very insightful comments. RangerJoe nailed it earlier with his post regarding demographics. This is an difficult problem for the PRC, as well as other East Asian nations.

As other contributors have stated it will be a long time until PRC achieves CV operational proficiency approaching the US Navy and Allies. And I think the PRC leadership knows this. My opinion is this is more for PR than anything else. Also in case of war the Type 002 CV will become the #001 target of each and every US Navy SSN Commander.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncivil Engineer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I hope the irony of our American forumites being dismissive of the military capabilities of an Asian nation is not lost on anyone given the fact that we all play WitP...

No irony and maybe they do more in the future. But right now I doubt they have the ability to throw even one ID onto another continent and support it. That makes them a regional power.

I've said it before: Ships only exist to affect operations ashore. A giant carrier? That's nice. But for what?

Intimidation.

If they want to intimidate they should build credible SSNs. A CV is only intimidating if you have the rest of the packages to go with it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

Insightful comments / some critical points.

1) GDP and growth.

GDP growth means very little. GDP growth from $1 USD to $2 USD is 100%. So what when compared to the GDP in the Trillions.


It is a shame on the economics profession that so many economists still accept at face value China's official public economic data. Most economists who actually bother to look closely at the figures (and don't have a self interest economic agenda to push) view them as just fiction.


A far more meaningful comparison is GDP per capita. Look it up on Wikipedia - it has the IMM / World Bank / CIA estimates.


This too is not without its problems.

China suffers from two serious issues which are masked by per capita figures. Firstly there is a considerable disparity between the owners of capital/party connections and labour. Secondly it is a myth that all in China are being pulled up out of poverty. The great economic growth is very much focussed on the coastal edge. Growth in the rural areas has been much more modest. To date what keeps most Chinese in line is the hope
that they can join the gravy train of economic growth seen in the urban centres, hence why they flock from the countryside to the cities but this is no panacea de to the internal migration restrictions which exist.[/I]


GDP per capita (sometimes refereed to as PPP purchasing power parity when normalized against currencies) speaks to a Nations ability to 'afford' anything. It speaks to sustainable taxation, it speaks to sustainable investment in social programs, it speaks to sustainable investment in Military spending, it speaks to sustainable investment in infrastructure. Countries can choose to cut up the pie different ways but the higher the GDP per captia is the more wealthy you are with options to invest.


That is a rosy view of per capita. I personally prefer to view per capita as indicating (providing the disparity is not too bad) more the general well being of the citizens and their discretionary expenditure capacity. The ability of the state to dip into this discretionary capacity various greatly between states, a command economy having greater capacity than a free market economy to do so.


Typically the USA has a GDP/Cap ~ $59000+. Canada for example lags ~ $48000 + . Germany is ~ $50000. United Kingdom is ` $43000. Little Norway often leads developed Nations as $70000+ but note that North Sea Oil boosts Norway's statistic significantly. Norway for example has chosen to invest in cradle to grave social pensions.

Asian economies lag all. South Korea is among the best but trails the most developed nations ~ $39000. China sits ~ $16000. That is a huge huge gap. China's ability to sustain investment in everything noted above (social programs, Military, infrastructure) is decades away from matching the so called 'western'Nations. Hong Kong may be very modern - but there are parts of China that are not.

2) Demographic crunches.

Interestingly most Nations now face significant demographic crunches ~ in theory. The baby boom was everywhere.

India and Turkey are two economically developed Nations that seem to have pronounced advantages in this area compared to the rest of the world. On the troubled side : China and Japan significantly. USA, Canada, UK, Germany et al as well perhaps to a lesser extent than China. Russia by some accounts faces such a demographic crunch further fueled by emigration that Russia population is projected to significantly decrease by 2050 perhaps making Russia an economic hardship case.

However there is growing skepticism among Economists about the influence of demographic crunches. In and of themselves they don't explain the entire picture. You don't know 'what comes next' in terms of growth. You don't know what comes next in terms of scarcity of labor. You don't know what comes next in terms of economic advancement. Without being too political...if "space asteroid mining" happens to be the next economic boom - less labor is likely needed and the skills to successfully implement already exist to a more significant degree in USA Canada Japan etc. Perhaps China / India / Russia will participate with growing space programs but their collective success rate is substantially lower than NASA, EU, Japan Canada in consortium and Tesla - an American Private company.


