PLA expert says China will not be a military rival to US for at least 50 years

[Víðarr]

Who the Hell wants to take over from America as the "world policeman"?

That sounds like a nightmare. Even America doesn't want that job.

Chinese power will be used to serve Chinese interests only. And to secure our own sovereignty.

And this is why we aren't concerned about China overtaking our military dominance. No one, no one, in their right mind would ever want the task we've, for right or wrong, taken upon ourselves. It invites instability, hatred, economic issues, and general stupidity. Seriously, who'd actually want to be the world policeman?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Seriously, who'd actually want to be the world policeman?

Yep, you guys spend huge amounts of your own money, to help people halfway across the world who don't want to be helped, and after all that they turn around and yell "Death to America!"

Being the "world leader/policeman" is the most thankless job imaginable. Nobody wants it.

My taxpayer money should be spent for the good of the Chinese nation, and to protect our sovereignty. Not to conduct a military intervention halfway across the world in Bolivia or Nicaragua. That would be unacceptable to me.

 

[Genesis]

Yep, you guys spend huge amounts of your own money, to help people halfway across the world who don't want to be helped, and after all that they turn around and yell "Death to America!"

Being the "world leader/policeman" is the most thankless job imaginable. Nobody wants it.

My taxpayer money should be spent for the good of the Chinese nation, and to protect our sovereignty. Not to conduct a military intervention halfway across the world in Bolivia or Nicaragua. That would be unacceptable to me.

America isn't the world's policeman, it's looking out for its own interests. Look at our investments, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Africa, Latin America, even Europe, constantly under threat.

At this point, we must take it, but at some point we can't. Then we need to act, and that leads to if we acted here, why are you not acting else where question. If you say no interest, your image is going in the crapper. Rawanda, America didn't act and by the end it's like Americans killed those people.

We need global influence, because there are too many bastards in this world.

Major General Yin Zhuo said that China’s military strength will not be a rival to the US even 50 years? At this point does anyone think that the U.S. would not have advanced further by another 50 years?

In other words, China will never ever be able to catch up with the U.S. Period!

interesting. 72 was the year F-15 came on to the scene, 2003 was the year J-10 became operational. 31 years of difference.

2006, F-22 became American's sweetheart, J-20 will go into service sometime 2017.

Just 10 years.

Zumwalt and 055 will both be ready at about the same time.

When a US expert predicted that China’s military will surpass the US by 2025, well-known Chinese military expert Major General Yin Zhuo said that China’s military strength will not be a rival to the US even 50 years from now, let alone 5 or 10 years.

Why?

The US will keep its huge navy to fight wars all over the world and remain world leader for 100 years as has been claimed by US president Obama. It will maintain a huge navy with 11 aircraft carriers, 14 ballistic missile nuclear submarines and 50 plus attack nuclear submarines.

China, on the other hand, has no intention whatsoever to become world leader or seek world hegemony. What interest will China have in maintaining an equal navy? Therefore, China will be no match to the US even in 50 years time.

Therefore, if the US maintains such a huge navy to be world leader for 100 years, China will never surpass the US.

In an interview, former PLA navy (PLAN) political commissar Admiral Liu Xiaogang said China would build six homegrown aircraft carriers. Current PLAN deputy political commissar Rear Admiral Ding Haichun, however, said nothing about that in the same interview.

PLAN, in its own interest, certainly wants to grow as huge as possible, but does China really need such a huge navy?

I believe that China has no intention to be world leader as the leadership means only a heavy burden without any benefit.

However, will China grow militarily stronger through its current arms race with the US?

Certainly, China will, as is detailed in Chan Kai Yee’s book “Space Era Strategy: The Way China Beats the US.”

However, China began the arms race to surpass the US because of the US pivot to Asia aiming at joining Japan or rival South China Sea claimants in China’s maritime territorial disputes.

Hu Jintao had a strategy for wiping out the enemy at sea. Due to that strategy, China will soon acquire the capabilities to wipe out its enemy at sea by achieving air supremacy with its stealth fighter jets and saturation attack on an enemy navy with anti-ship ballistic and cruise missiles.

