US needs more subs to counter China ...

[The Grim Squeaker]

Except the US already spends almost as much on their military as the rest of the world combined. The idea that half of the entire world's military budget is insufficient to protect America's interests is ludicrous, even with China making more subs. 'Needing' moar subs only makes sense in the context of preserving US global supremacy.

Which is just a reflection of how massive the US economy is in comparison to everyone else. How much does of its GDP does the US spend annually on the military? 4%? They're not exactly breaking records for militarization.

IIRC, US military spending is not only massive, it's also disproportionate to the rest of the world's military spending, too.

Only the first part is true, percentages matter. The key issue is how much of an effort (GDP percentage is spent), since that sproportional of the effort it spends, or you might as well say that 3d world nations spending 11% of their GDP on arms "Are barely spending anything" due to their miniscule absolute GDP.
In addition, much the rest of the world relies on the US. Japan does, Europe does. Without those "Subsidies" you could expect many of those nations to spend far more (Japan especially, Russias neighbours maybe etc')

...China spends more of its GDP (and it's deceptive - the Chinese almost certainly underreport defence spending to a massive degree) than the US on defence,

Last figures I heard was them cutting down to some 15-25% of their overall GNP, around 2005. Before the buildups afforded by a booming, export budget and increased technical capabilities.

1) regardless of them ramping up their military spending, they are still not a credible threat to the US, except in made-up fantasy-land.

So "They're not a threat now, so we should wait enough time until they have superiority?". (Not saying it can be avoided or that this is the solution, i'm saying that a short term view is a crime for a nation state, a veritable crime).
If it takes you years to build a submarine, and combined with the timescaled discussed, then a long term view is worth taking a look at. "Look, they won't have nuclear weapons for a good 3, no 4 years at least, so why worry?". "Peak Oil hasn't happened yet, there's a good 5, no 7! years left, so leave those gas txes be!".

2) There is this one nation that's been going around randomly declaring countries to be "evil" and then invading them for made-up reasons. Perhaps China and Russia may view such a nation as a threat.

Redherring. You admit that now that they have the capabilities, resources, worldwide interests they're drastically ramping up their militaries?

[Stuart]

Stuart, do you assume submarines to be equivalent?

Isn't that profoundly wrong? Aren't U.S. subs capable of twice the patrol intensity of Soviet subs (and the Chinese subs are somewhat capable copies of that)?

Heavens no. The older Chinese boats (the 091s) are very crude; they have noise levels like cement mixers and their maintainability is highly suspect. I can't comment on those aspects of the 093s but its worth noting that everybody in The Business was quite shocked by the 093s when we finally got to look closely at one. We had been led to believe that the 093 represented a major step forward in Chinese submarine design; in fact it was little more than a cleaned-up and warmed-over 091 design. Likewise, the 094 SSBN was nothing like the advance originally proposed over the 092, again its merely a cleaned-up and warmed over version of the same design.

That, of course, gives rise to quite a bit of speculation. Sice 093 and 094 are not the very advanced designs we had exepcted and we know teh Chinese are developing such designs, is there another pair of Chinese designs out there? There have been mentions of a new SSN, Project 095, in the Chinese press and that implies an SSBN version of that design, 096 may exist as well. That's hypothetical though.

The Russian Northern fleet is coming back to life although its sortie rate is abysmal and its boats are decades out of date - in essentials the Russian Navy stopped developing in 1986 and its boats reflect that level of technology.

