New major military powers

[Snayke]

Of course the Chinese military serves the government of China. The Australian Defence Force serves the Australian government. Do you hate the ADF as well? Also, China was in no way seen as a economic power back in the 1970s. They only began reforms in the late 1970s which is also why nations started recognising Beijing as they begun to open up. Also, the majority of Chinese people lived on the mainland. It's not a correct representation of the Chinese people when you are only recognising 40 million and ignoring the hundreds of millions.

And you said you disliked their "peaceful rise" policy, which is why the assumption was made you'd rather China have an aggressive foreign policy.

 

[Grand Danois]

@ GD

Am I right in reading that the British hold a 12 year technological advantage over the Chinese, and the Americans a 16 year?

Sort of. It's a lead in equipment capability/quality as per 2001. As I don't know the study per se, I would assume that corresponding capabilities have been studied.

At best, I would think it describes the lead indigenous RD&T gives a nation over open market commercial products.

Capability wise, force multipliers like netcentrics and space assets, have probably not been added in, as they are not open market commodities. I'm guessing it is on an individual technology or item basis, with the lead nation (the US) as a benchmark. Just as it probably doesn't account for partial or across the entire force fielding either. F.i. the Chinese is nowhere like fielding something like AEGIS - which is very expensive capability - but a cost sunk in the past.

The lead in fielded capability is larger than the lead in technology/capability suggests.

What the Chinese are fielding these days are, IMV, late 80's technology, with a dash of late 90's. I'd say the UK has an 14-16 year edge and the US 18-20 years. With a bit of uncertainty, the graph should allow for that.

I'm not going to enter a discussion of specific technology; it's just a personal observation/opinion. The reason I posted it was to poke a little to the concept that technological parity is that easily achieveable.

 

[Snayke]

Really? I thought China were several decades behind.

But a better indicator would be to see how fast they are catching up in technology and to see if their modernising is working.

 

[Grand Danois]

Really? I thought China were several decades behind.

But a better indicator would be to see how fast they are catching up in technology and to see if their modernising is working.

The West (US) has a capability lead of decades. Even if China spent the same on RD&T as the US today, it would take decades to catch up. And China spends only a fraction of what the US spends today.

That's hardly "catching up"...

 

[Snayke]

Well, anyone with a 500 billion dollar defence budget would be way out infront. (Although those shotty Pentagon contracts could be better spent elsewhere -_-)

For the enormity of their budget, I wonder why US soldiers don't get paid more. :/

 

[merocaine]

The West (US) has a capability lead of decades. Even if China spent the same on RD&T as the US today, it would take decades to catch up. And China spends only a fraction of what the US spends today.

That's hardly "catching up"...

Do they need to catch everywhere at once? they dont have the global ambitions the US has.

 

[Grand Danois]

Do they need to catch everywhere at once? they dont have the global ambitions the US has.

That's the question. If you only consider a focus on access denial of the US a couple of 100 nm's off the Chinese coast - then they don't.

If you're an emerging major military power - you do.

 

[Snayke]

Well it depends on Chinese intentions I guess. They have always focused their military doctrine on defence I believe (just a vague memory I have about reading something about the Chinese military, could be wrong).

Hell, I'd prefer it if they occasionally sent combat troops on UN missions but they only send non-combatants(to my knowledge) or police.

 

[XaNDeR]

You are WRONG. Russia will NEVER again become a superpower. They have only 140m. people. (population is shrinking) And now, Russia's economy is smaller than Italy's. nfloorl: (whose pop. is only 60million) The Indian economy is a lot better than the Russian economy. And their military tech is not the best. They have good tech. thanks to the amount the Soviets spent on arms. Their edge in advanced weapons will fade quickly. Why? They can't afford to spend all their money on the military and leave the economy in shambles anymore.

Again their GDP is smaller. In official exchange rates India is $804billion and Russia is only $733billion. In Purchasing Power Parity? India, $4.1Trillion Russia, $1.7 Trillion. Those are all CIA world factbook figures. They are real.

