China's Defense Budget 2017

[Get Ya Wig Split]

I can see your point, but it's very dangerous to think like that. While PLA Forces has upgraded considerably over the past few years, they are still nowhere near where they should be in term of quantity. I know that the technology is developing fast and that is catching up to the U.S. in many areas now, but China is still having these Type 053 frigates in active duty and some so-called "destroyers" fra early / mid-1990s, which are not even close to the U.S. destroyers from 1980s and 1990s.

I don't even need to start with the use of planes such as J-7 and various J-8. Those things should have been target practice of some kind of drones long time ago - ALL of them 100%. Same goes for various T-59 MBT tanks and similar military hardware.

There are also still some old submarines in active duty. They should have been scrapped long time ago.

China needs to think of their sailors, pilots and soldiers and you cannot and should not put them in platforms such as T-59, J-7, J-8 and things like that. At least, this should have been replaced with more T-96 which are cheap and more J-10 fighters which are also cheap.

I mean, even when you start the engine of one J-7, J-8, T-59 etc and start spending fuel LOL, it's ALREADY a WASTE - that fuel should have been in some other fuel tank, in a platform that is much more modern.

China is spending too little of defense and it needs to start spending more. Spending doesn't have to used 100% on new platforms. One can use 50% for new platform and training, and 50% for even more research.

The point is - U.S. is not a military superpower because U.S. has 1 Nimitz-carrier. No, the U.S. is superpower because they have 10 of those.
The U.S. is not a superpower because the U.S. har 1 or 5 or 10 Arleigh Burke destroyers. No, the U.S. is a superpower because the U.S. has over 65 of those. And the same apply to Improved LA and Virginia-class SSN, etc.

So not only quality, but quantity matters a lot also. First quality, but then quantity.

So in order for China to also become military superpower in the world - beside being already an economic and almost technological superpower, China must spend money militarily like a superpower should - or like Chinese main competitor / possible enemy does.

Spending less than 2% of GDP is just too little. Increasing that to 3,5 percent at least should be the way to go. It's not much at all - and it's also time to really break the economic back of couple of regional enemies who still dream in their head that they can cause trouble with their extremism and hate against China and the Chinese people and interests.

Each time I see that China owns 1 trillion in U.S. bonds, I want to throw up when I know how many J-20 and Type 055 cruisers only HALF of that amount could produce. Even 1 / 3 of that amount.

China must make it clear - if the U.S. wants 2,400 F-35, China will build a mix of 2,400 J-20 and J-31. There should not be any discussion around this.
Whatever the U.S. decide to build, China should match, because Chinese economy is now larger in PPP compared to the U.S. and China builds most of their own weapons themselves. Hence, use of PPP is more appropriate to compare with.

If the U.S. wants to keep 65 - 70 destroyers, then China should have a mix og 65 Type 055 and Type 052D / E, etc.

It's very simple to make it clear to the U.S. that whatever the f#ck the U.S. starts to irritate others with, including irritating China, then China should match that with the same number of comparable units that will be built.

For instance: The U.S. says bla bla in 2017 / 2018. China should just match that next March, etc.

Now that we know that Crazy Don wants to spend additional 54 billion USD, China should at least match that - either officially or unofficially + spend add-on which China planned to increase with before the Crazy Don's annoncement.

I know, it's "too much" to expect, but this is the only way. If you want a powerful military, one must spend money and keep it top notch. There should never be a compromise on a safety of the Motherland.

Co sign! 100% agreed!

 

[Jlaw]

I can see your point, but it's very dangerous to think like that. While PLA Forces has upgraded considerably over the past few years, they are still nowhere near where they should be in term of quantity. I know that the technology is developing fast and that is catching up to the U.S. in many areas now, but China is still having these Type 053 frigates in active duty and some so-called "destroyers" fra early / mid-1990s, which are not even close to the U.S. destroyers from 1980s and 1990s.

I don't even need to start with the use of planes such as J-7 and various J-8. Those things should have been target practice of some kind of drones long time ago - ALL of them 100%. Same goes for various T-59 MBT tanks and similar military hardware.