In both cases, this differential is why we're reasonably happy with 5 boats deployable in the Pacific and four in the Atlantic. As sustained deployments and given the qualitative advantages of our submarines we can live with that quite happily assuming enemy force levels don't rise dramatically (either numerically or quantitatively). The problem is that any force balance that depends on qualitative issues is by definition unstable; it only needs a sudden increase in boat quality (not necessarily to parity) to undermine that balance. The other problem is that to maintain five deployable boats in the Pacific, we are counting on the present force structure which includes 55+ SSNs. On present building rates, we won't be able to do that; the corce structure will drop to 28 SSNs and that means we'll be hard put to keep two boats deployed in the Pacific. That's an entirely different matter and 2 SSNs vs 7 SSNs and 25 SSKs is not a viable force mix. Hence, we need that increase in SSN production which is what the original article was saying.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Heavens no. The older Chinese boats (the 091s) are very crude; they have noise levels like cement mixers and their maintainability is highly suspect. I can't comment on those aspects of the 093s but its worth noting that everybody in The Business was quite shocked by the 093s when we finally got to look closely at one. We had been led to believe that the 093 represented a major step forward in Chinese submarine design; in fact it was little more than a cleaned-up and warmed-over 091 design. Likewise, the 094 SSBN was nothing like the advance originally proposed over the 092, again its merely a cleaned-up and warmed over version of the same design.

That, of course, gives rise to quite a bit of speculation. Sice 093 and 094 are not the very advanced designs we had exepcted and we know teh Chinese are developing such designs, is there another pair of Chinese designs out there? There have been mentions of a new SSN, Project 095, in the Chinese press and that implies an SSBN version of that design, 096 may exist as well. That's hypothetical though.

That's interesting. So they are even close to the old Deltas (the 094) or the Victors (093)?

[Stuart]

Just out of curiousity, but how many countries are there that don't have worldwide interests? Do you think that just because other countries aren't the US, they aren't dependant on relatively smooth international trade? Do they not have citizens in far-flung places? Do they not have interests everywhere?

Pretty much all of them. The U.S. is unique in the spread and extent of its interests. Even in the Cold War era we had interests that went far outside the direct areas of confrontation. Most big powers are what is called regional powers; their areas of interest lie withing a reasonable power-projection radius of their shores. Other powers are local powers, their interests only extend as far as their immediate neighbors. There is, if you like, a certain area that one might call "common interests", maintaining security of the sea lanes for example, clutch of other things. Technically, they're world-wide issues that affect everybody equally and everybody has an interest in seeing those common interests get policed. Unfortunately, "everybody" isn't equipped to do it. Only the U.S. is so the job falls to us, just like it fell to the British in the 19th century and to other powers before them. If we didn't do it. somebody else would have to and they'd have to pony up the cash and assets. If they don;t then a lot of bad things happen. In a very real sense, the US defense budget benefits everybody because it pays for things of "common interest" so other nations don't have to. So our big defense budget means that other nations can spend less.

How come only US feels the necessity to enter into arms races to 'protect' these interests?

We're not taking part in arms races. An arms race has a specific meaning and it isn't anything that's going on right now. The U.S. has defined its specific strategic interests, converted those into a force level and then builds that force level. What the article that started all this off was saying is that given SSN building rates, we won't be able to fill that force structure.

idea that half of the entire world's military budget is insufficient to protect America's interests is ludicrous, even with China making more subs.

No, it isn;t. Stop giving knee-jerk reactions and do the maths. What do we need around teh world, what do we have to build to get the force that we need to deploy around the world. It's not ludicrous at all. Its cold hard mathematics.

[Vympel]

The Russian Northern fleet is coming back to life although its sortie rate is abysmal and its boats are decades out of date - in essentials the Russian Navy stopped developing in 1986 and its boats reflect that level of technology.

For the most part - the only post 1986-technology level boats I can think of in the present Russian Navy are the Akula IIs of which there are one or two - I wonder however given the long build time between units whether Gepard is a quite different boat under the skin than Vepr - I understand it's not outwardly identical to Vepr either, it supposedly has a longer sail, and a smaller towed sonar array dispenser.

And then of course there's the Lada SSKs, but Sankt Petersburg isn't in the Northern Fleet, I believe it's in the Baltic Fleet. Where the subsequent units (Krondstadt is the second one laid down IIRC) are going I don't know.

