China Wants To Have The World's Best Navy (Will It Succeed?)

[F-22Raptor]

Let me show you how we're closing the GAP.

Numbers: nominal GDP from IMF
2014, China's GDP 10.48 trillion, US GDP 17.43 trillion, the gap is 6.95 trillion, China was 60% of US economy
2019, China's GDP 14.14 trillion, US GDP 21.44 trillion, the gap is 7.3 trillion, China was 66% of US economy

You see the closing gap of percentage? Why so? Because China's increase rate is higher than that of US. Let me prove this mathematically

Let G(t) stands for China's GDP, F(t) stands for US GDP.

the increase rate of China's GDP is
△G/G
=[G(t+△t)-G(t)]/G(t)
=△t{[G(t+△t)-G(t)]/△t }/G(t)
≈△t G'(t)/G(t)
so it's just a scaling of G'(t)/G(t) by △t, without loss of generality, we use G'(t)/G(t) to represent the increase rate △G/G, and so is F'(t)/F(t) for the increase rate △F/F

To be clear,
G'(t)/G(t) is the increase rate of China's GDP
F'(t)/F(t) is the increase rate of US GDP
G(t)/F(t) is the ratio of two economies.

Theorem: Suppose G(t) and F(t) are two functions, with G(t), G'(t), F(t), F'(t) all positive. Then G'(t)/G(t)>F'(t)/F(t) if and only if G(t)/F(t) is monotone increasing.

Proof: Let H(t)=G(t)/F(t)
H'(t)=[G'(t)F(t)-G(t)F'(t)]/F^2(t)

G(t)/F(t)=H(t) is monotone increasing
if and only if H'(t)>0
if and only if G'(t)F(t)-G(t)F'(t)>0
if and only if G'(t)/G(t)>F'(t)/F(t)

There you go! Mathematics never lies!

Last edited: 2 minutes ago

Could care less about the percentage gap. That’s about as relevant as PPP GDP. China has NOT closed the actual GDP gap in the last 5 years. And the Chinese swore up and down that Chinese GDP would overtake the US soon and grow to 3 or 4 times that of the US. It’s not happening.

You don't have a healthy economy, just google all those recently released data from your government, and you will find out the truth if you have any critical thinking skill.

Your 5G is obviously in the laggard position, and this is the worldwide consensus, even from your own politicians.

2% growth with over $630 billion added to the economy through Q3....record high stock markets....record low unemployment. This must be difficult for you to understand. If this is unhealthy, I will take unhealthy all day.

As for 5G, practically every major Metropolitan area in the US will have 5G by the end of 2020. The rollout has already commenced.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

2% growth with over $630 billion added to the economy through Q3....record high stock markets....record low unemployment. This must be difficult for you to understand. If this is unhealthy, I will take unhealthy all day.

As for 5G, practically every major Metropolitan area in the US will have 5G by the end of 2020. The rollout has already commenced.

Do you have any other argument?

Why keep parroting the same arguments like a broken record?

Are you a human behind the screen or simply a bot created by AI?

 

[F-22Raptor]

Do you have any other argument?

Why keep parroting the same arguments like a broken record?

Are you a human behind the screen or simply a bot created by AI?

I don’t need another argument. I’ll take that unhealthy economy everyday.

 

[smooth manifold]

Could care less about the percentage gap. That’s about as relevant as PPP GDP. China has NOT closed the actual GDP gap in the last 5 years. And the Chinese swore up and down that Chinese GDP would overtake the US soon and grow to 3 or 4 times that of the US. It’s not happening.



2% growth with over $630 billion added to the economy through Q3....record high stock markets....record low unemployment. This must be difficult for you to understand. If this is unhealthy, I will take unhealthy all day.

As for 5G, practically every major Metropolitan area in the US will have 5G by the end of 2020. The rollout has already commenced.

If you think China's economy is not closing any gap over the last 5 years just based on absolute numbers, then US has really nothing to worry about China overtaking US's economy. This is obviously not the case. US is getting more and more paranoid and insecure year by year. WHY?

 

[gambit]

China is fully controlling 5G right now and 6G in the near future. This will create a revolution that completely supplants the current IT ecosystems controlled by the US.