The problem so many modern economies face is not a shortage of labour per se but a shortage of taxation sources to support future known social expenditure commitments. Europe and Japan have for a number of years been tasked with how to generate revenue to support their ageing populations as the base of working people paying personal taxes is called upon to support an ever increasing sized retiree cohort. This is a challenge which will very soon afflict China too. China too faces the other whammy that its labour costs are increasing as its actual labour shortage starts to bite, a problem not replicated in those countries (eg the USA) with healthy migration (whether legal or illegal) flows.


3) Militarily a Regional Power

I have to agree with the wise Moose.

Every Nation is simply a Regional Power compared to the United States of America.

In simple terms Russia / China / others perhaps India who are developing CVs could project force for a limited time in a limited action somewhere else in the world. Force such as CV interdiction or an Infantry Division in situ for a period of time.

Since June 1943 - the simultaneous invasion of Normandy and the Mariana's - only the United States of America would be able to project force / support and sustain it in two hemispheres at the same time.

Truly it may strain American resources and could cost.. but only the USA can actually accomplish it.

Only the USA since 1943 - 2018


Not so. The last 18 years have shown that even the USA lacks the capabilities to sustain simultaneously large scale military operations in disparate theatres. It retains the capability of shifting resources from a cold theatre to a hot theatre. It remains a global power because it still maintains substantial forces globally (plus has many interlocking military alliances) but at their current level they do not suffice to conduct a WWII level of combat intensity simultaneously in all of them. Plus no one really knows whether in a future conflict all that real time electronic capability, upon which the US military relies upon so much to maintain superiority, will survive sustained and focussed enemy counter measures.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Since the Peace Dividend and the resulting draw down of forces, the US went from being able to militarily handle two regional problem to one. As far as some of our allies, the Germans went from 2400 Leopards in the 1980's to 400 now. Think if Germany had even 1200 Leopards, do think that the situation in the Ukraine would be the same today? NATO without US help could not even bomb Libya.

quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Since the Peace Dividend and the resulting draw down of forces, the US went from being able to militarily handle two regional problem to one. As far as some of our allies, the Germans went from 2400 Leopards in the 1980's to 400 now. Think if Germany had even 1200 Leopards, do think that the situation in the Ukraine would be the same today? NATO without US help could not even bomb Libya.

Interesting piece recently in The Economist about the appalling state of the Bundeswehr in general. No naval capabilities to speak of, less than half a meager number of attack helicopters and fighters in a state of readiness and a population that frankly doesn't give a rip. It bodes ill for alliance readiness and resolve.

quote:


Alfred

... Plus no one really knows whether in a future conflict all that real time electronic capability, upon which the US military relies upon so much to maintain superiority, will survive sustained and focussed enemy counter measures.

quote:

Libyan air defences performed poorly particularly in view of the warning time involved. Intense but uncoordinated AAA fire was encountered and the Libyans fired a large number of SA-2, SA-3, SA-6 and SA-8 SAMs most of which were not correctly guided in the absence of radar and full communications. The heaviest SAM activity was reported over Tripoli and the city of Benghazi. The most effective system appears to have been the vintage ZSU-23-4P / Gun Dish which was deployed in large numbers about the el Aziziya Barracks. US sources suggest that the lost F-111F was fatally damaged by one of these weapons while attacking this target. Libya's MiG-25 Foxbats, MiG-23 Floggers and Mirages remained on the ground throughout the strikes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anachro

I worry a lot about the navy's ability to withstand attrition. A friend of mine is a fighter pilot for the navy and we often speak about China and the problems therein. While he's confident they can take down large numbers of Chinese targets for every one of them, he made some comment to the effect that the Chinese have "more planes then we have missiles." Moreover, if you think about the finite nature of our pilot reserves and planes and the extraordinary amount of training hours and natural aptitude needed for a modern jet fighter, we can degrade more quickly than some might realize. I don't know; it often feels like there are many parallels between our "quality" tech strategy and some of the the "quality over quantity" strategies of the IJN meant to deal with a quantitatively superior foe prior to WW2. Not a complete parallel, but I can see some similarities at least.

Perhaps someone here with more knowledge than a layman like me can put my mind at ease.

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

That is a rosy view of per capita. I personally prefer to view per capita as indicating (providing the disparity is not too bad) more the general well being of the citizens and their discretionary expenditure capacity. The ability of the state to dip into this discretionary capacity various greatly between states, a command economy having greater capacity than a free market economy to do so.

A fair critic friend although we may have to take off line for in depth. I promise not to re write "wealth of Nations"

You may compare a series of indicators such as : GDP per Capita with the Gini Coefficient (that measures concentration of wealth) among a host of others... (1) population growth (2) inflationary etc.