Hu Jintao’s strategy is good, but China will be defeated by the US even if it wipes out the part of the US navy near its coast, because the US can easily cut China’s trade lifelines due to its navy’s dominance of the oceans.

What is the next strategy developed by Xi Jinping for China?

It is the strategy to build up China’s capabilities to defend China’s trade lifelines. For that Xi has urged the Chinese air force to acquire integrated space and air capabilities for both attack and defence. With such capabilities, China will be able to attack US fleets at high sea to prevent them from cutting China’s trade lifelines.

In Chan’s book, it is described how an aerospace bomber can kill an aircraft carrier battle group in minutes. Such an aerospace bomber will be one of the weapons in Xi’s integrated space and air capabilities for both attack and defence. When China has developed a fleet of aerospace bombers armed with hypersonic missiles, the US will no longer be able to cut China’s trade lifelines.

The missile from the bomber will fly at a hypersonic speed of Mach 23 that no missile defence so far can intercept.

As an alternative, China can develop a strategic nuclear bomber with the speed of Mach 3.6. With the bomber’s speed of Mach 3.6, a missile from it may have a hypersonic speed of Mach 7.6 if its own speed of Mach 4 (achievable now) is added to the speed of the bomber. That will ensure that 100 to 200 missiles from the bomber will be able to wipe out an entire aircraft carrier battle group.

Ukraine have developed a huge aircraft with a payload of 250 tons, and with China’s high temperature gas-cooled nuclear reactor, China may have such a bomber within a decade.

China develops such capabilities entirely aimed at defence against US attack, instead of replacing the US as world leader.

Therefore, Major General Yin’s prediction remains correct that China will not have the military capabilities to be a rival to the US even if China were able to defeat US attack.

China will not have thousands of nuclear warheads for first nuclear strike. China will not have a huge navy to dominate the world.

If Chinese leaders remain as wise as Xi Jinping, that will be the case even if China grows much stronger than the US economically

PLA expert says China will not be a military rival to US for at least 50 years | China Daily Mail

50 years is a good estimate, but it's not the right way to look at it. What does this 50 years mean? How much of a difference is between 10 years and parity? What's China's power projection capabilities at 30 years? Just saying how many years is not a good analysis, or an analysis at all.

Like those articles that says China lacks strategic transport, training, and things like that, relative to who? America? Everybody relative to America lacks those.

What about countries that are not America?

 

[Víðarr]

America isn't the world's policeman, it's looking out for its own interests. Look at our investments, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Africa, Latin America, even Europe, constantly under threat.

Just as a police man doesn't protect my financial investments, neither does our military. What our military does is maintain open waterways on the high-seas, we maintain a stability in global spaces, not national waters or lands. Yes, we promote instabilities too, but that is separate from our role as "police-man". Two different tasks, often coinciding, often confused, but they are different.

A police officer doesn't protect my home or place of business, he protects the streets and will intervene at my home if needed. The US is the same way. When we need to, we intervene, but we always ensure freedom of navigation, even if it is provocative.

Zumwalt and 055 will both be ready at about the same time.

Zumwalt will be commissioned next year, isn't the commission date for the first 055, as of yet unnamed, projected to be around 2019? Still, they'll come soon enough.

But here's a question. The Type 055 and Zumwalt are often compared, why? We don't consider our Zumwalt-Class as a fair comparison to the Type 055, rather we look more at the Flight IIA Burkes when making such a comparison, with the Flight IIA restart being even more advanced, and the Flight IIA Tech Insert (using some systems to be found on the Flight III) and Flight III surpassing the Zumwalt's capabilities:

Some general information on the Flight III:

DDG 51 Flight III Archives - USNI News

From the specs and capabilities I've noticed in discussions about the Type 055, it shouldn't be considered in the conversation with the Zumwalt. It should be compared with the Flight IIA Tech Insert Burkes. That is a complement, not an insult or degradation of the Type 055's capabilities, the Flight IIA Restart and Tech Insert are being built right now. The Flight III will be built later and feature a different set of combat systems (radar, EW, tracking and ranging).

...

Basically you're comparing ships commissioned in 2000 (the first of the Flight IIAs, which differ from the Flight I and Flight II, and are used as the base-template for the new Flights) to ships being commissioned around 2020.

