What's new

Can China Replace the United States as the World’s Top Arms Dealer?

dani191

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Jul 10, 2017
Messages
4,781
Reaction score
-9
Country
Israel
Location
Israel
Can China Replace the United States as the World’s Top Arms Dealer?


How China could undercut the dominant U.S. market position in global arms sales.

robert-farley.jpg

By Robert Farley
November 21, 2017
U.S. Air Force
Donald Trump made a point of touting U.S. arms sales, which bring cash to the United States and jobs to American workers. Trump’s point is straightforward, if not often acknowledged in U.S. policy circles: arms sales not only extend U.S. influence, but also benefit the United States economically. The United States has enjoyed a dominant global position in arms transfers since at least the early 1990s, despite export restrictions that occasionally restrict transfers for political and technological reasons.

U.S. market position depends on two factors; the technological superiority of U.S. equipment, and the political value in establishing a defense relationship with the United States. Historically, China arms export strategy has been built around exploiting the edges of these U.S. advantages. First, China sells military equipment at much lower prices that the United States, which for some types of equipment (and some sellers) is ideal. Second, China will sell to just about any customer.

But it may not be too long before the United States needs to worry about competition directly in its niche. China is taking steps to modernize the relationship between its defense industrial base and its technology sector, with the hope of generating investment in firms that work at the juncture between the latter and the former.

Leveraging the relationship between civilian and military technology is how the United State achieved military superiority over the Soviet Union during the Cold War. It’s also been a preoccupation of advocates of the “Third Offset,” which hopes to further harness the U.S. tech sector in the service of maintaining American superiority in military technology. And there are indications that the Chinese are ever-more-ready to challenge the United States in this arena.

The Chinese defense industry remains far more autarkic than the United States’, and is still largely state controlled. But allowing heavy civilian investment into military-related civilian industries, as well as focusing on building linkages between civilian industries and the military, could accelerate Chinese innovation. If China can successfully connect its burgeoning tech industry with its defense industrial base (a project that even the United States has struggled with), then it can accomplish something that the Soviet Union utterly failed at.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

Obviously, many obstacles remain, some of which the United States also faces. The task of integrating China’s state-owned defense giants with its private sector tech companies will be enormously complicated, with many potential pitfalls. Not the least of these is convincing Chinese tech firms that their technologies are safe in the hands of state-owned defense giants, a task that is probably even more difficult than getting U.S. tech firms to work with Lockheed Martin and Raytheon. The eventual outcome might look something like the European model, where large, state-controlled defense firms have a tolerably good relationship with the civilian sector. The difference would be that, as in the United States, the defense industrial base can count on huge, consistent government outlays.

If China can square the circle, it can compete with the United States not only on the air and at sea, but also in the international arms market. Chinese arms in the hands of traditional U.S. export partners may not be quite as dangerous as those in Chinese hands, but they have the potential to undercut a dominant U.S. market position.
https://thediplomat.com/2017/11/can-china-replace-the-us-as-the-worlds-top-arms-dealer/
 
China has to fight and win a war decisively before it can prove their worth to the rest of the world.
 
Suntzu simply disagreed, let the professional analyse before the purchase.
And the professionals will ask if said weapon system have ever been in combat.

That said...Most complex weapons systems have not been in combat, so the next question will be which military have wielded said weapon system in combat.
 
And the professionals will ask if said weapon system have ever been in combat.

That said...Most complex weapons systems have not been in combat, so the next question will be which military have wielded said weapon system in combat.
again, let the buyers decide,buy or leave it, but we are not going to a war to proved anything.
 
again, let the buyers decide,buy or leave it, but we are not going to a war to proved anything.
You do not have to go to war. However, it is inevitable that professionals will ask.

The M-16 and AK-47 are established weapons systems. Multiple manufacturers from all over the world, so there is no need to ask. The other end of the spectrum is the aircraft carrier. Not many countries have it, so if any country build an aircraft carrier, people will ask if that country even know how to use it, let alone use it in a war. Most weapons systems fall in the middle between the rifle and the aircraft carrier. A weapon is also an instrument of politics, so that mean buying a particular weapon is nothing like buying a car. A weapons system is about national security and survival, and that mean the efficacy of a weapon system WILL be scrutinized even to the point of including combat. You do test drive a car, right?
 
You do not have to go to war. However, it is inevitable that professionals will ask.

The M-16 and AK-47 are established weapons systems. Multiple manufacturers from all over the world, so there is no need to ask. The other end of the spectrum is the aircraft carrier. Not many countries have it, so if any country build an aircraft carrier, people will ask if that country even know how to use it, let alone use it in a war. Most weapons systems fall in the middle between the rifle and the aircraft carrier. A weapon is also an instrument of politics, so that mean buying a particular weapon is nothing like buying a car. A weapons system is about national security and survival, and that mean the efficacy of a weapon system WILL be scrutinized even to the point of including combat. You do test drive a car, right?
I was replying to those people with "proved it if you are good" mentality.
 
right now a lot of their equipment is upgraded or not off russian equipment. so even if they increased their sales it would come at the expense of Russia.

they could get into the ship building market and same arms
 

Military Forum Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom