So not to worry, it will be okay to cut back on defense spending here.
We don't need the F-22, F-35 stuff either because they're only building one carrier.
China to increase defence spending by 15 per cent
China is to increase official military spending by almost 15 per cent this year as it seeks to upgrade its smart technology and improve the living standards of its soldiers.
By Richard Spencer in Beijing
Last Updated: 1:29PM GMT 04 Mar 2009
China defence budget: China is known to be upgrading its nuclear arsenal and has all but confirmed plans to build its first aircraft carrier Photo: AFP
The 14.9 per cent rise to 480.7 billion yuan (£50 billion), up 62.5 billion yuan from 2008, was announced in advance of the annual meeting of the rubber-stamp parliament, the National People's Congress.
It is slightly smaller than the increase in recent years, suggesting that the government is focusing its spending on boosting the wider economy.
But after rises of 17.8 per cent in 2007 and 17.6 per cent in 2008, it still amounts to a rise of more than half since 2006.
In addition, the United States claims that real spending is significantly higher, as many costs, including major arms purchases, are kept off the officially announced budget.
This claim was rejected by Li Zhaoxing, a former foreign minister acting as spokesman for the Congress.
He said that China had signed up to the United Nations code for reporting military expenditure in 2007.
"There is no such thing as the so-called hidden military expenditure in China," he said.
He said that this year military spending would be 6.3 per cent of the total budget, and 1.4 per cent of GDP, compared to four per cent in the United States and two per cent in Britain and France.
China is known to be upgrading its nuclear arsenal and has all but confirmed plans to build its first aircraft carrier, but it is unclear whether these heavy cost loads are included in the budget.
Mr Li said a major part of the expenditure was to improve the historically poor living standards of foot-soldiers in the People's Liberation Army. But he said money would also be spent on "informatisation" – the country has become fiercely aware in the last two decades of how far behind the United States it has fallen in "smart" technology.
The PLA also needed more money to play its share in reconstruction projects in the areas afflicted by the Sichuan earthquake in May last year, which killed at least 80,000 people.
The National People's Congress opens on Thursday with a speech by the prime minister, Wen Jiabao. Mr Li confirmed that the duration of the NPC had been cut to just eight and a half days, and would end on March 13.
Reducing the length of time the parliament sits is one of a number of cost-cutting measures put in place by the government.
Delegates are also being banned from staying in five-star hotels, and their daily living expenses will be just 100 yuan – £10.
Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/4936931/China-to-increase-defence-spending-by-15-per-cent.html
Replies to: So not to worry, it will be okay to cut back on defense spending here.
We have 11 carrier strike groups
If the Chinese build one - and they have been "about ready to start building one" for a decade - the rest of the world combined will have ONE (the Russians, French and Brazilians all have small deck carriers, or what in the US Navy would be called "big deck amphibs").
The F22 and F35 would not be meant to address a carrier anyway - they are made to fight air forces. They cannot operate from carriers - the F18 can. And we are in the process of getting a new F18, too.
True, we were up to Norfolk in January for the commissioning of the GHW Bush CVN-77......
.....They are all needed and not all continuously at sea. As you and others debated the other day there is a question as to whether older systems can perform as well as newly developed systems to meet the threat. One thing I noticed omitted from the discussion and of concern for me is cutting back and not being able to catch up except at extraordinary expense. For instance, if the F-22 line is shut down trying to cobble together the suppliers again who are now spread from coast to coast would doom the restart. Another problem, the F-15s which you touted are aging and an aircraft can only undergo a certain number of stress cycles before it must be retired as unsafe to fly. The same for flying, it is a diminishing skills endeavor and unless there is constant training and practice the skill level decreases rapidly. In the same vane, that requires constant combat aerobatics practice in the aircraft so it becomes a necessary evil on the airframe. We have many F-15s and F-18s, unfortunately many have already made the mandatory trip to Davis-Monthan.
The same argument goes for M1A1 Abrahams as well as all equipment, things just wear out.
Link: http://hamptonroads.tv/hrtv.php?id=2805287
Agreed. I would just rather see new A-10s made than F-22s....
New F-15s would also be better, because the most important future mission of air power is supporting ground troops. I think we should continually do R&D, but not build the Raptor until there is a real need. The Chinese are not going to make anything that can challenge the Joint Strike Fighter any time soon.
Not a popular opinion around air force or navy types, however.
Agee the F-35 is all that's needed for CAS however, disagree re F-15 re CAP because.........
.....the carriers and over the target still require an air superiority fighter otherwise the CAS and the carrier become fairly easy targets. It would be foolish not to keep an eye on the chicoms who are up dating their airforce having retired all their MIG-19s and have third and fourth-generation fighters including MiG-21s, and Russian supplied SU-27s and SU-30MKKs to name a few. They are also building their own multi-purpose fighter.
As for the F-35 v the A-10, the F-35 is forward deployable whereas the A-10 is not which means they are more rapidly over the target and can maintain a higher sortie level than the A-10. Plus, they can perform multiple roles i.e., CAP and recon for Naval/Marine operations including engaging AMRAAMs and SAMs with HARMs. The A-10 is a great tank buster but Marine AH-1W Cobras and Army Apache Longbows are superior to the A-10 in that department and both are forward deployable. Of course the production lines for the A-10 were long ago dismantled.
The F22 is also used for ground attacks....
In fact, that's it's primary mission in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It's only the primary mission because there is no other mission
It is not designed as a ground-support aircraft. The A-10 is much better at this, and much cheaper. The F-35 is better, too.
You can kill a fly with a golden sledgehammer - but it's cheaper to use a fly swatter. Or, as the old saying goes, you don't send a tiger to catch a mouse.
Good point ....
but I disagree that we don't need the F22. It's an important piece of our arsenal especially with Russia and China getting "froggy" these days.
Now is Jeanine garofalo going to understand that?
(no message)
The F-35 will have a carrier-based variant. That's the entire point of the JSF program.
(no message)
True - that's why it's all we need.
(no message)
See above
(no message)