That's still a twenty year difference.

Another example would be SM-3 versus its Chinese equivalent HQ-26. HQ-26 is expected to be certified as early as 2015. SM-3 has been around since 1999, it's being produced in 5 different configurations, with SM-3 Block IIA being the latest! That gap is still around, it's still very large.

I've yet to see anything that would suggest a comparison between Zumwalt and Type 055 is appropriate, though this is often the most common comparison being made. We can ask around, plenty of people interested in Naval systems here, but I wouldn't say it's the right comparison.

Every discussion compares the Burkes with Type 055. Here's one such discussion - The real Type 055 Aegis DDG

And frankly, while the Zumwalt looks awesome, it's kind of a piece of junk compared to what it was supposed to be. Too much was taken out of the ship to save money. It would be an insult to be compared to the Zumwalt.

@SvenSvensonov - what say you?

*Also, I'm not differing too much from what you said, but China isn't catching up as fast as it's thought to, though it is making progress. Still, we see a multi-year, often in the double digits, gap between both the US and China in the realm of military systems.

 

[Genesis]

Just as a police man doesn't protect my financial investments, neither does our military. What our military does is maintain open waterways on the high-seas, we maintain a stability in global spaces. Yes, we promote instabilities too, but that is separate from our role as "police-man". Two different tasks, often coinciding, often confused, but they are different.

If you were to quote my whole argument, that's what I'm saying. US didn't choose to be the policemen, nor was it purely selfish, but that was how it worked out.

Did US feel the need to protect Africans? Koreans? Vietnamese? They started as a power struggle with the Soviets, today the mission has evolved to actual protection of Africans, and Middle Eastern countries.

The motivation has changed, while certainly interests remain, but it's not the Cold War anymore.

If America had the same capabilities today, but no prior experience in those wars, would Americans feel obligated to go to a random country and make a contribution?

*Also, I'm not differing too much from what you said, but China isn't catching up as fast as it's thought to, though it is making progress. Still, we see a multi-year, often in the double digits, gap between both the US and China in the realm of military systems.

I won't argue the ships, you can find better people who can do better.

Again, double digit gaps, single digit gaps, what does that mean? Franco-Prussian war, the Prussians had Breach loading guns, and completely out gunned Napoleon the third. France could have made that gun. The difference in gap is negligible.

On the other hand, when Western armies first warred with China during Qing dynasty, the advance guns were years, if not decades away, however, Chinese Cavs can still win, because the speed of reload and accuracy still sucks.

Let's say it is a 20 year difference between US and Chinese technology and I don't doubt US has some new technology on these new ships and China either have them in testing or don't have them, how much do they impact the battle field?

Relative to when we had a WW2 era ship as a main destroyer and you had the Burke?

Since these ships don't go head to head, rather they play a role, in either air defense, anti sub, and more, how does it impact a battle overall if Chinese navy is 20 years behind?


From Vietnam to Desert storm, massive advances were made, but from Desert Storm to Iraqi Freedom, advances were still made, but it's not a generation gap, it's refined, but not redefined. What's the situation there.

 

[Víðarr]

I won't argue the ships, you can find better people who can do better.

Again, double digit gaps, single digit gaps, what does that mean? Franco-Prussian war, the Prussians had Breach loading guns, and completely out gunned Napoleon the third. France could have made that gun. The difference in gap is negligible.

On the other hand, when Western armies first warred with China during Qing dynasty, the advance guns were years, if not decades away, however, Chinese Cavs can still win, because the speed of reload and accuracy still sucks.

Let's say it is a 20 year difference between US and Chinese technology and I don't doubt US has some new technology on these new ships and China either have them in testing or don't have them, how much do they impact the battle field?

Relative to when we had a WW2 era ship as a main destroyer and you had the Burke?

Since these ships don't go head to head, rather they play a role, in either air defense, anti sub, and more, how does it impact a battle overall if Chinese navy is 20 years behind?


From Vietnam to Desert storm, massive advances were made, but from Desert Storm to Iraqi Freedom, advances were still made, but it's not a generation gap, it's refined, but not redefined. What's the situation there.