There's supposed to be another Akula II that's going to be finished this year at the Pacific Fleet shipyard, Nerpa, though there's confusion as to whether it's an 'Improved' Akula or a full-fledged Akula II. Given the amount of time that's passed since it was laid down, I imagine the difference is also possibly largely academic and it might also be significantly different from its predecessors.

One of the most interesting things I've heard about future Russian submarines is that their next SSN design is going to be small in comparison to the Akula boats - closer to the Victor SSN in displacement. When that's going to eventuate is anyone's guess, it hasn't even been laid down. The Pr 885 Severodvinsk SSN/SSGN is probably going to be one of a kind.

[Stuart]

That's interesting. So they are even close to the old Deltas (the 094) or the Victors (093)?

The 091s were basically equivalent to the old Soviet Project 627 (November) class only their reactor design was less safe and their nose levels higher. 093 has more or less the same layout, the design has been cleaned up a bit with fewer free-flood holes etc but that's all. So really, its an updated version of the same design We can presume it has better sonars and we can devoutly hope it has a safer reactor but that's it.

The Chinese build their nuclear-powered submarine designs in pairs. the 092 SSBN was essentially an 091 with a missile compartment inserted amidships (much like the first US SSBN was an SSN cut in half with a missile compartment amidships). The 094 is the 093 cut in half with the added missile compartment. 091 is essentially similar to a Project 667 Yankee, again, 094 is probably not that much of an advance on that. Nowhere near 667B standards.

But, the interesting thing is we know, absolutely know, that the Chinese have had a lot of design assistance from the Russians including blueprints of the Project 671RTMK and Project 971A class boats. Equally obviously, 093 and 094 show no sign of that assistance so where had it gone? Hence the hypothesis that there's two more Chinese nuclear-powered submarine designs out there somewhere. Following the previous patterns, these should be the Project 095 SSN and the Project 096 SSBN with 096 being 095 cut in half and a missile compartment inserted amidships.

A word on budgets. It's utterly irrelevent what the rest of the world spends on its defense structures. Its a non-seqiter, of no relevence whatsoever. The size of the US defense budget is determined by the assessment of national interests made by the strategic authorities and the force structure is determines by the need to maintain adequate levels of assets to support those interests. The budget level is determined by the need to procure those assets. Now, we could pull back into our shell and tell the rest of the world to go hang itself, there are quite a few people in the US who would like to see us do that (oddly, they're nearly all the Christian fundies you all like to laugh at so much). We can do it, it would be very painful and our standard of living would go down pretty drastically but it could be done.

The catch is that the jobs the US does worldwide still have to be done. A "for instance". Australia is dependent for its economic health on theb export of mineral resources to the rest of the world, most notably China. Without the US Navy guaranteeing the free use of the sea lanes, either Australia or China would have to protect those sea lanes. Or there might be a war between two other powers, one of whom gets the idea that mining Australian ports and thus shutting off the enemy's supply of raw materials might be a very good idea (yes, I'm looking at you Taiwan).

If the US defense budget goes down, and we pull back into our shell, the rest of the world is going to have to spend a lot more - a whole lot more. That'll have a direct impact on their economic well-being. Asking the rest of teh world to take over the "world policeman job" (yes, I know its an abused term but its still real) will have a pretty grim effect on the world economy as a whole. Like flipping it into worldwide depression.

So, forget all this nonsense about who spends what eprcenatge of GNP because that's what it is - nonsense. Remember this equation instead

Defense budget = (force structure determined by national interests) - (those national interests that are protected by US expenditure)

before anybody yelps, no the U.S. is not doing the worldwide power porjection job because we're nice people. We're not, we're cold-hearted bastards. We're doing it because it suits us and we believe that the cost of doing the job is more than paid for by the benefits it brings (one of which is that other nations don't have to maintain enlarged force structures and another is that tarde is better when teh world isn't in a defense spending induced depression. There are others as well of course.

Teh whole point of this is, the issue of defense budgets and force levels is a very, very complicated one. there's whole clutches of considerations tossed in there. Just saying ZOMG! The U.S. spends as much as the rest of the world put together is, frankly, rather childish. it looks good as a sound-bite but in reality it is, like most sound bites, quite meaningless.

