China's War Chest

satcom

New Member
I wonder how long it would take them to build 10 Carriers


by Martin Walker
UPI Editor Emeritus
Washington (UPI) May 23, 2007

With more than $1,200 billion in U.S. dollars, T-bills and securities in its piggy bank, China has been losing money as the value of the dollar has fallen against the euro.

This helps explain that startling announcement last week that China is planning to launch a state investment fund that would seek better returns on its money. It plans to start by investing in stocks and private capital funds like the Blackstone group, which this week announced the infusion of $3 billion of China's massive hoard of cash.

Put this into perspective. At current market values, China's $300 billion fund could buy the whole of Wal-Mart, and still have enough left over to buy the Big Three American car makers: Ford, GM and Chrysler. Or it could buy British oil giant BP and still have enough left over to buy Germany's Siemens. If China wanted to put all its $1.2 trillion into stocks, it could buy Exxon-Mobil, Shell and BP and still have enough left to buy Wal-Mart.

Or China could put some of the money into its defense budget, buy aircraft carriers and challenge the traditional U.S. dominance of the seas. The standard U.S. Nimitz-style carriers cost around $6 billion each, and America's next generation CVN-21 carriers will cost about double that sum. Then there will be the cost of the warplanes, training the crews, and the other surface vessels in the standard task force that support and protect the carrier.

So a fleet of 10 state-of-the-art CVN-21 carriers with their warplane, crew and task force support could be had for about the $300 billion that China is planning to invest -- not counting the savings that Chinese manufacturing techniques and labor costs would bring. So China could in theory afford to challenge the traditional U.S. naval dominance in the Pacific Ocean.

Were it to choose to do so, it seems they would have a helping hand from the U.S. Navy. Adm. Tim Keating, who now runs the Pacific Command and used to serve on the carrier Nimitz, has just completed a five-day friendly visit to China. And at a lunch with Vice Adm. Wu Shengli, commander of China's navy, Keating stressed the difficulty and complexity of developing, building and operating an aircraft carrier. But at his news conference the following day, Keating said the United States would be willing to help if that is what China decides to do.

"It is not an area where we would want any tension to arise unnecessarily," he said. "And we would, if they choose to develop (an aircraft carrier program) help them to the degree that they seek and the degree that we're capable, in developing their programs."

The immediate response from many armchair strategists was to wonder if Admiral Keating had taken leave of his senses. Why would the U.S. Navy want to help a potential challenger for the control of the seas?

And yet the immediate Chinese response was very cautious. Maj. Gen. Yang Chunchang of China's Academy of Military Sciences told the Chinese-run Hong Kong daily, Wen Wei Po, that he "was concerned about (the implications of) Keating's remarks." Chinese strategists are wary of U.S. plans to infiltrate China's military machine and gather intelligence through joint exercises and exchange visits.

U.S. Navy officials have been thinking about China's plans for an aircraft carrier for more than a decade, since China first began talks with Russia about buying one of their small and obsolete carriers, so that they could start the long climb up the learning curve of naval aviation.

There is a school of American thought that would actually welcome a massive Chinese investment in aircraft carriers, on the grounds that it would take them as long as 20 years to be able to build the ships and aircraft, train the crews, and learn the tactics of operating carriers, and they would be very hard put to catch up with the U.S. Navy's 80 years of experience. (The U.S. Navy paid a stiff price for a similar over-confidence regarding another Asian fleet back on Dec. 7, 1941.)

Others maintain that luring China into building such a navy would be a clever fiscal trap that would overwhelm and distort the Chinese defense budget for decades to come, and simply offer some very fat targets for the U.S. advantage in stealthy hunter-killer submarines. There is also a view that in the age of stealthy submarines and super-fast torpedoes like the Russian Skval and precision-guided weapons, big aircraft carriers are already obsolete.

Maybe. But do not forget that China has already put men into space, and earlier this year a Chinese anti-satellite weapon knocked out an obsolete satellite orbiting high above the earth. The Chinese may be technologically behind the United States, but they are evidently catching up fast.

