China ranks third globally in terms of military spending: SIPRI report
21 Jun 2008
Mumbai: According to the annual report of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the top three nations in terms of military spending last year were the United States ($547 billion), the United Kingdom ($59.7 billion) and China ($58.3 billion).
The data was published by SIPRI in its 2008 annual report.
For China, its growing economy is the main driver for boosting military potential, as increasing industrial might and a largely export-oriented economy demand adequate military protection.
Despite increased military spending over the last few decades, China's armed forces still lag somewhat. Its ground forces, though large in numbers, lack modern military hardware. Reports suggest that its army air defence system is weak and the artillery insufficiently mobile. Its a repeat of the story when it comes to the air force (PLAAF), which is largely made up of copies of old Soviet war planes of 1950s vintage. The number of modern aircraft is scant.
It's airlift capacity is also low, as it does not have enough medium and heavy military transport aircraft. Though China manufactures almost everything under the sun, its industry is still not evolved enough to independently produce modern aircraft. It is no surprise, for example, that engines on its combat aircraft perform below Western and Russian standards in terms of economic fuel consumption and overhaul period, as China still cannot manufacture a number of important aggregates at the level of the leading aviation powers.
So, if it is to defend itself adequately, China would have to sink considerable sums of money into its industry-modernisation programs.
The story of the Chinese Navy is no different. China's fleet holds a subordinate position in its overall military potential and does not have an independent status as navies of the world usually do. It is part of the People's Liberation Army (PLA). This subordinate position sees the Chinese fleet as a green-water navy that performs coastal missions, operating mostly in its territorial waters and a 200 mile-long economic zone.
Action at open sea would be limited to the capabilities of multi-purpose nuclear-powered submarines and shore-based Xian H-6 (licensed copies of Tu-16) missile-carrier aircraft.
However, the situation is changing, with the PLA's navy's first aircraft-carriers set to arrive within the coming decade. With a proper carrier escorted by a flotilla of frigates or destroyers, the Chinese Navy would upgrade into a true green-water navy.
Similar to global nuclear powers, China's strategy is also mostly based on nuclear deterrence. China is in the process of arming its forces with new DF-31A missiles, capable of destroying targets 11,000 km away, and is looking to introduce harder-to-detect nuclear-powered missile carriers of the 094 type that will be equipped with JL-2 missiles which can hit targets on other continents.
Overall, China's armed forces are capable of carrying out regional missions, but lag in strategic potentialities such as nuclear deterrent, and the ability to transfer troops over large distances even in comparison with Russia, which is not at its prime either. Comparisons with the United States would be rather one-sided, and this situation is most likely to stay relatively unchanged for the next 10 to 15 years, with China not predicted to have military engagements with anyone any time soon.
Military experts predict China presently has an arsenal of 300-400 nuclear charges, much lower than Russia or the United States, but growing.
Most research organisations, and the media, usually use defence budgets as the yardstick to measure the comparative military might of nations, though their estimates are often disputed, in many cases, by the nations referred to in their reports.
By and large, reports of international institutions studying strategy and national military potentials such as the London-based Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) and SIPRI, are considered to be the most accurate.