And how could a country with a military budget of less than 55 billion have better tech than a country that spends 500 billion? Get real. nfloorl:

Your not very good informed my friend , Russia posted gross domestic product growth of 6.4% in 1999, 10% in 2000, 5.1% in 2001, 4.7% in 2002, 7.3% in 2003, 7.2% in 2004, 6.4% in 2005 with industrial sector posting high growth figures as well. Russia became the fastest growing economy in the G8. It grow another 6.5% in 2006.
Also in tehnology russia vastly surpases the USA in many areas , its not as bad as you say : Tehnology is good but not the best..
military budget doesn't mean alot when it comes to tehnology , and yet again the estimate number of budget of russia is unknown , its a estimated figgure , but it can be alot more .
Estimating Russian military expenditure is beset with difficulty; the annual IISS Military Balance has underscored the problem numerous times within its section on Russia. The 2006 Edition says that taken at face value, the 2004 budget corresponds to 2.5% of GDP, also look at 1 fact , mostly military budget goes for paying the soldiers , and all western country's give alot more of money to that than Russia , this is a interesting fact .
Again about the tehnology , there is so many areas in which Russia is better than the US ,like a guy before said in 1 post : Ballistics missile technology, BVR missile technology, some aircraft technology (TVC nozzles on planes is a Russian concept), ATGM technology, tank defense technology, air defense technology, anti-stealth technology, ECCM technology (just look at the ECCM in their SAM's). They're better in a lot of things and there's no denying it. The Americans bought an S-300 to make the PAC-3.
Then they are also other area's and you can't deny the facts , proove me wrong ?
Im not saying anything against you bud , but I dont understand why you are so vastly underestimating Russia's potential and military might..
I also don't like China's military growth , but I don't underestimate them in any case im just always beeing realistic and see things the way they are , and I like both US and Russian military.

 

[XaNDeR]

Well it depends on Chinese intentions I guess. They have always focused their military doctrine on defence I believe (just a vague memory I have about reading something about the Chinese military, could be wrong).

Hell, I'd prefer it if they occasionally sent combat troops on UN missions but they only send non-combatants(to my knowledge) or police.

That is a largely true statement , China's doctrine always based on defence , they mostly focus on making China very well protected against attacking intruders than to focus on China projection power elsewhere

 

[swerve]

Your not very good informed my friend , Russia posted gross domestic product growth of 6.4% in 1999, 10% in 2000, 5.1% in 2001, 4.7% in 2002, 7.3% in 2003, 7.2% in 2004, 6.4% in 2005 with industrial sector posting high growth figures as well. Russia became the fastest growing economy in the G8. It grow another 6.5% in 2006.....

No, he's right. He said the population is shrinking, not the economy. And despite recent high economic growth, Russian GDP is still less than Italys, though at PPP it may catch up this year.

PPP GDP for 2006 (from World Bank - http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP_PPP.pdf )
PPP Exchange rate
Italy $1754 bn $1876 bn
Russia $1708 bn $822 bn

 

[XaNDeR]

No, he's right. He said the population is shrinking, not the economy. And despite recent high economic growth, Russian GDP is still less than Italys, though at PPP it may catch up this year.

PPP GDP for 2006 (from World Bank - http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP_PPP.pdf )
PPP Exchange rate
Italy $1754 bn $1876 bn
Russia $1708 bn $822 bn

swerve , it does not mean anything if its the same as italy , the economy from russia has the highest growth of all the G8 members , so if we are talking about future here as he said , then the growth is the most important factor.

 

[merocaine]

That's the question. If you only consider a focus on access denial of the US a couple of 100 nm's off the Chinese coast - then they don't.

If you're an emerging major military power - you do.

There is the possibility that to neutralize their competitors technological advantage may involve the rapid advancement of one or two key areas.
The Battleship was at the high point of its development when it became obsolete.
It is not completely unimaginable to think that the US/Europe holds leads in technologies on the verge of obeisance, LO tech and Carrier design.


Obviously to be as technologically advanced as your compeditors across the board is much more advantagous in the long run.

 

[mexsoldier]

yeah, technology is the key...

if you have better weapons than your enemyes you have a big advantage, is like put in war United states of the 90's against the india of the 2006, even like this , united states has better technology, so united states goint to win...
technology is the key(have you ever played the game empires earth? or civilization 3 or 4?)

 

[Grand Danois]

There is the possibility that to neutralize their competitors technological advantage may involve the rapid advancement of one or two key areas.
The Battleship was at the high point of its development when it became obsolete.
It is not completely unimaginable to think that the US/Europe holds leads in technologies on the verge of obeisance, LO tech and Carrier design.


Obviously to be as technologically advanced as your compeditors across the board is much more advantagous in the long run.

LO tech has always been here and will also be part of the future. A lead is an advantage. Then there are other technologies, f.i. the technologies essential to unmanned vehicles allsorts...

 

[XaNDeR]

if you have better weapons than your enemyes you have a big advantage, is like put in war United states of the 90's against the india of the 2006, even like this , united states has better technology, so united states goint to win...
technology is the key(have you ever played the game empires earth? or civilization 3 or 4?)

