China's Offensive Capacity?

[Matt_E]

I know China has a large and powerful military but does it have any real offensive reach beyond Taiwan and it's immediate region? And does it have what it takes to fight a trans-continental conflict.

[ChinaWall65]

probably not...war costs money, and china doesn't need to spend that money. but if china absolutley have to fight a trans continental conflict, china will still go to war.

[Ender Wiggin]

I have no doubt in their ability to defend themselves in any situation, an offencive war is different as the guy above said it costs money.

But say that based on assets that had to have military operations beyond their borders I have no doubt that there is not a single country bordering China that could hold out against a conventional attack even the Russians.

Sea wars are different their navy and airforces are not advanced enough yet in either numbers or technological proffiency to do much good unless uspported by the Russians and some other people.

[Finn McCool]

China can deploy its forces in an offensive land war, as Ender said. Invading the -stan nations on its Western border would be easy for China. Nepal, Bhutan and India would be more of a logistic problem but the first two would be a cakewalk. Let's not talk about India.

The real trouble is in a force projection scenario. China could never do what the US did in Iraq (move an entire invasion force with all the logistic and combat support it needs all the way across the world). Although I don't know what capabilites the Chinese have as far as more limited operations. For example, could the Chinese invade Madagascar? (horrible example, but its size, distance, international clout/alliances (or lack thereof) and military capability make it the best one I could think of).

[Kampfwagen]

They might invade Madagasgar, probably looking for LMD's (Lemurs of Mass Destruction.)

In all seriousness, the Chinese Military strategy centers primarily on defense with the exception of Taiwan, because they are litteraly surrounded by enemies, or possible enemy nations with the possible exceptions of Pakistan and Russia. To attack an offshore or next-door enemy would be a costly fight from a nation just starting to make a revision of it's armed forces.

[Obcession]

I agree with Kampfwagen.

China currently has about enough landing crafts and amphibious assault ships for 3 infantry divisions I believe (correct me if I'm wrong). Those are going to be used in case of an invasion on Taiwan. Other Chinese offensive capabilities include short ranged fighters (hey, the Flankers don't have enough range to cover too deep into countries like, say, Russia or Kazakhstan), few long ranged ballistic missiles, many obsolete and near-obsolete ships, with a few modern, deadly, and atleast semi-stealthy ships. These aren't enough to go against any navy in the area, except perhaps the Koreas, and perhaps Taiwan. A good number of noisy submarines, with few very silent diesel subs. S-300 SAM's and a hellish number of AAA. Along with hundreds of short ranged ballistic missiles.

So with these forces, and perhaps using a few highly modernized divisions, China could invade and defeat any country bordering China, with the possible exception of, as previously stated, India and Russia. But also as previously stated, war costs money, and China just wants to develope its economy in peace right now.

From this we can sum up that the problem China is facing now is having a moderate to low number of advanced, or atleast decent equipment, with a huge number of obsolete equipment. So it is reasonable to assume that China will use these crack divisions for any limited warfare, but will use these highly advanced divisions supported with divisions of lower technology, and which received lower priority of modernization, in a broad war, such as war against India or Russia, where large number of troops are required to keep up a cohesive front. China has these advanced equipment, but does China know how to use them proficiently? The PRC has never extensively used aircraft to their advantage in past wars, never been at war on the high seas against a worthy foe, and the past wars that the PRC has fought all involved Soviet doctrine, which is proving more and more out of date. An very important aspect of offensive capability though, is not due to the quality or the number of troops, but the tactics, as seen in WWII. Can the PLAAF efficiently give support to advancing armored columns is just one question.

[Finn McCool]

My Madagascar analogy was intending to show that the PLA could not attack nations that are far away from China, no matter how weak their military capabilities.

Good post obseccion. I think that China would be well served to develop a core of crack divisions that are equipped with modern equipment and then develop enough logistical capability to deploy and support them all around China's borders. In the future, China will need to defend its regional interests in order to sustain its economic upward progress. For example, China might feel the need to intervene in Kazakhstan to protect its energy resources if teh regieme there falls or if China deems unfriendly foreign interests are getting to much influence there. Basically, China's offensive capability should be thus:
Land warfare capability to wage war around China's periphery in Central Asia in order to protect energy interests etc.
Ballistic missle capability that is powerful enough to help counter the USAFs superiorty in the area of strike aircraft and air defence.
Naval capability that is strong enough to quickly take Taiwan and provide a credibile counterweight to the JMSDF.
Improving the PLAAFs ratio of current to out of date planes and developing a credible in-flight refueling capability to respond to regional threats quickly and offensively.
Securing a large naval base in the Indian Ocean, to allow the PLAN to have force in the Indian Ocean at the start of any conflict, instead of having to send one there through the Straits of Malacca.

Developing these capibilities would make China the dominant power if East asia, and the most powerful Asian nation.

This is just my personal to-do list for the PLA. It focuses on a "good offense is the best defence" strategy. Essentially it is attempting to improve China's offensive capibilities so they can effectively defend China's economic interests from regional challengers, and to allow China to delay a US counterattack on Taiwan.

[MaxTesla]

Uhm people are over looking one big thing.

There can be no war between countires that have lots of nukes. So it is ridicules to think that there can be any war between Russia and China because both would nuke each other and guaranty absolut extermination. Both countries also have lots of none nuclear WMD so any war is out of the question.

**********************************

No country bashing! whatch it! (and sorry for beeing late, had have busy week...)

[Finn McCool]

Uhm people are over looking one big thing.