[Stuart]

For the most part - the only post 1986-technology level boats I can think of in the present Russian Navy are the Akula IIs of which there are one or two - I wonder however given the long build time between units whether Gepard is a quite different boat under the skin than Vepr - I understand it's not outwardly identical to Vepr either, it supposedly has a longer sail, and a smaller towed sonar array dispenser.

There's not much difference. The problem is that technology development stopped in the late 1980s and has been on life support until about five years ago. So, technically there;s a lot of catching up to do.

And then of course there's the Lada SSKs, but Sankt Petersburg isn't in the Northern Fleet, I believe it's in the Baltic Fleet. Where the subsequent units (Krondstadt is the second one laid down IIRC) are going I don't know.

The 677s are basically warmed-over 636/877s. The differences are pretty much cosmetic. By the way, as far as we can tell, the Project 041 Yuan is a license-built 677. There are three 677s built or building by teh way. ****My guess**** is they'll all go to the Baltic.

There's supposed to be another Akula II that's going to be finished this year at the Pacific Fleet shipyard, Nerpa, though there's confusion as to whether it's an 'Improved' Akula or a full-fledged Akula II. Given the amount of time that's passed since it was laid down, I imagine the difference is also possibly largely academic and it might also be significantly different from its predecessors.

Doesn't really matter, she's on her way to the Indian Navy. Her Indian crew are already in Russia training to take her over. One of her sister-ships is suppiosed to be going as well (probably Nepr) but that's still up in the air.

One of the most interesting things I've heard about future Russian submarines is that their next SSN design is going to be small in comparison to the Akula boats - closer to the Victor SSN in displacement. When that's going to eventuate is anyone's guess, it hasn't even been laid down. The Pr 885 Severodvinsk SSN/SSGN is probably going to be one of a kind.

There's a lot of discussion on that, teh problem is that small SSNs tend not to be very capable. Cutting down hull size also means cutting the aperture on the sonar arrays and cramping the reactor compartment layout. The French went to the small SSN route and have been paying for it with operational accidents for twenty years. My guess is that when the next-generation SSN arrives, it'll probably be 688 sized at the least.

[Pelranius]

There's a picture of a planeless sailed 093 which was exhibited at the 80th anniversary of the PLA. Planeless or plane equipped sail, the 093 seems to look more like a western SSN. My personal theory on the 093 is that they're improving it with each additional model, so each one is better and noticeably more capable than the next (they've done the same things with their destroyers). Some sources (I'm not sure of the reliability) claim that its operational noise level is at 110-100 decibels, which I'm told is about equivalent to the early Los Angeles class. Whether or not the PLAN can operate the 093 (which is probably a stop gap solution until the next lot of SSNs is available). Either way, there's not much I myself can say about the 093, since most of the changes are inside.

The 095 SSN is pretty much a given, since there was a website for an actual machinery company which talked about work on the reactor for the 095. Needless to say, it was taken down quickly after a few days.

Well, just the two cents from Stardestroyernet's in resident amateur PLA watcher.

[hongi]

Or there might be a war between two other powers, one of whom gets the idea that mining Australian ports and thus shutting off the enemy's supply of raw materials might be a very good idea (yes, I'm looking at you Taiwan).

You're joking surely.

[Pelranius]

I doubt that Taiwanese submarines (if they actually ever went and acquired those things) would have the capability to actually go mine Australian ports. They might have the endurance to make it with AIP, but by the time they do get there, hostilities will probably be over. And they'd have to face the Collins submarines of the Australian RN, which I've been informed are quite capable.

Besides, they'd need those submarines to fight the PLAN (though 8 or 10 against at least 30 some PLAN boats are not good odds).

[Lusankya]

Or there might be a war between two other powers, one of whom gets the idea that mining Australian ports and thus shutting off the enemy's supply of raw materials might be a very good idea (yes, I'm looking at you Taiwan).