There are also still some old submarines in active duty. They should have been scrapped long time ago.

China needs to think of their sailors, pilots and soldiers and you cannot and should not put them in platforms such as T-59, J-7, J-8 and things like that. At least, this should have been replaced with more T-96 which are cheap and more J-10 fighters which are also cheap.

I mean, even when you start the engine of one J-7, J-8, T-59 etc and start spending fuel LOL, it's ALREADY a WASTE - that fuel should have been in some other fuel tank, in a platform that is much more modern.

China is spending too little of defense and it needs to start spending more. Spending doesn't have to used 100% on new platforms. One can use 50% for new platform and training, and 50% for even more research.

The point is - U.S. is not a military superpower because U.S. has 1 Nimitz-carrier. No, the U.S. is superpower because they have 10 of those.
The U.S. is not a superpower because the U.S. har 1 or 5 or 10 Arleigh Burke destroyers. No, the U.S. is a superpower because the U.S. has over 65 of those. And the same apply to Improved LA and Virginia-class SSN, etc.

So not only quality, but quantity matters a lot also. First quality, but then quantity.

So in order for China to also become military superpower in the world - beside being already an economic and almost technological superpower, China must spend money militarily like a superpower should - or like Chinese main competitor / possible enemy does.

Spending less than 2% of GDP is just too little. Increasing that to 3,5 percent at least should be the way to go. It's not much at all - and it's also time to really break the economic back of couple of regional enemies who still dream in their head that they can cause trouble with their extremism and hate against China and the Chinese people and interests.

Each time I see that China owns 1 trillion in U.S. bonds, I want to throw up when I know how many J-20 and Type 055 cruisers only HALF of that amount could produce. Even 1 / 3 of that amount.

China must make it clear - if the U.S. wants 2,400 F-35, China will build a mix of 2,400 J-20 and J-31. There should not be any discussion around this.
Whatever the U.S. decide to build, China should match, because Chinese economy is now larger in PPP compared to the U.S. and China builds most of their own weapons themselves. Hence, use of PPP is more appropriate to compare with.

If the U.S. wants to keep 65 - 70 destroyers, then China should have a mix og 65 Type 055 and Type 052D / E, etc.

It's very simple to make it clear to the U.S. that whatever the f#ck the U.S. starts to irritate others with, including irritating China, then China should match that with the same number of comparable units that will be built.

For instance: The U.S. says bla bla in 2017 / 2018. China should just match that next March, etc.

Now that we know that Crazy Don wants to spend additional 54 billion USD, China should at least match that - either officially or unofficially + spend add-on which China planned to increase with before the Crazy Don's annoncement.

I know, it's "too much" to expect, but this is the only way. If you want a powerful military, one must spend money and keep it top notch. There should never be a compromise on a safety of the Motherland.

CPC is going against Sun Tzu thinking. Not good.

 

[lcloo]

CPC is going against Sun Tzu thinking. Not good.

I beg to differ, I think CPC is actually following Sun Tzu thinking. By going in opposite direction vis a vis Trump's big increase in defence budget, China made Trump looks like an evil war monger, a dangerous man that is akin to leaders of WW2 Axis alliance.

And this will made US losing some friends who are maintaining equally warm relationship with US and China, Trump's action may made them to choose side, as uncle SAM always said, "Either you are with us, or you are against us".

China's defence budget for 2015, 2016 already has allocation for building of ships like 055, 052D, 001A and 002 etc, and airforce's 2020 projects (J20, Z20, Y20), and other projects for Rockets force and PLA etc. So even, with a small increase of 7%, the 2017 defence budget should be sufficient to enable continuation of current and future projects.

CPC decisions are not made by one man, these are decisions from collective brain storming, compare with some democratic nations' presidential degrees, CPC acts more wiser.

 

[GeHAC]

The accurate figure has been announced：1044.397B yuan
http://news.ifeng.com/a/20170306/50756180_0.shtml

 

[samsara]

Is China avoiding arms race with US by setting ‘low-key’ defence budget?