I wan't arguing anything, just making a point that the Zumwalt versus Type 055 is disingenuous (that's a comparison you made when you offered both would enter service around the same time) considering they aren't similar. Comparing dissimilar items isn't a fair comparison of either. All the discussions on the Type 055 have been centered around it as a comparison to the Burke Class IIA Restart and Tech Insertion, and thus comparing the Zumwalt's commission date and the Type 055s isn't right either. Using the Zumwalt as and the Type 055 as an example of China closing the tech gap with the US isn't a valid argument, since it compares two dissimilar items.

I wasn't arguing, just trying to maintain consistency in the comparison, trying keep the comparison consistent with the common comparison of the Burke Class to the Type 055.

And if presence on the battlefield matters more than the tech gap, why are we even comparing ships in the first place? Especially two that aren't even in service yet!

But you're right, you don't seem to have a grasp on military systems, so I'll avoid speaking to you about them in the future.

Finally, either address what I wrote or don't, bring an entirely different argument/debate into the discussion isn't warranted. Is there a gap between the US and Chinese militaries? That's what I was asking. Not if the gap makes a difference on the battlefield.

That's not the discussion that was being had, not battlefield impact, don't make it the discussion. There's already enough that can be said on the current topic, we don't need another taking up space.

If you were to quote my whole argument, that's what I'm saying. US didn't choose to be the policemen, nor was it purely selfish, but that was how it worked out.

Did US feel the need to protect Africans? Koreans? Vietnamese? They started as a power struggle with the Soviets, today the mission has evolved to actual protection of Africans, and Middle Eastern countries.

The motivation has changed, while certainly interests remain, but it's not the Cold War anymore.

If America had the same capabilities today, but no prior experience in those wars, would Americans feel obligated to go to a random country and make a contribution?

That's a completely different situation. Being world policeman isn't about fighting wars for someone or protecting a foreign nations financial interests - why should the US protect Chinese investments in Europe anyways, who should be protect Korea? It's about maintaining freedom of navigation in global spaces. What we do in the Middle East, Europe or elsewhere isn't "policeman", but as I noted it is content construed as such, that is adventurism and promotion of our interests at the detriment of the interests of others. Different concept, different discussion.

Here's how seriously we take our commitment to freedom of navigation, a policeman duty.

Back In The Cold War The US Wasn't Above A Little Provocation Itself

 

[Genesis]

I wan't arguing anything, just making a point that the Zumwalt versus Type 055 is disingenuous considering they aren't similar. Comparing dissimilar items isn't a fair comparison of either. All the discussions on the Type 055 have been centered around it as a comparison to the Burke Class IIA Restart and Tech Insertion, and thus comparing the Zumwalt's commission date and the Type 055s isn't right either.

I wasn't arguing, just trying to maintain consistency in the comparison.

And if presence on the battlefield matters more than the tech gap, why are we even comparing ships in the first place? Especially two that aren't even in service yet!

But you're right, you don't seem to have a grasp on military systems, so I'll avoid speaking to you about them in the future.

Finally, either address what I wrote or don't, bring an entirely different argument/debate into the discussion isn't warranted. Is there a gap between the US and Chinese militaies? That's what I was asking. Not if the gap makes a difference on the battlefield.

Obviously there's a gap, the first thing I said on the subject is 50 years sounds about right. The exact words were, "50 years is a good estimate."

What was I responding to with the Zumwalt and 055 statement? It was that ships of similar size, and role, and capabilities are coming out at the same time. The Zumwalt is obviously better, though not as big as previous gaps, like 051 and Burke.

The point was that the gap is shrinking, the quote was that in 50 years time, US would have advanced so much that China would still be 50 years behind, while I am showing the gap is shrinking.

Is that not what happened, or not how you would interpret this argument.

That's a completely different situation. Being world policeman isn't about fighting wars for someone or protecting a foreign nations financial interests, it's about maintaining freedom of navigation. What we do in the Middle East, Europe or elsewhere isn't "policeman", but as I noted it is content construed as such, that is adventurism and promotion of our interests. Different concept.

Here's how seriously we take our commitment to freedom of navigation, a policeman duty.