You're joking surely.

Remember, children, the US army is there to protect YOUR freedom.

[Knife]

Remember, children, the US army is there to protect YOUR freedom.

Tell you what, you pressure your government to release the US from our treaty requirements in regards to Aussie and I'll pressure my government to accept that noble sentiment.

Then I can sit back and laugh at the threads you post about your taxes being spent on a military build up to fill the huge, if perhaps over large, gap in your defense. Sure you don't need supercarriers or anything but without the big guy with the stick the Yanks represent, your current force structure is a bit thin.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Or there might be a war between two other powers, one of whom gets the idea that mining Australian ports and thus shutting off the enemy's supply of raw materials might be a very good idea (yes, I'm looking at you Taiwan).

You're joking surely.

I don't think he is. Australia is a major supplier of food, and other raw materials.

[Pelranius]

I think the joking part is directed at Taiwan's possible actions.

Stuart: I didn't know that Russia had sold China the blueprints for the 971A. That certainly makes things quite interesting (though then I would believe that the acquisitions of the blueprints came too late to make changes to the design of the 093, which was already under construction by 2000 at latest. Would explain the differences between the various models).

[Stuart Mackey]

before anybody yelps, no the U.S. is not doing the worldwide power porjection job because we're nice people. We're not, we're cold-hearted bastards. We're doing it because it suits us and we believe that the cost of doing the job is more than paid for by the benefits it brings (one of which is that other nations don't have to maintain enlarged force structures and another is that tarde is better when teh world isn't in a defense spending induced depression. There are others as well of course.

Now that's more like it. And let be honest some of those interests that are protected are not just generated from external trade.

Teh whole point of this is, the issue of defense budgets and force levels is a very, very complicated one. there's whole clutches of considerations tossed in there. Just saying ZOMG! The U.S. spends as much as the rest of the world put together is, frankly, rather childish. it looks good as a sound-bite but in reality it is, like most sound bites, quite meaningless.

And you know that such simple populist ideas, while meaningless, are very relevant as they do cater to an audience that is ignorant of such matters or to thick to understand them, but vote, so they matter, very much.

[Stuart Mackey]

I doubt that Taiwanese submarines (if they actually ever went and acquired those things) would have the capability to actually go mine Australian ports. They might have the endurance to make it with AIP, but by the time they do get there, hostilities will probably be over. And they'd have to face the Collins submarines of the Australian RN, which I've been informed are quite capable.

Besides, they'd need those submarines to fight the PLAN (though 8 or 10 against at least 30 some PLAN boats are not good odds).

If they mine Aussie waters they would do so with merchies, such vessels are easy enough to jury rig for the job and can do it as the 'opening shot'.

[Stuart]

There's a picture of a planeless sailed 093 which was exhibited at the 80th anniversary of the PLA. Planeless or plane equipped sail, the 093 seems to look more like a western SSN. My personal theory on the 093 is that they're improving it with each additional model, so each one is better and noticeably more capable than the next (they've done the same things with their destroyers). Some sources (I'm not sure of the reliability) claim that its operational noise level is at 110-100 decibels, which I'm told is about equivalent to the early Los Angeles class. Whether or not the PLAN can operate the 093 (which is probably a stop gap solution until the next lot of SSNs is available). Either way, there's not much I myself can say about the 093, since most of the changes are inside.

The 095 SSN is pretty much a given, since there was a website for an actual machinery company which talked about work on the reactor for the 095. Needless to say, it was taken down quickly after a few days. Well, just the two cents from Stardestroyernet's in resident amateur PLA watcher.