The US technological dominance will get absolutely shattered into dust by China's revolutionary 5G/6G ecosystems.

no technology dominance = no military dominance = no dollar dominance

This will be the end of the world for the US.

Yeah...Since '09, every yr one of you guys used one item from China to declare that with this item X China will spell the end of the US. Back then it was 'dumping' US Treasury, now it is 5G. You guys must have DRAM for brains -- no power no data retention. So when you guys go to sleep at night, you must not remember what you said the day before.

 

[SinJin]

China Wants To Have The World's Best Navy (Will It Succeed?)
November 17, 2019

The People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) is the most visible, and possibly the most consequential, manifestation of China’s emergence as a great power. In three decades, China has turned a large, but relatively minor regional force into a fleet of global consequence.

But now that China has its navy, can it keep it? The historical record is mixed. Over the past 130 years several nations have embarked on radical schemes of fleet-building designed to elevate their positions in the international hierarchy. A distressing number of these schemes have failed, with powerful, expensive capital ships left rotting at dock or rusting at the bottom of the sea. Only one “new” naval power managed to maintain its position, and the United States Navy (USN) today represents the PLAN’s greatest obstacle.

Why did so many countries embark on the construction of great fleets, how did they do so, and why did they fail? This article briefly surveys the rise and collapse of the navies of Germany, Japan, and Russia, alongside the success story of the United States. Some of these navies persisted across several generations of capital ship, but only the USN managed to achieve and maintain its world position over the entire course of the last 120 years.

Since at least the late nineteenth century, the largest navies have organized themselves around “capital ships,” individual vessels of great fighting power surrounded by a variety of support ships. The historical analysis of Alfred Thayer Mahan greatly influenced this development, but it nevertheless represented a break with practice of the eighteenth and nineteenth century, when ships-of-the-line largely acted without a support network. At the Battle of Trafalgar, for example, the contending fleets included sixty ships of the line and only fourteen smaller vessels. By contrast, at the Battle of Jutland the Germans and British employed fifty-eight capital ships and 192 support vessels. And at the Battle of Philippine Sea, Japanese and American fleets included twenty-four battleships and fleet carriers, supported by 213 smaller ships.

For purposes of measurement, we will focus on surface ships in excess of 10000 tons. This is not an ideal metric, because ship roles change over time, as do the range and lethality of weapon systems. Of course, there are exceptions. Modern U.S. nuclear submarines (especially ballistic missile submarines) tend to operate independently (although this is less the case of their Soviet and Chinese counterparts). Technological evolution is also complex. Here, we abstract the transition between four different generations of capital ships, beginning with the coal-burning, armored pre-dreadnought battleship type that dominated major navies until 1905. After 1905 the “all big gun” dreadnought battleship became the currency of naval power, and came to dominate naval thinking. Dreadnoughts remained dominant (at least notionally) until the 1930s, when they were replaced by the fast battleship and the aircraft carrier. In the 1950s, jet-capable supercarriers and nuclear submarines (of both the attack and ballistic-missile variety) became symbolic of naval dominance.

With this framework in mind, it’s worth examining the expansion of the PLAN in light of the build-ups of the American, German, and Japanese navies at the turn of the twentieth century, and of the Soviet Navy in the mid-twentieth century. The comparisons suggest that the PLAN’s recent expansion should be taken seriously, but that China still faces significant strategic challenges.

Imperial Germany


Kaiserine Germany dove into the idea of a major modern fleet. Between 1893 and 1908, the German Imperial Navy added twenty-four pre-dreadnought battleships to its fleet, and between 1908 and 1917 replaced these with nineteen dreadnoughts and seven battlecruisers. This represented an enormous outlay of national treasure for a state that faced major land challenges along several fronts. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Germany’s will and ability to maintain this fleet faltered. Most of the High Seas Fleet scuttled itself while at anchor in Scapa Flow in 1919, under the mistaken impression that it was about to be divvied up among the Allies. After that, armistice terms prevented Germany from rebuilding its fleet.