The weapons are very important agreed , for example a F-18 can easly shot down a F-15 , if the F-18 has longer range missiles , other factors are mostly not important ,its mostly about range , its same with ships , if a ship has a longer range missile its gonna have a much better chance to win , the other ship can have nice protection , but it can't stop a volley of missiles , and then again even after all this , the pilots / soldiers / sailors operating the machines are important too.

 

[swerve]

swerve , it does not mean anything if its the same as italy , the economy from russia has the highest growth of all the G8 members , so if we are talking about future here as he said , then the growth is the most important factor.

Growth and initial level both matter, as does the sustainability of growth. At current rates, Russia will catch up with Japan in oooooh - 2030-2035 or so (at PPP). But current Russian growth rates can't be sustained without massive changes in Russia, & there's no sign of the necessary changes occurring. Rather the opposite, in fact: moving away from them.

Russian growth depends on oil & gas at the moment. Its reserves won't last long enough to reach that catch-up with Japan. If Russia's lucky, it might catch up with Germany by the time its growth falters. Maybe.

 

[kickars]

China's military is loyal to the CPC rather than the country. Thats one thing I don't like.

I'm not sure about the US military. But here in the UK military is only loyal to our PM (not even our government) rather the country/people. If British military like you said is loyal to the country/poeple or even the government, we wouldn't be at the Iraqi war at the first place. So I guess you don't like British military, either. As someone once said, do not ware a pair of sun glasses when looking at others.

 

[mexsoldier]

i don't think russia will reach japan in development...

Growth and initial level both matter, as does the sustainability of growth. At current rates, Russia will catch up with Japan in oooooh - 2030-2035 or so (at PPP). But current Russian growth rates can't be sustained without massive changes in Russia, & there's no sign of the necessary changes occurring. Rather the opposite, in fact: moving away from them.

Russian growth depends on oil & gas at the moment. Its reserves won't last long enough to reach that catch-up with Japan. If Russia's lucky, it might catch up with Germany by the time its growth falters. Maybe.

why?, because russia is so big to do it, japan for instance is a little country, 330,000 sq.km, japan don't need to build a 3,000 miles highway to communicate their cities, russia must, communication is a big problem when you are so big in area, germany, france the united kingdom and japan are small countryes that don't have to invest a lot in communication and can invest in another areas like high tech and military, but i think a country priority is to have good communication lines to protect themselves, how russia can stop chinese that are invading by the south, how long, how many time going to take russia to bring their army to the southeast and stop chinese?, furthermore, russia and their oil going to have an end, oil is not forever, first because the demand is very big now, and second because there are more alternative energy sources that can deal with oil, if you have visited california sometime, you have seen the GE fans that produce more than the 15% of the energy of southern californnia, and the solar plants, and the dams, if russia have enough money to build long highways and railroads, and to invest in new energy resources(russia have a lot hidroelectric potencial), i think russia can do everything, another thing russia doesn't have is a population growth, that's a bad thing because there is the growth of the economy, workers produce good that produce money with buy weapons...

 

[XaNDeR]

why?, because russia is so big to do it, japan for instance is a little country, 330,000 sq.km, japan don't need to build a 3,000 miles highway to communicate their cities, russia must, communication is a big problem when you are so big in area, germany, france the united kingdom and japan are small countryes that don't have to invest a lot in communication and can invest in another areas like high tech and military, but i think a country priority is to have good communication lines to protect themselves, how russia can stop chinese that are invading by the south, how long, how many time going to take russia to bring their army to the southeast and stop chinese?, furthermore, russia and their oil going to have an end, oil is not forever, first because the demand is very big now, and second because there are more alternative energy sources that can deal with oil, if you have visited california sometime, you have seen the GE fans that produce more than the 15% of the energy of southern californnia, and the solar plants, and the dams, if russia have enough money to build long highways and railroads, and to invest in new energy resources(russia have a lot hidroelectric potencial), i think russia can do everything, another thing russia doesn't have is a population growth, that's a bad thing because there is the growth of the economy, workers produce good that produce money with buy weapons...

I think its not even a doubt that Chinese does not oppose any threat to Russia , you think China can just invade from south and keep going ? are you forgeting supply lines? the winter down there? It would be even hard to move there without any attack from russia , but as you said this scenario russian air force would bomb them to stone age , and there would be no reason for China to attack Russia , they have no interest there , it would be suacidal madness.