My essential point being that GDP growth rate is in itself even less meaningful than GDP per capita as a high level comparison.


2) Demographic crunches.

The problem so many modern economies face is not a shortage of labour per se but a shortage of taxation sources to support future known social expenditure commitments. Europe and Japan have for a number of years been tasked with how to generate revenue to support their ageing populations as the base of working people paying personal taxes is called upon to support an ever increasing sized retiree cohort. This is a challenge which will very soon afflict China too. China too faces the other whammy that its labour costs are increasing as its actual labour shortage starts to bite, a problem not replicated in those countries (eg the USA) with healthy migration (whether legal or illegal) flows.


Agree and disagree here my friend.

Your thesis ignores the possibility that some Nations will simply ignore / claw back future known social expenditure commitments - or will be forced to. I do not say that to invoke politics - or opine about fairness - it just is.

Many Nations Canada, Australia and European and others - have taken steps to de-politicize some future social expenditure commitments by creating quasi National Economic Sovereign Funds to manage these commitments. In Canada it is called the Canadian Pension Investment Board (for example) and future commitments are being divorced from "the burden of future tax payers" paying for "future retirees". The fund manages the commitments in today's dollars - segregated from 'annual political budgets'.

It is obviously less so if we are speaking of future 'social healthcare' benefits - hence I also agree with you somewhat. But again the thesis that tomorrows few workers must pay for the past generation ignores the potential for revolutionary discoveries that will change the formula. Inexpensive DNA specific medicine perhaps ? Already debates rage across many developed Nations about assisted death and the social implications...??

Again... I will stop here.. yours is a fair critic... but my point is that the impact of Demographics are 'perhaps' over estimated and there is a growing body of Economists that are speaking to this.


3) Militarily a Regional Power

Not so. The last 18 years have shown that even the USA lacks the capabilities to sustain simultaneously large scale military operations in disparate theatres. It retains the capability of shifting resources from a cold theatre to a hot theatre. It remains a global power because it still maintains substantial forces globally (plus has many interlocking military alliances) but at their current level they do not suffice to conduct a WWII level of combat intensity simultaneously in all of them. Plus no one really knows whether in a future conflict all that real time electronic capability, upon which the US military relies upon so much to maintain superiority, will survive sustained and focussed enemy counter measures.

I certainly agree they could not sustain a WWII commitment at the current time. Further I suggest it would strain or potentially cost too much.

But comparatively we almost agree.

The USA is still the most currently capable to achieve multiple initiatives for a whole host of reasons. Even if it involved shifting from a cold to a hot theater.

China / Russia / India cannot by comparrison - or have not demonstrated that ability in a long time. By that measure they are "regional powers" in a very loose definition.


Alfred

< Message edited by Macclan5 -- 8/1/2018 6:21:58 PM >

_____________________________

A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.

(in reply to Alfred)

quote:

Many Nations Canada, Australia and European and others - have taken steps to de-politicize some future social expenditure commitments by creating quasi National Economic Sovereign Funds to manage these commitments. In Canada it is called the Canadian Pension Investment Board (for example) and future commitments are being divorced from "the burden of future tax payers" paying for "future retirees". The fund manages the commitments in today's dollars - segregated from 'annual political budgets'.

quote:

. . . In 1981, we decided to replace our U.S.-style pay-as-you-go system with a new system based on individually-owned, privately invested accounts, details of which I will provide in a few minutes. This system has been an overwhelming success for 16 years and is now being copied throughout the world.

The success of the Chilean private pension system has led three other South American countries to follow suit. In recent years, Argentina (1994), Peru (1993), and Colombia (1994) undertook a similar reform. Mexico, Bolivia, and El Salvador have already approved laws that will reform their state-run pension systems following the Chilean model. The new system in those countries will begin operation in the next few months (for example, July 1 in Mexico).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anachro

I worry a lot about the navy's ability to withstand attrition. A friend of mine is a fighter pilot for the navy and we often speak about China and the problems therein. While he's confident they can take down large numbers of Chinese targets for every one of them, he made some comment to the effect that the Chinese have "more planes then we have missiles." Moreover, if you think about the finite nature of our pilot reserves and planes and the extraordinary amount of training hours and natural aptitude needed for a modern jet fighter, we can degrade more quickly than some might realize. I don't know; it often feels like there are many parallels between our "quality" tech strategy and some of the the "quality over quantity" strategies of the IJN meant to deal with a quantitatively superior foe prior to WW2. Not a complete parallel, but I can see some similarities at least.

Perhaps someone here with more knowledge than a layman like me can put my mind at ease.