And the argument that building a carrier fleet would bust the Chinese budget looks very thin against the potential tsunami of dollars that Beijing is planning to pour into the world's financial markets. If the Beijing government decides that a carrier fleet is in the national interest, and that China's strategic goals require the ability to control its own waters and the key shipping lanes and oil tanker routes, they can certainly afford it. And there would be no more visible symbol of China's new role as a great power than a carrier fleet that embodies a challenge to America's command of the seas.

We have, of course, been here before, at the beginning of the 20th century when Kaiser Wilhelm's Germany decided to build a High Seas Fleet that could challenge Britain's dominance of the seas. The subsequent arms race as each side vied to produce more and more Dreadnought-type heavy battleships played an important role in the escalation of tensions that helped bring about the First World War.

This time, we have a third candidate for the new naval arms race. Indian Defense Minister A.K. Antony told his country's parliament last week that India plans to have three carriers on the seas by 2017. They already operate the Virar, bought from Britain (where it was known as HMS Hermes), and are currently refurbishing the former Soviet carrier Admiral Gorshkov. India is also now building at Cochin its own new 41,000-ton carrier, designed to carry Russian-designed Mig-29s.

But remembering the cost of all this, it should be emphasized that China's current account surplus grew by $136 billion in the first three months of this year. At that rate, they could afford to build a 10-carrier fleet with just half of this year's surplus. And last week, Credit Suisse estimated that China's total war chest, or rather its total reserves, could hit $2 trillion, or $2,000 billion, by the end of next year.

As China decides whether it wants to take the risk of challenging the United States for the command of the seas, or even just for the command of the waters around Taiwan, money will be no object.

Source: United Press International
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
Very interesting article.

I just wonder, though, why China would take any steps to risk alienating a trading partner like the USA when it is already doing so magnificently well financially in this relationship.

I thought the comment about American over confidence in relation to another Asian fleet in December 1941, was a timely reminder.

Cheers
 

contedicavour

New Member
Besides, what use would China have of so many carriers ? Their primary goal is to make sure their coastline is unassailable and that they can swamp Taiwan if need be. Since land-based aircrafts can cover Taiwan easily, it would rather be LPDs and LPHs that China would need, not 10 CVs.
Of course, one might say : what about countering Japan ... who might soon enough start building carriers or adapting its LPHs with ski jumps... but it would just be wasted resources since China wouldn't gain anything other than prestige.
Last but not least, to equip 10 CVs they'd need 500+ navalized Flankers for more than 50 bn USD, plus the pilots, the training and the weapons load. Way too much even for China's skyrocketing GDP. The USN has 600 Super Hornets just to give a comparison...

cheers
 

tphuang

Super Moderator
$6bil can buy >120 sukhois. If I was China (which I'm not), I'd rather buy 120 suks than 1 carrier.
flankers are the most overrated piece of equipment in PLA. But in this case, the article is just guessing at what China might do. In reality, it's responsible enough that it will invest the money in all areas.

China needs carriers for two main reasons:
1. protecting its sea lines
2. national prestige

There is no reason why China should not be allowed to have at least India number of carriers --> 3.
 

Schumacher

New Member
I suspect Adm Keating made the offer of help to PLAN to get a carrier is precisely because US knows, which I agree, that a carrier is in fact of far lower priority to China than all the publicity implies. PLAN seems to be taking its own sweet time to carefully study the Varyag rather than blindly pumping money into the carrier project. I think it's quite clear space, big aircraft, nuke subs just to name a few are of higher priority to China now.
Besides, if the US sees China as destined to get a carrier sooner or later with or without their help, it makes sense to offer to sell some 80s, 70s carrier tech to them to help reduce the deficit. :) Whether China will want to buy is another matter.
 

Rich

Member
Was Keating drinking? Or is he just a madman?

Why would we help the Chinese build super-carriers?

They steal our technology with both hands and were going to "help" them build super-carriers? And if carriers are so obsolete then why are we, and others, still building the bloody things? None of this makes any sense.