Back In The Cold War The US Wasn't Above A Little Provocation Itself

I was talking fighting wars, and foreign intervention, that's the quote I was responding too. Besides you are taking a unofficial title to give it a definite definition. If we are to ask the forum what world policemen does, how many would say ONLY what you said. We can do the same with Americans too if you like.

Since this isn't an official title, how is my interpretation wrong. I say wrong, because you didn't say, not just, you said ISN'T.

Both times, you took what I said in snippets and in isolation, and then turn around and pretend like I'm the one not answering the question.

Lastly, freedom of navigation, can I disagree.

 

[Víðarr]

Obviously there's a gap, the first thing I said on the subject is 50 years sounds about right. The exact words were, "50 years is a good estimate."

What was I responding to with the Zumwalt and 055 statement? It was that ships of similar size, and role, and capabilities are coming out at the same time. The Zumwalt is obviously better, though not as big as previous gaps, like 051 and Burke.

The point was that the gap is shrinking, the quote was that in 50 years time, US would have advanced so much that China would still be 50 years behind, while I am showing the gap is shrinking.

Is that not what happened, or not how you would interpret this argument.



I was talking fighting wars, and foreign intervention, that's the quote I was responding too. Besides you are taking a unofficial title to give it a definite definition. If we are to ask the forum what world policemen does, how many would say ONLY what you said. We can do the same with Americans too if you like.

Since this isn't an official title, how is my interpretation wrong. I say wrong, because you didn't say, not just, you said ISN'T.

Both times, you took what I said in snippets and in isolation, and then turn around and pretend like I'm the one not answering the question.

Lastly, freedom of navigation, can I disagree.

Alright, I disagree with perhaps everything you just wrote. From the Zumwalt being better than the Burke (define Burke - three different flights are in service, all differ in their capabilities. And Zumwalt sucks!!!), to the definition of policeman and their role.

Also, who cares what the rest of the Forum thinks? Everyone has an opinion, everyone has a bias and you'll get different answers from everyone. There would be no consistent answer, nothing to provide clarity or a definition that we can work off of in a discussion.

So I propose this, this discussion is pointless since we don't see eye to eye, and frankly I don't feel like bothering myself or you with it anymore since we differ on so much that we can't even agree to the same definitions or semantics. Let's end the discussion and go our separate ways.

You can keep to your opinion - I can't speak for your supporting evidence (don't take that personally, I'm only saying that I don't know your background), I'll trust in my military experience (I'm active Navy, my husband ex-Navy) to guide my influence, we can end this discussion.

 

[Aepsilons]

I won't argue the ships, you can find better people who can do better.

Again, double digit gaps, single digit gaps, what does that mean? Franco-Prussian war, the Prussians had Breach loading guns, and completely out gunned Napoleon the third. France could have made that gun. The difference in gap is negligible.

On the other hand, when Western armies first warred with China during Qing dynasty, the advance guns were years, if not decades away, however, Chinese Cavs can still win, because the speed of reload and accuracy still sucks.

Let's say it is a 20 year difference between US and Chinese technology and I don't doubt US has some new technology on these new ships and China either have them in testing or don't have them, how much do they impact the battle field?

Relative to when we had a WW2 era ship as a main destroyer and you had the Burke?

Since these ships don't go head to head, rather they play a role, in either air defense, anti sub, and more, how does it impact a battle overall if Chinese navy is 20 years behind?


From Vietnam to Desert storm, massive advances were made, but from Desert Storm to Iraqi Freedom, advances were still made, but it's not a generation gap, it's refined, but not redefined. What's the situation there.

Bottom line, @Genesis , is this: Operational experience is key.

That's all I'm gonna say, that's all i'm going to hint at.

 

[Genesis]

Alright, I disagree with perhaps everything you just wrong. From the Zumwalt being better than the Burke (define Burke), to the definition of policeman.

Which Burke, really.......Which Burke did you have when we had the 051, which one do you think.

So I propose this, this discussion is pointless, and frankly I don't feel like bothering myself or you with it anymore since we differ on so much that we can't even agree to the same definitions or semantics. Let's end the discussion and go our separate ways.

Do you only argue with those that agree with you? You are free to introduce evidence, since you keep bring this up, that proves world policeman means exactly what you said it means. Also semantics? You taking what I said out of context s semantics?

