China Now 2nd to U.S. in military spending

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by KGB_resident, Jun 9, 2009.

?
  1. are almost invisible. Double and triple them

    18.5%
  2. insufficient, must be much bigger

    55.6%
  3. could be increased at least modestly

    25.9%
  4. should remain unchanged

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. are slightly inflated

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. are too big, reduce them

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  7. could be halved freely

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  8. must be reduced to zero

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?c=AME&s=TOP&i=4127867

    http://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2009/files/SIPRIYB09summary.pdf

    Are military spendings in the UK sufficient or too small?
     
  2. imagine what we could do with the USA's budget..
     
  3. It must also be noted that China is very rapidly catching up with the West technology wise, they now have very decent aircraft such as SU-27 copies with locally upgraded avionics (of questionable Israeli and French origin by most accounts), and the new J-10 multi-role fighter which by all accounts is a very good bit of kit indeed, not to mention several other decent indiginous types.

    The navy is now being equiped with vey modern and effective sruface and sub-surface craft. Lots of consultancy work seems to have been provided by the Russians on the sub front as the Chinese start working on new classes both SSN and SSBN, with Russian assistance and the size of the Chinese spending power they could make some worrying effective new boats.

    As for the PLA well this seems to have had the most drastic change of fortune of late. Whilst it was true that in the past they had merely inferior local copies of Soviet kit (but sh!te loads of it), they now have modern and effective small arms, APC's, IFV's, Arty, SAMs, AAA and more worryingly MBT's as good as anything if not better than any the former Soviet states can currently produce - if it all goes Pete Tong and we end up in convential war with them, I think they could give us far more trouble than the dear old Soviet Union may have.

    The wee men mean fek'n business I tell you... 8O www.sinodefence.com
     
  4. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    The Chinese Defence Budget is also a bit of a movable feast.

    For a start they get more bang for their buck than the west.

    Secondly there is a lot of grey money sloshing around in the Chinese Defence Budget. Lots of PLA owned businesses. There have been moves to clean these up but....

    I've stayed in a PLA owned Hotel in Guandong (Canton) It was entirely a business with no Defence purpose but it belonged to the PLA was built by and run by the PLA.
     
  5. Don't forget a much larger % of western defence budgets (thats total budget, not procurement listed above) is taken up by pay & benefits cos western soldiers just plain get paid more then Chinese. Also the Chinese tend to play budgetary games like having the Ministry of Agriculture pay for the PLA's food, and Ministry of Transport pay for food, so the figure aboive may not reflect total Chinese defence spending...
     
  6. Great! Lets sell them some stuff. We need a manufactoring industry back. Nothing with too long range though.
     
  7. Yawn... the only positive things I have heard about the recent crop of Chinese equipment is all courtesy of advertising campaigns pushing for export sales. The poor SOB's who have bought such gear and used it have all ended up with the dirty end of the stick. Their "modern" aircraft still depend completely on foreign engines, their tanks are garbage, and even their latest small arms are totally unreliable (note the issues the Tamil tigers had with their newly minted type-95's.) On top of that, the PLA has a really ineffective cadre of senior officers and a history of miserable performance outside thier borders. Heck... the bulk of their Army still picks crops instead of training.

    Despite the wet dreams of Tom Clancy and his ilk, China is not a credible threat to West. If anything, they are a stabilizing factor in Asia that prevent loonies in North Korea and Cambodia from exporting their sociopathic inclinations.
     
  8. Now, now, Sergei. Let's not be disingenuous, shall we?

    There's a difference between military spending and spending on arms, as I'm very sure you're aware.

    The PLA is moving from a conscript to an all-professional force and that costs money: you need to pay off surplus senior pax; you need to offer better Ts&Cs to attract new recruits; you need to upgrade accommodation and facilities; as well as investing in new kit.

    Added in that the PLA still pays for the upkeep of retirement homes for the First Generation cadres, whether they were ever formally in the military or not, and that as BuggerAll says they've got fingers in all kinds of non-military pies and this doesn't really seem a vast amount for defending 1.3Bn people.

    P.S. Khyros, I've fired the Type 95 courtesy of relatives and it didn't seem that bad a weapon to me. Perhaps the export model isn't up to the same standards as the issued one?
     
  9. A bit of a non story. The US spends as much on defence as the next 17 countries combined. Given that we think (know!) that the UK budget is insufficient, the fact that the Chinese only spend 25% more than us but have Armed Forces that are more than 10 times the size of ours, then I would take the "they've got lots of really modern, credible kit" with a bit of a pinch of salt. Same goes for Russia. You don't want to be in a rush to invade either country any day soon but not very competent once they are outside their borders.
    whf
     
  10. Sergey knows the problems of modernization well. They recently ahd to remove the Head of the GRU as the obstinate old barsteward wasn't playing modernisation. They are going to have to get rif of droves of Colnels and above and the old feckers aren't happy about it.
     
  11. Of course, it is right. The title is in fact a quote (from the article). It is more right to say about military spendings.

    Agreed.

    And here I agree.