By Minnie Chan - SCMP
PUBLISHED : Thursday, 09 March, 2017, 12:56pm
UPDATED : Thursday, 09 March, 2017, 11:04pm

A 7 per cent defence budget increase rate for the world’s biggest army was carefully decided and aimed at keeping China from becoming tangled in an arms race with the United States, Chinese military experts say.

“China’s defence budget was decided by its comprehensive national strength, including the country’s strategic needs and domestic economic development,” he said. “It’s a norm that will not be changed, no matter how much the US increases its military spending.”

He said that downplaying the figure also aims at differentiating China’s strategies from those of the US, which are used to protect its national interests by intervening in global and regional security.

“The US wants to be the global police, but China just takes care of its peripheral security environment,” he added.

The state-run news agency Xinhua released the detailed spending figure on Monday amid questions over Beijing’s commitment to transparency in its military outlay, saying defence spending this year would rise by 7 per cent to 1.044 trillion yuan (US$151 billion).

The rate surprised both domestic and overseas observers as President Xi Jinping, who also chairs the powerful Central Military Commission, has begun a comprehensive military overhaul, including a cut of 300,000 personnel to turn the bulky army into a nimble and capable fighting force.

Chaturvedy said 7 per cent was “a decent growth rate”, but he would not “take it as an accurate value” amid China’s growing military might and assertive territorial claims. Critics say the real outlay could be much higher than the official figure.

“Many expenses and investments are of dual capability use and serve strategic and military purposes but are not included normally as part of defence budget,” Chaturvedy said.

Chinese Finance Minister Xiao Jie on Tuesday denied any problem with transparency in defence spending plans.

“I can unequivocally tell you that the so-called ’non-transparency’ issue does not exist,” Xiao told a NPC news conference in Beijing, saying defence and foreign affairs spending plans were factored into drafts of the budget “and there was no need to repeat them in the budget report”.

Some military personnel attending the congress said all delegates had been briefed on the budget draft at a closed door session one day before the opening of the annual meeting.

However, a military insider said that even though congress members were briefed, they would not understand the full picture of the spending breakdown.

“It’s impossible for the powerful Central Military Commission to provide details of specific spending to the congress because there are so many top secret and confidential parts in it,” the source said. “Briefing them is just one of the legal procedures to let the NPC read it and pass it.”

“If Beijing follows the US to have a near double-digit increase on defence spending, it will strain bilateral relations with Washington, and also make its neighbouring countries very nervous, believing that the world’s two big powers are preparing for a war,” Ni said.

Beijing had learned a lesson from the collapse of the former Soviet Union, he said, which was exhausted after its arms race with the US during the cold war.

However, Professor Jonathan Holslag, head of research at the Brussels Institute of Contemporary China Studies, said so far neither China nor the US, or any other Asian country, has been able to find a “peaceful way out of the numerous conflicts” as tensions continue to grow in the Asia-Pacific region.

“In terms of military spending, China’s budget is already bigger than that of its neighbours combined,” Holslag said. “The US is the only power able to keep it in check and in the long run, China is seeking to break through America’s Pacific line of defence. No doubt.”

This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as:
military budget ‘a bet against a cold war’

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/dipl...avoiding-arms-race-us-setting-low-key-defence

 

[Title123]

Only 1.3% of GDP? I thought they were going to go for 10% , considering US is going to raise 9% with a much larger base. Sounds like a peace loving country to me!

yes who alway make the war US or china.

 

[Star Expedition]

Good news to some people.
Still Not enough to protect our huge population.

 

[Title123]

I don't really think that increasing the defence budget by around 7% is a joke nor is it disappointingly low. Dissolve 300000 troop can save about 10 billion dollar or 7% of china defence budget 7 plus 7 eqaul to 14% it mean in 2017 china defence butget is increase to 14%

Firstly China is cutting down the strength of PLA by 300,000 men. What is the defence budget for 300,000 men army? Salaries, housing, food, training, weapons and equipment acquisition and maintenance etc for 300,000 men is enormous.