I'll tell you what, quote my original post again, all of it, and if you can still say what you said and make sense, I'll concede my position.

Bottom line, @Genesis , is this: Operational experience is key.

That's all I'm gonna say, that's all i'm going to hint at.

Did you read the article? Read it and tell me what the 50 years refers to and see if this still makes sense.

 

[Aepsilons]

Did you read the article? Read it and tell me what the 50 years refers to and see if this still makes sense.

Of course i read it. I read , also, the discussion you and Ms. Anna had, as well.

The mass armament is one thing, but operational history will prove indispensable , as seen in any engagement. The Royal Navy's victory over the French Navy in the Battle of Trafalgar was due in part to British tactical manipulation, and not due to British numbers (the combined French and Spanish Fleet had the numerical and firepower advantage). China's Beiyang Fleet was considered world renowned and modern , with impressive fire power and Chinese captains were guided by foreign strategists. Nevertheless, the Beiyang Fleet was eviscerated by a numerically smaller Imperial Japanese Fleet that engaged her.

Operational experience, in the end, my friend, is critical to any military's victory or loss. That said, the Americans have had plenty of military engagement history, all theaters. China may, theoretically, have a larger military force even defense spending , in the future, however, will it have the experience as the American military? No, of course not.

 

[mike2000]

Obviously, everybody knows this. So there is no surprise or groundbreaking news about this. Not only China though, NO COUNTRY can match the U.S militarily for the next coming decades at least. For GODS sake the U.S navy's [power projection capabilities is ahead of all the next top 10 powers combined. How can we expect any country to match them this decade?? NO WAY IN HEAVEN.

Economically, yes China is already a big challenger to the U.S and it will only get closer or even surpass it to the U.S this coming decade or two . No doubt about this, bar a major war/turmoil or an unforseen event which will affect only China(though this is highly unlikely). What the U.S needs to do, is just to try and accomodate China entry into the western defined current world order, trying to prevent it totally will be a big mistake i think. Simply because, the next world war will be mainly(not exclusively though) economic,cyberspace,financial, technological etc not military. Its for this reason i think China is the only major country(for now) which i think will be a major threat/challenge to our governments in the west/U.S dominance these coming decades. The new great game is only just about to start IMO Interesting times we have ahead of us indeed.

 

[Götterdämmerung]

China and Russia can always play a game with the paranoid USA. All they need to do is to arm themself up to just below the US, e.g. the US has 10 ACC, the combined number of China and Russia should be 9. The financial burden is divided by two countries (maybe China can carry a bit more, e.g. China 6 ACC, Russia 3 ACC)

That will cripple the US economy in one or two decades.

 

[Genesis]

Of course i read it. I read , also, the discussion you and Ms. Anna had, as well.

The mass armament is one thing, but operational history will prove indispensable , as seen in any engagement. The Royal Navy's victory over the French Navy in the Battle of Trafalgar was due in part to British tactical manipulation, and not due to British numbers (the combined French and Spanish Fleet had the numerical and firepower advantage). China's Beiyang Fleet was considered world renowned and modern , with impressive fire power and Chinese captains were guided by foreign strategists. Nevertheless, the Beiyang Fleet was eviscerated by a numerically smaller Imperial Japanese Fleet that engaged her.

Operational experience, in the end, my friend, is critical to any military's victory or loss. That said, the Americans have had plenty of military engagement history, all theaters. China may, theoretically, have a larger military force even defense spending , in the future, however, will it have the experience as the American military? No, of course not.

Why?

The US will keep its huge navy to fight wars all over the world and remain world leader for 100 years as has been claimed by US president Obama. It will maintain a huge navy with 11 aircraft carriers, 14 ballistic missile nuclear submarines and 50 plus attack nuclear submarines.

China, on the other hand, has no intention whatsoever to become world leader or seek world hegemony. What interest will China have in maintaining an equal navy? Therefore, China will be no match to the US even in 50 years time.

Did you miss the reason the article gave?

 

[Superboy]

Interesting perspective. But I think action speaks louder than words. China is building J-20, dozens of new 052D and 055 destoyers, god knows what new subs. By contrast, the US military is shrinking and aging. I think Americans won't be assured by such remarks.