I'd agree on the phased improvement principle but that doesn't really affect the problems of a crude basic hull design. there are at least four sub-variants of the 039 class (039, 039A, 039G and 039G1) so there's striong empirical evidence to support that approach. ****My own feeling**** on the 093/095 SSN issue is that 093 is a Chinese-only design line developed from 091 and intended as an insurance policy and an interim design while 095 is the Russian-based design intended as the ultimate design. This parallels of SSK situation where 039 is derived from the 035 Ming while 041 is a Russian based design (either a licensed Lada or something very close to that)

I doubt that Taiwanese submarines (if they actually ever went and acquired those things) would have the capability to actually go mine Australian ports. They might have the endurance to make it with AIP, but by the time they do get there, hostilities will probably be over. And they'd have to face the Collins submarines of the Australian RN, which I've been informed are quite capable. Besides, they'd need those submarines to fight the PLAN (though 8 or 10 against at least 30 some PLAN boats are not good odds).

So do I; if the Taiwanese did pull a stunt like that, they'd lay the mines from merchant ships. It wouldn't need many, a couple of pressure mines in each shipping lane would foul up port movements for weeks. It won't happen because the Taiwanese have been clearly told "try a stunt like that and you're on your own."

The point is though that there are a lot of countries whose minds do run along that sort of line and keeping them in check is a Good Thing no matter who does it. A simple analogy can be drawn with a residential neighborhood. It's well-policed with police cruisers doing the rounds every hour or so and the odd police officer doinga foot patrol and saying "Hi" to the residents. Nice and peaceful. Then the budget gets cut, because somebody points out that the police spend far more on guns than any single resident in the neighborhood, the police stop patrolling. The neighborhood goes to hell, crime soars and the residents start buying guns of their own. That's a much less desirable situation.

Likewise, in protecting its own world-wide interests, the US protects other people's as well. Say again, that's not because we're nice people, we aren;t. Its because it suits us to have things that way. But if we don;t do it somebody else will.

Japan is a classic example; Japan lives because there are two long lines of oil/gas carriers, one stretching to the Gulf, the other to Indonesia. If those lines get cut, the Japanese population starves to death while sitting in the dark. The Japanese get away with spending 1 percent of GNP on defense (which is, by the way, still a very large sum) because Uncle Sam protects those sea lanes. Without our carriers and submarines out there, Japan's defense budget would have to (at least) quadruple and that brings about complications all of its own.

[Stuart]

You're joking surely.

Who me? Heaven forfend!

To some extent yes but remember blockade is a standard part of warfare (except today we call it sanctions). Imagine a situation where Taiwan is on its own, fighting for its life. It can cripple Chinese warmaking potential by cutting off resources. All it needs is a few mines in a few sealanes. Sounds tempting doesn't it? And if one country starts that game, others will. Indonesia is another country that could act strange - virtually every major Pacific-IO shipping lane passes through Indonesian waters.

At the moment, Taiwan has the U.S. Fleet to fall back on but that fleet has a price. It's basically, "play nice or we'll pick up our CVNs and go home and you can fight on your own". it's an unsung part of teh US Navy's worldwide deployments - sometimes our interests are served by what we don't do as much as by what we do.

[Stuart]

Remember, children, the US army is there to protect YOUR freedom.

Sound-bites do not an argument make.

Now that's more like it. And let be honest some of those interests that are protected are not just generated from external trade.

Of course, "interests" cover a whole wide range of things.

And you know that such simple populist ideas, while meaningless, are very relevant as they do cater to an audience that is ignorant of such matters or to thick to understand them, but vote, so they matter, very much.

Unfortunately, you're right. Still, we can but try...... The first lesson to get over is that what one country spends on defense has very little to do with what others spend. Each determines is budgets by the force structure it needs and its surprising how little impact other countries have on that (even "traditional enemies"). Genuine arms races are very rare indeed.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Japan is a classic example; Japan lives because there are two long lines of oil/gas carriers, one stretching to the Gulf, the other to Indonesia. If those lines get cut, the Japanese population starves to death while sitting in the dark. The Japanese get away with spending 1 percent of GNP on defense (which is, by the way, still a very large sum) because Uncle Sam protects those sea lanes. Without our carriers and submarines out there, Japan's defense budget would have to (at least) quadruple and that brings about complications all of its own.

