Really, I see this vast increase in defense spending as having little value for China.

See, there has not been “vast increase” in spending. It’s been fairly incremental. And compared to the US, China’s not actually spending that much.

As it just pushes many Regional Nations back into the US Camp. Instead China could continue to focus on improving the day to day lives of the Chinese People sending its resources on things like Infrastructure, Education, etc. etc. etc. Which, is not to say China shouldn’t upgrade its Military. Yet, she could have spent it on more Defensive Weapons. For example Aircraft Carriers and Amphibious Assault Ships are going to be considered very offensive and China’s Neighbors. Especially, considering China has very few territories (islands) far from the Mainland.

China doesn’t spend that much on defence and definitely allocates large amounts of budget to improving the day to day lives of the chinese people… if anything infrastructure has been overspent on lately. And hasn’t the mass rise of millions of chinese in the last few decades from below the poverty line already proven the country’s commitment to improving the lives of its citizens? They have a way to go yet, but that doesn’t mean they should skimp on defence which is a necessary evil to ensure the safety of economic and political interests abroad.

Besides there are other countries that spend large amounts on defence as well even with large swathes of their population below the poverty line, yet find the budget to fund the purchase of hundreds of foreign jets or new and refurbished aircraft carriers, active ballistic missile programms, etc etc. Yet no one’s calling any of those nations out on it. Accusing China of misspending is a bit rich in comparison, no?

Plus, it’s and Arms Race even China can’t win……….The USSR found that out the hard way!

China isn’t pursuing an arms race, not yet.
Aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships, while considered offensive, are unfortunately necessary to protect China’s more foreign interests, shipping lanes, overseas nationals etc. As Chinese global economic clout expands, they will need the military power to respond to crises that threatens said clout. If a few neighbouring nations are put off by it, China should do its best to assure them of its intent. But china will still be expanding its naval presence, like it or not.

It’s also a mistake to lump all of the US’s allies in westpac into a unified group, like NATO because such an alliance is some ways off yet, so predicting the result of a potential arms race with that factor still in flux, is premature.

*just like any less powerful entity when confronted by a more powerful entity.
I’m sure the US can attest to this rule, considering how many times they’ve implemented it in the nations not so distant past.

Although it’s less “surrender or die”. More “surrender or face our force until you surrender” because rarely in history has one side perpetuated a massacre, genocide or ethnic cleansing in response to resistance. At least not in recent history. Surrenders are usually taken in good faith these days. And as disjointed as your reply was I’m sure you weren’t claiming that Tibetans have been subjected to a genocide which would warrant “or die” as a legitimate alternative.
I suppose “surrender and die” has occurred in recent history, where the losing side ends up getting wiped out of existence for racial reasons, but I digress.

The answer to this question is obviously yes, but it needs to be seen in two dimensions. One, the PLA as a whole has been dramatically underfunded for the most of the cold war until the early 21st century, so this “expansion” should technically be called a modernization. Whatever. However you cut it up, PLA(N) capabilities are dramatically increasing as opposed to before, yes.

As to the nature of this modernization/expansion, yes many new weapons systems that are being developed are “offensive” in nature or rather, meant to project power. I am sympathetic to the stance that these new purchases are seen as a Chinese plot to eventually take the islands in dispute by force or whatever (a narrative which the western media has bandwagoned on with great gusto), but we should also consider other factors:
-The rising economic ties that china has with the world. SLOC and shipping are all under protection of navies that cannot be depended on if sh*t hits the fan. Any realistic individual should concede that no country will allow such a vulnerable lifeline to be under the unilateral control of a faction whose loyalty can come under question. Which brings us to…
-Politics. Many of the “offensive” weapons china is developing will have a use to strike at/deter US forces in the westpac. I recently saw an article that was linked on information dissemination, discussing air sea battle and the potential for conflict with china, which stated this:

Myth Number 2: Pursuing Air-Sea Battle makes war with China more likely. The logic of this myth goes like this: �China is rising as a result of its economic might, and its military improvements are designed to increase its own security. Our investments in ASB provide a destabilizing influence, one that is more likely to bring on war with China. We should be finding ways to cooperate with China on regional security in a way that does not threaten it.�

There is an internal logic to this view, but it simply doesn�t account for one significant fact: China�s buildup began long before ASB was even a gleam in the Chief of Naval Operation�s eye, and one can only view that buildup as �increasing its (China�s) own security� if one concedes that reducing U.S. power and influence in the region is a worthy concession to Chinese security. China is not interested in sharing power in the Western Pacific; it is interested in asserting it.