So the money saved from cutting 300,000 men can be channelled to others remaining in service. Add this to the around 7% increase, the actual "net increase" per person in armed services is more than that 7%.

Secondly, the active anti-corruption action has get rid of many "big tigers" in the armed service. This means PLA's expenditures are getting more value for money, i.e. corrupt money paid for non-existence of physical or intangent goods/ services, or over-pricing thereof has been drastically cut down. Every RMB allocated in the budget is getting bigger "bang" than before.

In short, savings from (1) man power reduction and (2) positive financial returns from anti-corruption plus (3) around 7% increase in annual budget, should be sufficient for a normal peace time year.

Of course if Mr. Trump wants to get things ugly around China, the budget can be changed.

cutting 300000 troop can safe about 10 billion dollars equal to 7% of china defence butget 7plus 7 equal to 14 it mean china 2017 defence budget is increase 14%

 

[Title123]

you really believe the figure they.give?

consider china still uses Type 59 J7 is reasonable

 

[ahojunk]

China opens military contracts worth billions of yuan to private companies

Tenders are part of drive to give private players greater role in defence contracting industry but lack of trust remains a problem, experts say

PUBLISHED : Thursday, 20 April, 2017, 9:00am
UPDATED : Thursday, 20 April, 2017, 9:20am

China first began integrating civilian and military technologies in the 1980s, but the PLA still relies on just a handful of state behemoths to supply most of its needs. Photo: Reuters

China’s military further opened its research and development programmes to private companies, inviting them to take part in projects worth an estimated 6 billion yuan (US$870 million or HK$6.78 billion), state media reported on Wednesday.

Analysts said the move was part of the government’s wider goal of creating a defence contract industry where private companies played a key role in supplying military technology that could also have civilian applications, similar to how Lockheed Martin and Boeing operated in the United States.

The contracting is overseen by the PLA’s arms procurement wing, the Equipment Development Department, which released information for more than 2,000 projects on its website, according to the PLA Daily.

Interested companies would have to put together a proposal that met the requirements listed on the website and submit it for evaluation, the report said.

Some 531 of the requirements involved classified information, and their inclusion could help set clearer standards for bids, the report quoted an unnamed officer as saying.

Beijing first began taking down the wall separating civilian and military technologies in the 1980s, but the PLA still relies on just a handful of state behemoths to supply most of its needs.

The integration received a substantial push in 2015 when President Xi Jinping, who chairs the policymaking Central Military Commission, elevated it to a national priority.

This past January, he authorised the creation of the Central Commission for Integrated Military and Civilian Development to coordinate policies and decisions towards that end.

But obstacles remain, with a major one being trust, according to He Qisong, a defence policy specialist at the Shanghai University of Political Science and Law.

“When it comes to key technologies in the defence industry, private companies can hardly gain any trust from the army in matters involving secrecy,” He said.

Retired PLA major general Xu Guangyu said new laws were needed to clarify obligations of businesses handling classified work, as well as to define the commercial benefits they could reap from cooperation with the military.

Xu, a senior researcher at Beijing-based research group the China Arms Control and Disarmament Association, said although the PLA had previously invited companies to take part in R&D, the latest round of projects was announced in a high-profile way.

“With this information, private companies can know what’s required to work with the army,” Xu said.

“China has a large number of private companies with many that are industry leaders, and the military can make use of the private companies’ potential.”

 

[帅的一匹]

China opens military contracts worth billions of yuan to private companies

Tenders are part of drive to give private players greater role in defence contracting industry but lack of trust remains a problem, experts say

PUBLISHED : Thursday, 20 April, 2017, 9:00am
UPDATED : Thursday, 20 April, 2017, 9:20am

View attachment 391757
China first began integrating civilian and military technologies in the 1980s, but the PLA still relies on just a handful of state behemoths to supply most of its needs. Photo: Reuters

China’s military further opened its research and development programmes to private companies, inviting them to take part in projects worth an estimated 6 billion yuan (US$870 million or HK$6.78 billion), state media reported on Wednesday.