It's interesting that you say that--when working out the force structure of a fictional nation located partially on what would be Australia and the rest on a surfaced Zealandia (Tarrantry style, I confess) in the South Pacific, with quality of life about the same as Japan's and a population of 109 million. The 2005 defence budget worked out to 185.6 billion--Multiply Japan's defence budget by a factor of four in 2005, and you get 177.2 billion. Sharing OTL Australia's minerological features and having a legacy of a strong navy that helped defeat Japan in WW2, both their background and their rationale for the force are somewhat different, but the needs of a major Pacific maritime power are largely the same and it works out to a very similar figure. The costs of maintaining an independent ability to protect or deny the sea-lanes and defend your integral waters is a severe one.

[Pelranius]

Stuart: I'm not really sure how much of the 041 (I have also alternately heard it referred to as the 039G/A as well) is actually derived from Russian designs. While its hull is similar to that of the Kilo/Lada its limber holes, sub tower and propeller design are all of Chinese development. The AIP system on the Yuan is a Stirling, if news reports are to be believed (I don't think the Lada is equipped with an AIP, but the Amur is. Or is the Amur the one with the axillary nuclear reactor? I sort of lost track of Russian SSK developments after the Kilo).

The electronics sound be Chinese sourced as well, since it uses Chinese torpedoes and missiles, which would probably be incompatible with Russian software.

I've also heard theories that the French and Germans also gave a helping hand to the Chinese on the Yuan (which isn't too surprising, considering who's engines and derivative command systems are on the Type 071 LDP and 054A frigates).

[Stuart Mackey]

Unfortunately, you're right. Still, we can but try...... The first lesson to get over is that what one country spends on defense has very little to do with what others spend. Each determines is budgets by the force structure it needs and its surprising how little impact other countries have on that (even "traditional enemies"). Genuine arms races are very rare indeed.

Oh, I know, but people don't get it. Here in NZ its a problem that afflicts both sides of the political spectrum, albeit for different reasons, and is why our spending on defence is so low.

[Stuart]

Stuart: I'm not really sure how much of the 041 (I have also alternately heard it referred to as the 039G/A as well) is actually derived from Russian designs.

I've seen both as well. For safety I usually put (also knows as 039A) after the 041 designation. I go with 041 though because its so clearly different from the 035-derived 039.

While its hull is similar to that of the Kilo/Lada its limber holes, sub tower and propeller design are all of Chinese development.

True, but there have been reports since 2002 that the Russians had licensed the Chinese to build an SSK in Chinese yards. At first that sounded like the 877/636 but the arrival of Yuan made people wonder. Intriniscally, the hull is very similar to the 677.

The AIP system on the Yuan is a Stirling, if news reports are to be believed (I don't think the Lada is equipped with an AIP, but the Amur is. Or is the Amur the one with the axillary nuclear reactor? I sort of lost track of Russian SSK developments after the Kilo).

Both Amur and Lada are Project 677; Lada is the Russian Navy version while Amur is the family name for the export versions which vary in size from 850 to 2250 tons. That's why I dislike names and use project Numbers. There are AIP and non-AIP versions of the Lada and the larger Amurs. The one with a nuclear reactor is something else; I'll have to look it up.

The electronics sound be Chinese sourced as well, since it uses Chinese torpedoes and missiles, which would probably be incompatible with Russian software.

Not necessarily, they're getting a new generation of kit and its largely Russian-derived. So, strong case that its compatible.

I've also heard theories that the French and Germans also gave a helping hand to the Chinese on the Yuan (which isn't too surprising, considering who's engines and derivative command systems are on the Type 071 LDP and 054A frigates).

Wouldn't surprise me either. Although the Chinese have ripped off the French so frequently in the past, I'm suprised the French went back there.

[Medic]

Every dirtbag, shoestring military has all the elements of the American military but funded in radically differing levels and -- hardware, the tanks, planes and guns; manpower, to man the and operate the hardware; land and infrastructure, to house everything and practice and perfect their craft; and finally the requisite logistical back-end that keeps it going day to day, food, water, fuel and ammunition. The point is ALL of that can and does vary and the American military by virtue of being funded by the #1 economy in the world doesn't have to skimp on anything.