America, France, Britain, India, Russia, China, why would we all be wasting our money with new designs and construction of carriers if they were nothing but targets? I guess there is the thought that, with China anyway, they dont really have the overall strategy of power projection around the world. They just want to command the sea's in their region.

In that reality a super-carrier heavy force isn't really needed I guess. Overall however Keating's remarks are hard to logic out.
 

Galrahn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I think Keating is right on the money. If China does want to go that route, they certainly can with or without the US, so it makes more sense to get the US involved early in the process.

It is sometimes forgotten that the Great White Fleet of the early 20th century was built so the US could compete on the seas with England. It would seem that didn't have a negitive effect on relations between the US and Great Britain in the 20th century. Many of the war plans of that era were specifically for a war between the US and England. It would appear those plans were not needed.

There are a lot of valid comparisons between the relationship of the US and England of the early 20th century and the relationship between the US and China in the early 21st century, particularly in military and economic comparisons. I think Keating is smart to inject a tone of cooperation into the conversation early in the game, because it prevents a monopoly on the adversarial tone common in US and Chinese military discussions.
 

T-95

New Member
I think Keating is right on the money. If China does want to go that route, they certainly can with or without the US, so it makes more sense to get the US involved early in the process.

It is sometimes forgotten that the Great White Fleet of the early 20th century was built so the US could compete on the seas with England. It would seem that didn't have a negitive effect on relations between the US and Great Britain in the 20th century. Many of the war plans of that era were specifically for a war between the US and England. It would appear those plans were not needed.

There are a lot of valid comparisons between the relationship of the US and England of the early 20th century and the relationship between the US and China in the early 21st century, particularly in military and economic comparisons. I think Keating is smart to inject a tone of cooperation into the conversation early in the game, because it prevents a monopoly on the adversarial tone common in US and Chinese military discussions.
It would be the best thing in the world for the US to accept China's recent calls to improve relations between it and the US but so far the US has responded by putting huge taxes and tariffs on their imports to the US , pissed them off by accusing them of stealing defense tech(even if they were why would you call the worlds next superpower on it?) and blaming them for the Darfur crisis. I think that China sufficiently hates America now(though there has been a sign of hope with the recent trade talks but even those are going badly) which is a really bad thing if America doesn't want to gain a very powerful enemy.
 

dioditto

New Member
Very interesting article.

I just wonder, though, why China would take any steps to risk alienating a trading partner like the USA when it is already doing so magnificently well financially in this relationship.

I thought the comment about American over confidence in relation to another Asian fleet in December 1941, was a timely reminder.

Cheers

Note that this is written by by Martin Walker - another sinophobia scaremonger perpetrating that fear.

Just when did China actually do any of the above ??
 

rrrtx

New Member
It would be the best thing in the world for the US to accept China's recent calls to improve relations between it and the US but so far the US has responded by putting huge taxes and tariffs on their imports to the US , pissed them off by accusing them of stealing defense tech(even if they were why would you call the worlds next superpower on it?) and blaming them for the Darfur crisis. I think that China sufficiently hates America now(though there has been a sign of hope with the recent trade talks but even those are going badly) which is a really bad thing if America doesn't want to gain a very powerful enemy.
What else would the US do? China pirates our software, steals defense (and other) tech, is financing the Sudanese government, and has a miserable human rights record. If the US doesn't call them on it, who will?

China is the one who needs to decide if it is going to behave like an enemy or a friend. Remember, China needs the US more than the US needs China. It has far more to lose if relations deteriorate.
 

T-95

New Member
What else would the US do? China pirates our software, steals defense (and other) tech, is financing the Sudanese government, and has a miserable human rights record. If the US doesn't call them on it, who will?

China is the one who needs to decide if it is going to behave like an enemy or a friend. Remember, China needs the US more than the US needs China. It has far more to lose if relations deteriorate.
Miserable human rights record?! Isn't that quite hypocritical? Haditha massacre, Abo Grabe , the 5 US soldiers that killed a 14 yr. old girl's whole family(including her 5 yr. old baby sister) torched their bodies gang reaped the girl multiple times and set her on fire, bombing a wedding party, reaping and sexually abusing prisoner and taking pictures,the Hamdania incident. Don't bother with all this "Americas the good guy" BS.