Analysts said the move was part of the government’s wider goal of creating a defence contract industry where private companies played a key role in supplying military technology that could also have civilian applications, similar to how Lockheed Martin and Boeing operated in the United States.

The contracting is overseen by the PLA’s arms procurement wing, the Equipment Development Department, which released information for more than 2,000 projects on its website, according to the PLA Daily.

Interested companies would have to put together a proposal that met the requirements listed on the website and submit it for evaluation, the report said.

Some 531 of the requirements involved classified information, and their inclusion could help set clearer standards for bids, the report quoted an unnamed officer as saying.

Beijing first began taking down the wall separating civilian and military technologies in the 1980s, but the PLA still relies on just a handful of state behemoths to supply most of its needs.

The integration received a substantial push in 2015 when President Xi Jinping, who chairs the policymaking Central Military Commission, elevated it to a national priority.

This past January, he authorised the creation of the Central Commission for Integrated Military and Civilian Development to coordinate policies and decisions towards that end.

But obstacles remain, with a major one being trust, according to He Qisong, a defence policy specialist at the Shanghai University of Political Science and Law.

“When it comes to key technologies in the defence industry, private companies can hardly gain any trust from the army in matters involving secrecy,” He said.

Retired PLA major general Xu Guangyu said new laws were needed to clarify obligations of businesses handling classified work, as well as to define the commercial benefits they could reap from cooperation with the military.

Xu, a senior researcher at Beijing-based research group the China Arms Control and Disarmament Association, said although the PLA had previously invited companies to take part in R&D, the latest round of projects was announced in a high-profile way.

“With this information, private companies can know what’s required to work with the army,” Xu said.

“China has a large number of private companies with many that are industry leaders, and the military can make use of the private companies’ potential.”

We should take cautious our enemy will place spies in these private company, national security must be addressed.

anyone who pose threats to national security shall be put to death sentence immediately, it they won't be afraid of being a traitor.

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

We should take cautious our enemy will place spies in these private company, national security must be addressed.

anyone who pose threats to national security shall be put to death sentence immediately, it they won't be afraid of being a traitor.

A private company can be dealt with as much confidentiality as a state-owned company.

Only the structure and mechanism must be present.

 

[Brainsucker]

We should take cautious our enemy will place spies in these private company, national security must be addressed.

anyone who pose threats to national security shall be put to death sentence immediately, it they won't be afraid of being a traitor.

It is the same, as long as you have the law for it. The threats to national security is more about individuals who work in the companies. Even Government owned companies can be infiltrated by them.

But there is one weakness for this type of contract / outsourcing. It's lobbying / corruption. Those private companies, without a doubt will do their best to get high profile contracts from the government. And they will do everything for it. Like lobbying the key person who in charge in tender. If the government can't oversee this matter, those key person will be fatter and richer, and the quality that the PLA get will be diminished. They will buy bad quality or overpriced weapons just for sake to enrich some individuals.

 

[帅的一匹]

It is the same, as long as you have the law for it. The threats to national security is more about individuals who work in the companies. Even Government owned companies can be infiltrated by them.

But there is one weakness for this type of contract / outsourcing. It's lobbying / corruption. Those private companies, without a doubt will do their best to get high profile contracts from the government. And they will do everything for it. Like lobbying the key person who in charge in tender. If the government can't oversee this matter, those key person will be fatter and richer, and the quality that the PLA get will be diminished. They will buy bad quality or overpriced weapons just for sake to enrich some individuals.

The price and quality

 

[rcrmj]

better weapon doesnt necessary to be expensive, especially in China. you would be surprise to find out in value of the money wise, building 112 and 113 in 90s are as costly as building latest 052D in 2010s````as for the former, most of their key parts were imported or with expensive licenses````and the latter are all domestically manufactured with own intellectual property rights and economy of scale```! this is what the american really fear