I disagree with the surface fleet. PLA so far is replacing older destroyers and frigates with new ones. Same with the sub fleet. However on amphibious ships and introducing a carrier is the new area for the PLA. It is still a leisurely pace because China does not have any pressing wars to fight or enemies to contain. One of the major problem China has is experience with new technologies. It is a conveyor belt effect. By the time China can replace all her warships and subs built before 1970’s, she has to start introducing next generation of warships. It is a never ending process for any nation that wants to build a blue sea navy of any size and prominence. But China can afford to sit back a bit because unlike the US she has no pressing enemies to contain or wars to fight. In the next ten years China will spend it building up the technical skills and experience of her sailors and officers. Only 1/3 of the PLA navy is consider modern ships and subs. Ten years from now when she finally retires the older ships and have crews that spend time gaining experience on modern ones, then it becomes interesting on what the PLA plans to do.
If China wants a credible carrier force, a medium tonnage jump carrier is not it. China will need at least four Nimitz size carriers to create a budding challenge to US navy. Right now her ship yards can build large oil tankers, it is capable of building a 90000 ton plus carrier. To get to that level she will need years to develop operational experience. She can copy an American carrier via stolen blueprints, but the US navy does not provide operational notes with it. That has to be developed with thousands of hours of flying time in all weather conditions. China has the time, while the US is on borrowed time due to her huge gov and corporate debt.
Look up www.firepower.com. PLA defense budget is a distant third after the US. But China’s strength is financial. The entire US foreign exchange/reserve is 150 trillion. China as 2600 trillion. If China is going to challenge us, it will most likely be economic and financial.
Sorry fee, they are building up rapidly. To anyone watching what is going on in their shipyards it is self evident.
Their growth rate makes it plain that they are doing a lot more than just relacing their old designs. If that were the case, their rate would be close to xero...or maybe 10-10% percent in the positive. But their major combatant fleet is growing at ten times that rate. In fatc, many of their old Luda’s have been upgraded with modern ASMs and sensors to let them work in concert with the newer vessels and have not been replaced at all.
So, as I said, a 142% growth rate is pretty phenominal for a 6-8 year period. Particularly when our rate is negative.
The 65,000 ton Varyag is a credible threat in the concenrated spaces of the Western Pacific within the Island chains. And to anything short of a full US Carrier Strike Group ready for battle, it is a focre that most other nations cannot match. Particularly when also protected by ground air coverage in numbers. They intend to have three carriers by 2020...we’ll see if they make that. Indiciations are that either the second or third will incroporate at leat two cats.
It is obvious that there is significant concern by the professional naval planners in the nations of the Western Pacfic to what China is doing. All of them that can, are embarking on significant modernization and buildup programs. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan (as much as she can), Australia, India...and ourselves are all involved. We are moving more ships away from other areas and into the Pacific...and our negatoive growth rate is slowing and will actually uptick in the next 3-5 years so we start gaining in numbers again. This is happening precisely because all of these nations view the situation as one that is serious enough to warrant being countered...so we are doing so.
Finally, there are a couple of critical issues about the relative value of dollars as spent by the US and China on military systems.
1) China rouitinely is much less transparent about what they are actually spending and we have to estimate what the real number is. This number is politicized both ways so we aren’t really sure what the real number is...which from a perspective of able planning and deterrent is not a good situation.
2) The Chinese get a lot more bang for their buck than the US. Much of the regulation, safety, benefits, etc. that are necesarily included in every dollar we spend are either not included at all in China, or they are very much less expensive for the Chinese because they do not have the type of society and controls in those areas that we do.
Anyhow, as I indicate at the site...it bears serious consideration and considertion in our go forward planning.
So, what may be a 100 million US dollars in China spending may well cost the US 180 million or more becasue of such considerations.