And China doesn't have a lot to lose and America shouldn't be actively pursuing bad relations with them especially at this time when they can just swoop in with their jet fighters and invade Taiwan. Not to mention China's economy is going to surpass the American economy in terms of purchase power parity within 2 yrs. time. and is expected to replace America as the world superpower.I think the US has more to gain in keeping good relations with China than China with the US.
 

Rich

Member
It would be the best thing in the world for the US to accept China's recent calls to improve relations between it and the US but so far the US has responded by putting huge taxes and tariffs on their imports to the US , pissed them off by accusing them of stealing defense tech(even if they were why would you call the worlds next superpower on it?) and blaming them for the Darfur crisis. I think that China sufficiently hates America now(though there has been a sign of hope with the recent trade talks but even those are going badly) which is a really bad thing if America doesn't want to gain a very powerful enemy.
We dont care if they hate us and were not exactly scared.

We laugh when we hear one of their leaders threaten us with great devastation if there was a conflict, "the Chinese love to hint at a nuclear attack on us". A typical tactic of a totalitarian state that isn't answerable to its people for what its leaders say.

Why aren't we afraid you ask?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/index.html succinct, no?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/index.html And more eloquence.
 

T-95

New Member
We dont care if they hate us and were not exactly scared.

We laugh when we hear one of their leaders threaten us with great devastation if there was a conflict, "the Chinese love to hint at a nuclear attack on us". A typical tactic of a totalitarian state that isn't answerable to its people for what its leaders say.

Why aren't we afraid you ask?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/index.html succinct, no?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/index.html And more eloquence.
If political power was truly based on how many nuclear warheads you have then that would explain why the people of the countries participating in the European defense system all voted not to have the missile defense system based near their towns after a Russian General explicitly said that the countries participating in such activities will be subject to a "strategic strike". And Russia doesn't mind doing all this over such a small issue with ten interceptors and 15,000 Russian nuclear warheads in stockpile so you can imagine what type of measures they would take if America threatened them.
America is mad at China for doing well.
 

tphuang

Super Moderator
What else would the US do? China pirates our software, steals defense (and other) tech, is financing the Sudanese government, and has a miserable human rights record. If the US doesn't call them on it, who will?

China is the one who needs to decide if it is going to behave like an enemy or a friend. Remember, China needs the US more than the US needs China. It has far more to lose if relations deteriorate.
China pirate your software? America pirates its own software. Go to a typical college and see how many students are using legal software.

Steal your defense tech? Espionage is done not just by China. And contrary to what some Americans think, most of what China has developed has nothing to do with America.

Financing Sudanese gov't? the Chinese culture believes in not looking at other people's closet, it just believes in dealing with everyone.
 
Last edited:

Schumacher

New Member
Contrary to what many in the US believe, the Chinese have little intention to rock the boat of the PRC-US relations because the chances are high that they will overtake US just through these normal course of economic developemnts.
It is certain sections in US, & I fear these guys will gradually get larger in numbers, that want to 'stop' China in a desperate bid to avoid being overtaken.
It's this fear that will dominate the thinking behind US policies towards China for a while, & not 'human rights issues' as some kids like to think & actually expect others to believe. :)
 

T-95

New Member
Contrary to what many in the US believe, the Chinese have little intention to rock the boat of the PRC-US relations because the chances are high that they will overtake US just through these normal course of economic developemnts.
It is certain sections in US, & I fear these guys will gradually get larger in numbers, that want to 'stop' China in a desperate bid to avoid being overtaken.
It's this fear that will dominate the thinking behind US policies towards China for a while, & not 'human rights issues' as some kids like to think & actually expect others to believe. :)
lol ,thank you. China has been paying little attention to what the US has to say. The only word it had for them were friendly words except the recent "don't try politicize the economic situation" comment. The US on the other hand has been saying a whole bunch of crap to China which China barley pays attention to (like the recent report that said the US can save the day if China tries to reclaim Taiwan).
 