Germany reconstituted a portion of its navy in the late 1930s, but never matched the size and extent of the High Seas Fleet. Defeat in war and political division then ended the German Navy as a major force. Germany’s surface fleet represented a two-and-a-half generation experiment, but failed to pay off strategically in either peace or war.


United States

In a remarkably similar timeframe to that of Germany, the U.S. Navy added twenty-four pre-dreadnought battleships between 1895 and 1908, and much like Germany it replaced those ships with twenty-two dreadnoughts and two aircraft carriers, albeit at a slower pace than the Germans. Between 1934 and 1947, the United States commissioned fourteen fast battleships and thirty-one large aircraft carriers.

Since World War II the United States has constructed nineteen 70000+ ton supercarriers and many large amphibious warships. The U.S. Navy is the only organization to field a competitive force in each of the four generations of modern naval development.

Soviet Union

The Imperial Russian Navy enjoyed a long, distinguished history, and in the late nineteenth century successfully made the transition to pre-dreadnought battleships, building twenty-two such ships between 1890 and 1911. Russia then did its best to modernize the fleet through the construction of seven dreadnoughts. However, the triple disasters of the Russo-Japanese War, the First World War, and the Bolshevik Revolution effectively extinguished Russian naval power throughout the dreadnought and first aircraft carrier periods.

The rise of the Soviet Navy after World War II is complicated, in part because the types of ship that constituted a modern fleet had substantially increased. Soviet postwar naval expansion began with the commissioning of fourteen 16000 ton Sverdlov-class gun cruisers between 1952 and 1955. Although useful enough ships, technological changes almost immediately relegated them to second class status. During the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, the Soviet Navy added two helicopter cruisers, four aircraft carriers, four battlecruisers, and a vast array of large nuclear attack submarines. This represented a fourth generation challenge to the United States Navy, although the USN always held the advantage.

However, the Soviet surface navy faded away ignominiously after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The new Russian government, short on resources, did not prioritize the surface fleet. Its major vessels are mostly scrapped, sold, or rusting away in reserve. Moscow figured out that a large surface fleet was a luxury it could not afford in difficult economic circumstances.

Japan

Japan’s interest in a modern major fleet began before the pre-dreadnought period. The Imperial Japanese Navy, more constrained of resources than either the German or U.S. navies, acquired a limited number of pre-dreadnoughts and semi-dreadnoughts. Japan followed up this first generation with twelve dreadnoughts and two aircraft carriers. Between 1934 and 1945, Japan added another two fast battleships and nine aircraft carriers. The first generation fleet enabled Japan to defeat Russia and make its mark on Northeast Asia. The second generation made Japan a global player. The third generation was utterly destroyed, along with the rest of Japanese military power, by the United States and the United Kingdom. Surrender terms meant that Japan played no role in post-World War II naval developments. Only today, with the conversion of the Izumo-class aircraft carriers, has Japan begun to reassert itself as a major naval power.

China

Beset with political and economic difficulties, China skipped the first three generations of modern naval development. For the first fifty years following the establishment of the People’s Republic, the PLAN concentrated on coastal defense, fielding a numerically heavy force of small ships and submarines. Ambitions for a large surface fleet became clear in 2007, with the commissioning of a 25000-ton amphibious warship. It has since commissioned four more large LPDs (landing, platform docks), along with the 60000-ton aircraft carrier Liaoning. Within the next five years the PLAN will likely accept in excess of ten new large warships into service, including two more aircraft carriers, 3 LPDs, 3 LHAs (landing helicopter areas), and six Type 055 destroyers.

This is a large force of large ships, one that is reminiscent in size of the pre-World War I expansion in Germany, Japan, and the United States, and the postwar Soviet expansion. China has accompanied this expansion with the construction of large numbers of support ships and submarines, the latter including both SSNs and SSBNs. China’s fleet is large, modern, and will in short order be superior to any competitor other than the United States Navy.

The Final Salvo

Of these aspirants, only the United States persisted in its decision to maintain a large navy. The USN became the world’s largest, most powerful navy at some point during World War II, and has held that position without serious challenge since. The USN has regenerated itself through several generations of capital ship, from pre-dreadnoughts to dreadnoughts to aircraft carriers to super-carriers.