That means 1) bleeding-edge technological everything 2) a robust supply system, spare parts for everything, more fuel to train with that I'm certain many nations consume, billions of small-arms rounds for training and smart-weapon inventories that aren't for-show, but large enough to fight sustained conflicts with (hell, to be honest, not even we do this... my point is exactly that though, this singular aspect of the military's budget scales terribly and inflates reasonable comparison) 3) comprehensive training and finally 4) substantial personnel investment. Housing, benefits, on-post infrastructure, pay, health, bonuses, benefits.

In real-terms, there isn't a shoestring item in the DoD's budget so an OPFOR amalgamation of military's equal in number of personnel and vehicles, ships and planes will always be cheaper. We're closer to a wartime footing than the rest of world and there exists fraud, waste and abuse (probably most of it in spending billions in R&D and then pulling the plug because of blatant politicking or retarded SecDef's and idealogues) but it's equally true and relevant to say that ours is ideally how large a budget has to be to sustain such a large, modern force.

Caveats, assumptions:
1) we don't strictly have to invest in our warfighters any better than a draftee in the Republic of Korean Army who cleans his own plate at the dining facility's and looks forward to shining his boots and ironing his uniform in his free time, confined to his austere barracks because with an $18 salary, there's fuck-all else to do.
2) the idea that we should even take maintaining a military serious, i.e., training is ideally regular and relevant -- a priority on par with all others because going to war is an ever-present reality, that we should inculcate the professional environment necessary to have good leaders and not lead, train and teach strictly by the whip.
3) that Allah will not in fact will us ammo if we deserve to win, that a logistical back-end is required to fight wars. Or in a sense relevant to our N.A.T.O. peers, that there isn't always a Bigger Power to lean on in lean or desperate times, i.e., we can't look to anyone else for more strategic airlift capability cause we're the end of the line. The idea that a military should be capable of independent action, not reliant on pooled assets.
4) that we should use the best weapons and not rely on 2nd-class Battleships and quantity being our best quality. Sure, coming out of a Cold War posture, America COULD have simply drowned Saddam in F-4's, M60's and, hell, bolt-action rifle-armed soldiers, but it would've been costly, ponderous and not just antithetical to the American way of fighting but just plain wrong.

[K. A. Pital]

The neighborhood goes to hell, crime soars and the residents start buying guns of their own. That's a much less desirable situation.

Funny how Stuart easily applies this idea to the US, thinking that it's role as "world police" is desireable, but I doubt he'd be so eager to apply it to other nations.

How about colonial empires, were those also "good policemen" and their absence is a "much less desireable situation"?

Lastly, the US in it's "world policeman" role has not been able to prevent wars and conflicts, as a policeman shoud do, but often played an instigator party role. That is way inconsistent with Stuart's rosy picture.

The Russian Northern fleet is coming back to life although its sortie rate is abysmal and its boats are decades out of date

But seriously, Stuart, the USSR had a twice worse sortie rate than the United States, per boat even at peak (1980s). China doesn't have twice the number of US submarines, and if the USSR didn't manage a quality jump in submarines, why and how would China?

The quality approach has downsides, but surely if it were wrong, the US should've had twice the USSR fleet of Submarines in the 1980s, not half of it, right?

The U.S. is unique in the spread and extent of its interests. Even in the Cold War era we had interests that went far outside the direct areas of confrontation.

That is only as self-fulfilling prophecy - by having a supermassive Navy, the US could pursue interests far beyond it's continental sphere of influence.

Technically, they're world-wide issues that affect everybody equally and everybody has an interest in seeing those common interests get policed.

Not everyone would like to see the seas policed in U.S. interests, surely.

So our big defense budget means that other nations can spend less.

You mean the way you forced our nation to spend more and more in the arms race, right?