Rich

Member
If political power was truly based on how many nuclear warheads you have then that would explain why the people of the countries participating in the European defense system all voted not to have the missile defense system based near their towns after a Russian General explicitly said that the countries participating in such activities will be subject to a "strategic strike". And Russia doesn't mind doing all this over such a small issue with ten interceptors and 15,000 Russian nuclear warheads in stockpile so you can imagine what type of measures they would take if America threatened them.
America is mad at China for doing well.
I read this 5 different times and still dont know what it means.
China pirate your software? America pirates its own software. Go to a typical college and see how many students are using legal software.
Yeah, I know. I'm a Policeman. The difference is our Government isn't allowing it. The theft isn't government policy.

Steal your defense tech? Espionage is done not just by China. And contrary to what some Americans think, most of what China has developed has nothing to do with America.
China has created a vast theft network http://washingtontimes.com/specialreport/20050627-124855-6747r.htm and not just in America. Type "China and technology theft" into a search engine and tell me what you come up with.

Financing Sudanese gov't? the Chinese culture believes in not looking at other people's closet, it just believes in dealing with everyone.
"Other peoples closets"? http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/sudan_genocide_genocide_in_sudan.php

Contrary to what many in the US believe, the Chinese have little intention to rock the boat of the PRC-US relations because the chances are high that they will overtake US just through these normal course of economic developemnts.
It is certain sections in US, & I fear these guys will gradually get larger in numbers, that want to 'stop' China in a desperate bid to avoid being overtaken.
It's this fear that will dominate the thinking behind US policies towards China for a while, & not 'human rights issues' as some kids like to think & actually expect others to believe.
Schumacher did you recently have lunch with the Chinese Politburo? Where are your supporting facts and links of the economic indicators, and military systems projections, that will tell us when China "over-takes" us? I got news for you my friends 99.9% of us Yanks go thru our day, not only not thinking about China, but also not much giving a darn.

And if we had such thoughts about China then why would we have normalized relations with them and established such large trade ties?

Your entire paragraph is ridiculous. Kid!
 

T-95

New Member
I read this 5 different times and still dont know what it means.


Yeah, I know. I'm a Policeman. The difference is our Government isn't allowing it. The theft isn't government policy.



China has created a vast theft network http://washingtontimes.com/specialreport/20050627-124855-6747r.htm and not just in America. Type "China and technology theft" into a search engine and tell me what you come up with.



"Other peoples closets"? http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/sudan_genocide_genocide_in_sudan.php



Schumacher did you recently have lunch with the Chinese Politburo? Where are your supporting facts and links of the economic indicators, and military systems projections, that will tell us when China "over-takes" us? I got news for you my friends 99.9% of us Yanks go thru our day, not only not thinking about China, but also not much giving a darn.

And if we had such thoughts about China then why would we have normalized relations with them and established such large trade ties?

Your entire paragraph is ridiculous. Kid!
Give me a f**cking brake. Stop with the human rights shit. Did u see what America dose in Iraq? Or the whole concept of the Iraq war. They used the whole nuclear weapons thing to invade Iraq and consistently linked it to 9/11. Your just saying all of this because your a Yankee right? America is afraid of both China and Russia. And the recent report even though accurate in some areas its whole bunch BS. The notion that America can stop China from flattening Taiwan with the 1000 SRBM's it has aimed at it is ridiculous and theres is no way in hell Taiwan is gunna be able to defend it self unless there US intervention and even then it would just be able to cause greater casualties and losses for China not prevent an invasion.
 

webmaster

Troll Hunter
Staff member
Rich, you want to discuss HUMAN RIGHTS issues, go here:

http://www.worldaffairstalk.com/forums/

Lets not talk about political stuff in topics related to Military and Defense. We are really not interested in that... human rights or no human rights that won't change how China builds its military nor would it make any difference when there is war and how chinese military is used strategically.

T-95, please keep your anger in control. Report bad posts instead of replying to them and let us take care of it.

Rules:
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php

Thank you!
 
Top