The other great navies show the pitfalls of a national maritime emphasis. Germany’s navy failed to help it win either World War, and indeed probably contributed to the size of the coalition in the First. The Imperial Japanese Navy helped Japan win an empire, but not to hold it. And the Soviet Navy rusted away after the collapse of the USSR. For newly emerging powers, navies do not ensure security. But aspirations to global power seem to require a great navy.

Of the four, the PLAN obviously would prefer to follow the U.S. path. Success depends on maintaining the economic, technological, and political foundations necessary to build a fleet, rebuild that fleet, and then rebuild it again. It also seems to depend on avoiding a major conflict that brings about the destruction of the fleet, national humiliation, and the forcible curtailment of maritime ambitions.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/china-wants-have-worlds-best-navy-will-it-succeed-96541

China is already ahead of most of the other countries of the world in terms of naval power at its disposal and is quickly bridging the gal with the USA in this regard. Soon in maybe 15-20 years China will have surpassed the USA.

 

[S10]

Sure we can discuss. How about HK?
HK slips into the final. The police threatens to use live firearms against protesters. Once happened HK will go down the drain. The image of China will be forever ruined. Ok I forgot your image is ruined so you probably don’t care.
The US don’t need chinese imports in 5 or 10 years given our export growth to the US. Jobless and poor chinese like you and your children will have hard times. Giving you a hint: Vietnam is a very generous country but we will only accept rich chinese, no matter whether they are racists, nationalists or liars.

This chart shows the percentage change in U.S goods imports from its top import partners. Photo: Statista / IBT

When your third rate country breaks back into two, there is going to be an influx of cheap labour into China. Maybe I'll even hire some of you to build my fence and mow my lawn. I'm not picky.

 

[j20blackdragon]

Do your aircraft carrier and cruiser run faster than our land missile batteries?

Do your missiles have the range to reach the Spratly Islands when they are limited to 300km by MTCR?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_Technology_Control_Regime

No we are not stupid, sending out our pricy warships. Our vessels operate under missile umbrella.

Control of the sea using land-based missiles is actually China's forte.

When US collapse and we r rich and strong enough, we will cripple your 12% control in SCS( east VN sea). Stupid PLA is just a joke, thats why CN only control 12% of SCS( east sea) till now while VN control 62-65%

Your control of the SCS is actually 0% until you can land troops and vehicles on these islands. Control with your mouth means nothing.

We will take back all islands. China will collapse its a matter of when.

Take back the islands how? Is the Vietnamese Army going to swim? Will you land troops with fishing boats?

Chinese navy is already worlds first in terms of looks (aka fugly American warships).

Not just looks but actual capability. I challenge anyone to compare these two ships and explain to me how the Arleigh Burke is better.

Anyway it’s highnoon for Viet Nam Navy to acquire more submarines. Do what we can do best: ambush them.

Let me show you something called variable depth sonar. Another technology you don't have.

 

[TheTruth]

Could care less about the percentage gap. That’s about as relevant as PPP GDP. China has NOT closed the actual GDP gap in the last 5 years. And the Chinese swore up and down that Chinese GDP would overtake the US soon and grow to 3 or 4 times that of the US. It’s not happening.



2% growth with over $630 billion added to the economy through Q3....record high stock markets....record low unemployment. This must be difficult for you to understand. If this is unhealthy, I will take unhealthy all day.

As for 5G, practically every major Metropolitan area in the US will have 5G by the end of 2020. The rollout has already commenced.

It's because the US pads GDP by understating inflation and overcounting sectors. You'd know if you knew your head from your *** in econ and finance.

As for 5G ...

https://www.reddit.com/r/path%3D%252Fr%252Fiphone%252Fcomments%252Fbpe3nu%252F

More like you're going to have "5G"

 

[j20blackdragon]

That would be great for Vietnam, produce 100 midget subs and smaller subs to defend Coastal Vietnam from Western Imperialist Aggression.

You can join an alliance with your brothers in China for this noble cause.

