I see that the link do not work.The data are from wikipedia and they quote the IMF statistaics. Here are the figures (I used copy/paste) :
About the cumulated GDP of US and EU that’s 26.364 bn if you are from Europe or 26,364 bn if you are from US (.instead of , as 3 digit separators:) )

It is true that the GDP adjusted after purchasing power would push the Chinese close to US. However, the Chinese themself strongly oppose that type of calculation and do not pretend to have a higher GDP.

I did not pretend being an economist, I just quote some data I find on net… Sorry :diablo:

Now your stats seem more agreeable… thanks!

Purchasing power is very important because it measures the relative worth of the currency and currently I believe the chinese Yuan is under valued being pegged to the american dollar… but pegging isn’t all that bad since it protects the currency and creat stability. In 90s asian economic crisis it’s the yuan pegging of the dollar that saved the whole of asia form further damage and unstability. The problem only arises that after pedding the dollar its very hard to drop the pegging since there is a excess of investment in China from foreign sources that are not really into developing then as to wait for the Yuan to hike in value. These enormous amounts of money will generate unforseeable damage to the chinese economy and that is the reason why the chinese government resist the pressure raising the value of the Yuan.

There are some implications why the chinese government don’t want to measure the GDP in PPP.
1) If Chinese GDP is measured in PPP then it would rake 2nd or 3rd then it would not bode well if China is still a developing nation…
2) GDP by PPP raises the GDP of underdeveloped nations by hypotheical margin, way bigger than the ture value of the GDP thus it is inaccurate as well.

US and india fighting over goa??? one US carrier group will be sufficent to sink the entire indian navy.
The marines will certainly spearhead the attack,and they will take goa in 1 or 2 days(assuming its only a convential war) no need to call in the army.Indian army will be pulverised by airstrikes from the US carrier.

I hope you don’t mean pulverised by a single carrier group…
It will definately take the whole of USN to concentrate their resources if the USAF is not involved as proposed by the author… Look at Iraq and you can see how long it takes the USN + USAF to pulverised them completely. It will take many times more time to crack Indian air defences…

Lets not forget that we are talking about two nuclear power here… Not that India has any proven nuclear threats to the US homeland but if a carrier group was ever caught in a nuke strike… then it would definately cost a lot of lives…

Gotta love the drawings of a PLAAF Tu-160 too 😀 This guy has certainly gotten the whole “the sky is falling” thing down. Kopp needs to quit pretending to be an analyst and work as a lobbyist for Lockheed.

Did find this though.

Nah he should work for the CIA instead…
he can make big $$$ passing hearsay for fact.

another one of those nut case babbling about fictious chinese capabilities… i guess he’s doing exactly what washington wants him to do..

China would have to seriously consider the Air Defense Threat that ships of USN, JMSDF, and Korean Navy in any conflict with Taiwan. This threat will only grow with the addition of Royal Australian Navy AAW Destroyers that are in the planning stages now. Combined with American Carrier Battle Groups. They would provide a major obstacle for China in any conflict with Taiwan. Further, the USN is converting large SSBN’s to SSGN’s in the near future. These ships could attack hundreds of target with almost at will :dev2:

You make it sound like it’s everyone against china…
Sadly the realistic veiw would probably be no one except US will be involved and even then there would be a great lack of enthusiasm. This point veiw is clearly shared in every administration. Remember Bush commenting that there is no obligation for the US to get involved and clearly Taiwan is required to defende herself independantly for at least the first few month without any external support.

Btw we are off topic… we are argueing the potential of top asian DDGs not politics so please drop this useless arguement.

Im wondering why the US cant seem to stand up to Frances role in all of this. France has built nuclear reactors for both Iraq and Iran and the US has done nothing even close as to ask them to stop.

I would gather that the purpose of the reactors are to generate electricity… not biulding nukes. France is one of the largest comsumers of nuclear energy comprising of a massive 70% of total electricity generated by nulear means. There is nothing wrong with generating electricity and France simply porvide a means to do that. What Iran decides to do with the spent fuel is chiefly up to the Iranian government and of no consiquence to France.

Greenspan himself admitted in an press conference that increasing the value of the Yuan will have many immediate setbacks for China in the short run this is not in the best of interest of the Chinese. He himself would not advise that. Now what the americans fail to realize is that the relative weak economy after 911 is not due to the chinese imports as these markets are dominated by cheap labour and this trend is not going to change. Rather than compete with these competetive and low cost products the american investors should really change their focus toward high tech, high cost niche markets.

How is MPA and AWACS program gonna assist in naval oth targetting? for starters i dont recall Y-8 or A-50 having any such datalink capability to transmit the data it can gather and besides it operates only 3 MPA how can they provide 24 hr coverage. As for awacs its bit early to talk about things in devolopment, not to mention i dont think PLAAF can afford to spare AWACS for Maritime purpose to help out PLAN.

PLAN lacks maritime reconnaissance capability it operates only handful of airborne platforms (Y-8s) which can assist in that even when it comes to naval helicopter it doesnt have much capability.

this is from Global security… not the best of sources i know…

The first modern airborne surveillance radar purchased by the PLA was the Racal (now Thales) SKYMASTER radar. Building on its relationship with the PLA established through the 1980s sale of its CYMBERLINE artillery radar, the purchase of 6-8 SYKMASTER systems was revealed in August 1996.[87] These were to be fitted to Y-8 transports and work to that end was reported to have started later in 1996.[88] By 2001 Internet-source images were appearing of the resulting aircraft. The SKYMASTER is a version of the Racal SEARCHWATER radar used by British NIMROD patrol aircraft, on which it can detect objects as small as a submarine periscope. At first British sources justified the sale of the SKYMASTER to assist PRC coastal anti-piracy patrol missions. But in early 2000 reports emerged that the PLA was using its SKYMASTER-equipped Y-8s to vector a LUDA-class destroyers in naval exercises.[89] At altitude the Y-8/Skymaster could be used to support naval battles, especially with long-range targeting for submarines and ships, or by vectoring offensive or defensive aircraft.

A final potential source of European AWACS technology may be the Swedish Ericsson PS-890 ERIEYE active phased array radar. In early 2002 an Internet source picture appeared of a Y-8 with a planar array similar in shape to the ERIEYE. This is reported to be an active PLA program.[92] In addition, Internet source pictures have appeared of a model of a smaller Y-7 transport with the same radar. The radar shown in this later image bears a greater similarity to the ERIEYE. Inasmuch as Sweden has sold some military hardware to the PLA, such as Special Force speed boats and armored personnel carriers, it is possible that it has sold the ERIEYE or its associated technology to the PLA. It is also possible that the PLA has developed this technology indigenously. Should the PLA’s ERIEYE-like radar have a capability similar to the Swedish system, then it would have an impressive maximum search range of 450km. Because it is a phased array system, it is capable of long-range “spot” modes in addition to wide search modes. The PLA would favor this technology because as Israel has proven, it can be adopted to incorporate intelligence missions, and as the U.S. has proven, can also be adopted to perform ground-mapping and targeting missions.
Erickson PS-890 ERIEYE

Status: No reports of sales to PLA but the PLAAF is testing a similar system

Type: S-Band Active Phased Array

Performance: 450km maximum detection range, 300km detection range for fighter-size target, has sea surveillance mode

I think we can safely conclude that PLAN has achieved or is on the verge of achiving long range detection capability… as to your point about 24hr coverage. I’d have to admit that PLAN does not have the resources to do just that yet.