The obvious implication of the view that ASB makes war more likely is that if we abandoned ASB, war with China would be less likely. This is contestable and quite possibly backwards. One of the reasons ASB was so important to pursue was the growing uneasiness of friends and allies in the region, uneasiness born of increasing Chinese capabilities and the aforementioned wobbliness coming out of the Pacific Command at the end of the last decade. Longtime allies began to seriously question our staying power in the face of the growing perception that the PLA could someday contest U.S. dominance in the region. Would not failure to pursue counter A2AD capabilities (and the concomitant erosion of allied confidence in our ability to provide security) embolden the PRC in its various regional aims? Would this not create a more unstable security situation by leaving the PRC more comfortable launching a war, confident that the U.S. would not be able to intervene? Or perhaps a �Findlandization� of the region is tolerable to the anti-ASB crowd, wherein nations pay fealty to a new hegemon and quietly bear what they must?

The danger of miscalculation is the bugbear of great power relations. A strategy of retreat or downsize only increases the odds of such miscalculation. A strategy that asserts our Pacific interests and provides the means to protect them is less likely to create miscalculation. Notice please, that I did not refer to ASB as a strategy.

Basically, as china’s economy rises, its overseas interests will rise, and so will its desire and power to feel more secure in its own backyard.
Eventually Westpac will have to fold in one direction, either China or the US. Let’s be realistic here and admit that no government with its own perceived need for national security will allow large vulnerabilities to exist if they have the political and economic will for it.
In that sense, so many US carriers, submarines and ships constantly in Westpac will increasingly be seen as unacceptable by the Chinese government, not to mention the US’s string of allies.

And as long as neither side gives way in their pursuit of foreign policy, a confrontation will be inevitable. China is bound by its economic trajectory with unresolved historical greivances still looming large, the US is bound by commitment to its treaty allies and its experience with the USSR where the strategy of containment and no-compromise (at least near the dusk of the cold war) worked wonders. Both sides are bound by an awkward need to pacify the other so they are not a threat, and both sides are also fortunately bound economically with each other and the rest of the world, which is probably the only solid barrier against a new cold war.

TL;DR: the answer is yes, but you better not be trying to paint anyone as the bad guy here. As in all historical wars and conflicts, things happen due to realpolitik.

—

WRT the island disputes, I think China has not necessarily been any more assertive than its smaller neighbours (they haven’t been sending in warships or anything, only coastguard/maritime surveillance vessels, and almost every side has crashed a few boats and arrested a few fishermen), however the sheer, larger mass of the modernizing chinese military paints the country’s attitude towarrds the islands as belligerent and bellowing.
You should also consider the possibility that some of these disputes would’ve been resolved had some of the smaller countries not have been exposed to US “support”. They may not have been willing to even challenge china’s claims and may’ve gone to the discussion table years ago without the US… So if you want to cut it that way, it’s the US who are sparking this “arms race” (trolololol I kid of course. Realpolitik)

That day might well come, if India gradually ditches its current corrupt-criminal-crony capitalist political establishment and moves to a more nationalist center. All these artificial constraints and fake fear of the PRC will dissipate.

Unless they way to go full on confrontationalist and put the economic relationship with china in heavy strain. That day is far away

Basically the day that china becomes irrelevant economically is when other countries can afford to ignore it

A simple google search or even looking at this forum would show the answer is yes.

Even more surprising is the lack of catapults and TWO rear launch positions that infringe on the landing strip.

The CVF style twin island approach is also notable, as well as what appears to be a very large beam. Looks like a CVF + kuznetsov had a kid. Interesting concept

Now that I’m posting here, what is the latest on the gorshkov class frigates (number in service/trial/launched? A Internet search yields little and unfortunately my Russian is nonexistent). Much appreciated

Latest H-6K has FLIR ball, probably can drop PGMs, LGBs at any rate.

I personally prefer this picture…

Surprised at lack of Y-20 tbh. Mixes the best looking bits and bobs of C-17 and Il-76 together imo.

And I don’t think you can really beat the simple lines of the C-130, even if it is more beast than sexy