But, I am not joking, if any minor naval power wants to challenge the larger navies, spending money for 4 frigates and 12 corvettes is not going to defend your waters. Having 100 small and midget subs that can launch AShM and torpedoes will make a statement that you mean business. Although a surface fleet to support the small subs is vital.

Midget subs you say? How about unmanned ones?

 

[j20blackdragon]

Midget subs you say? How about unmanned ones?

And perhaps combine the unmanned sub technology with this...

Small Nuclear Powerplant

Zhao also revealed the PLAN may be working on a novel low power/low pressure auxiliary nuclear powerplant for electricity generation for fitting into conventional submarine designs, possibly succeeding the PLAN’s current Stirling engine-based air independent propulsion (AIP) systems. One slide seems to suggest that the PLAN will continue to build smaller submarines around the size of current conventional powered designs, but that they will be modified to carry the new nuclear auxiliary powerplant to give them endurance advantages of nuclear power.

Admiral Zhao suggests that the PLAN is developing a new nuclear reactor-powered auxiliary power unit to charge the batteries of smaller and less expensive conventional submarines, allowing the PLAN to more rapidly increase its numbers of “nuclear” powered submarines. (CJDBY)

Zhao’s diagram of this powerplant shows similarities to the Soviet/Russian VAU-6 auxiliary nuclear powerplant tested in the late 1980s on a Project 651 Juliet conventional cruise missile submarine (SSG).[7] Reports indicate Russia continued to develop this technology but there are no reports of its sale to China. Russia’s Project 20120 submarine Sarov may have a version of the VAU-6 giving it an underwater endurance of 20 days.[8] While the PLA would likely seek longer endurance, it may be attracted by the potential cost savings of a nuclear auxiliary powered submarine compared to a SSN.[9]

A slide of Admiral Zhao’s showing a diagram of a nuclear reactor powered auxiliary power unit for small submarines, appears to be similar to the Soviet/Russian VAU-6 design. (CJDBY)

http://cimsec.org/pla-navys-plan-dominance-subs-shipborne-asbms-carrier-aviation/34497

 

[F-22Raptor]

Do you have any other argument?

Why keep parroting the same arguments like a broken record?

Are you a human behind the screen or simply a bot created by AI?

Stocks hit record highs as US economy tops expectations

Stocks opened at record highs Wednesday amid optimism on the trade front and a stronger-than-expected U.S. economy.

All three of the major averages followed through on the gains overseas, which developed after President Trump, on Tuesday, told reporters that the U.S. and China are "in the final throes" of reaching a trade deal.

U.S. markets also received support from the second reading of third-quarter gross domestic product showed the U.S. economy expanded at a 2.1 percent annualized rate, up from the initial reading showing 1.9 percent growth. Durable goods orders also impressed, rising 0.6 percent in October. Economists were expecting a 0.8 percent decline.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/us-stocks-nov-27-2019

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Stocks hit record highs as US economy tops expectations

Stocks opened at record highs Wednesday amid optimism on the trade front and a stronger-than-expected U.S. economy.

All three of the major averages followed through on the gains overseas, which developed after President Trump, on Tuesday, told reporters that the U.S. and China are "in the final throes" of reaching a trade deal.

U.S. markets also received support from the second reading of third-quarter gross domestic product showed the U.S. economy expanded at a 2.1 percent annualized rate, up from the initial reading showing 1.9 percent growth. Durable goods orders also impressed, rising 0.6 percent in October. Economists were expecting a 0.8 percent decline.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/us-stocks-nov-27-2019

Stock Market ≠ Economy

Your stock market has been entirely disconnected from your economy.

Just think about 2008, the stock market was also all time high before the collapse, and the only difference is that there will be no country to bail you out this time.

 

[F-22Raptor]

Stock Market ≠ Economy

Your stock market has been entirely disconnected from your economy.

Just think about 2008, the stock market was also all time high before the collapse, and the only difference is that there will be no country to bail you out this time.

Your a bag of wind.....I’m still waiting on that recession.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Your a bag of wind.....I’m still waiting on that recession.

By next year, your country will have negative interest rate.

You don't even have to wait that long, since a looming recession/depression is becoming inevitable.