There can be no war between countires that have lots of nukes. So it is ridicules to think that there can be any war between Russia and China because both would nuke each other and guaranty absolut extermination. Both countries also have lots of none nuclear WMD so any war is out of the question.

War can only happen in the foreseeable future between 2 bullshit nations or one big nation vs one bullshit nation like USA vs Iraq or China vs Taiwan but never China Vs India or China Vs Russia.

That is simply not true. Nations do not go about nuking each other. Ever heard of MAD:mad: ? It keeps great power wars conventional. Besides, China does not have the capability to take on Russia of the US in a nuclear war. It is a long way behind both countries. It is in the PRCs interest to keep all of its wars conventional, especially one agianst Russia. The PLA would hand the Russian Army's ass to it. What about the Kargil War in 1997? Both India and Pakistan had nukes. Anyway that is not the discussion. We are talking about China's capability to deploy its forces in an offensive manner in a conventional war.

[MaxTesla]

That is my point no war can exsist between 2 real powers. And you are draging in some little border skirmish between 2 emerging powers and back then neither of those 2 powers hade an arsenal of MWD they were just starting to build it. It was a small border skirmish not a war. MAD guarantees that no war can happen between 2 real powers.

Chinas abillity to project its power if needed is as good as any other countries if not better. We are no longer in the 40s, to deploy and reinforce troops if so needed is no problem. The question is why would China want to. There is no need.

[renmin]

China could never go to war with a super power unless forced to. And another superpower is not dumb. They are well aware that conflict between super powers could very well spark a world war. China could reach far across the ocean if needed but you must know that China is a peace loving nation. Though military is tough, it is only for protection. China would never attack any country first unless threatened heavily or attacked by that country. It is a policy. China remains a economical country with intentions to improve the standard living but at the same time, make sure their people are safe. That is what the PLA is for.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Besides, China does not have the capability to take on Russia of the US in a nuclear war. It is a long way behind both countries. It is in the PRCs interest to keep all of its wars conventional, especially one agianst Russia.

Actually, the PRC could manage to destroy all the urban centers of Russia. While China has a limited number of ICBMs that can strike the US, they possess hundreds of IRBMs that can strike at Russia, and the PLAAF can also deliver nuclear strikes against Russia. In the end both nations would be turned to nuclear waste, so it'd still be better for China to just crush the Russian conventional forces.

[renmin]

All right every one this is not virtual nuclear war:nono: This is about Chinese power not how it would go up against another country:off . So I suggest we lay off the combat.

[Finn McCool]

REad the PLAN chokepoints thread. Until the PRC finds a way around those, the only foregin area it can deploy forces in is Central Asia. However, this should be enough. China's economic power is such that it does not have to do much fighting around the world. Nations are too afraid of upsetting it. One thought I would like to add. The US has both the advantages and disadvantages of being a superpower. China, for now, has only the advantages.

[adeptitus]

I know China has a large and powerful military but does it have any real offensive reach beyond Taiwan and it's immediate region? And does it have what it takes to fight a trans-continental conflict.

1) Combined arms force, no. The PLAN does not field any aircraft carriers. However in cases where fighter aircraft is not critical, then the PLAN does have limited capability field offensive invasion with marines and PLA divisons, plus some helicopters.

For an example, the US invasion of Panama (1989) deployed over 27,000 men against Panama's 3,000 PDF (Panama Defense Force). It was quite an overkill. If similiar situation existed in Asia and the PRC need to invade a small-ish nation without a real air force, I think they can do it.

2) No.

[Ender Wiggin]

Actually its best to analyze how wars would go without having to worry about nuclear weapons. So thus they never end up in the equations its obvious no one would dare try to force regime change on any nuclear power but I also have no doubt that both nations would fight to the best of their conventional abilities and give/take territory as per the rules of war.

So thus while there is no doubt that WMD's would make everyone lose leaving no clear winners one can also state that is why should war actually happen no one would use them except in counter attack: "MAD".

[renmin]

Actually its best to analyze how wars would go without having to worry about nuclear weapons. So thus they never end up in the equations its obvious no one would dare try to force regime change on any nuclear power but I also have no doubt that both nations would fight to the best of their conventional abilities and give/take territory as per the rules of war.

So thus while there is no doubt that WMD's would make everyone lose leaving no clear winners one can also state that is why should war actually happen no one would use them except in counter attack: "MAD".That is true, since nukes would eventually kill everyone and lay waste, no one has the guts to actually use a nuke, but Im no sayin they wont use nukes if they were nuked first. I would also like to point out that the last time a nuclear weapon was used in combat was when it was first used back in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You can see that every country has realized how devastating these weapons are.:off
All right, I suggest we lay off the war talk or this thread would be closed. Back to Chinese capabilty and I mean Chinese
power.;)

Oh and MaxTesla, be careful what comes out of your mouth. Use proper language. We do not insult our fellow members.

[Ender Wiggin]

"Behold, the bringer of Light"

An interesting thought though is that the game C&C Generals: Zero Hour shows a scenario where the US Army withdraws from its bases in europe to tighten continental security, so China is given the go ahead to engage the terrorists and puts an army in Germany to figh the terrorists.

This game is set in 2010, so by what time could we expect China to be able to effectively put miitary units on foreign soil to engage terrorists and particicpate in peace keeping missions on the scale of the Coalition wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?

(Note) I know of China troops in Haiti and other trouble spots(/note)

[renmin]

"Behold, the bringer of Light"

An interesting thought though is that the game C&C Generals: Zero Hour shows a scenario where the US Army withdraws from its bases in europe to tighten continental security, so China is given the go ahead to engage the terrorists and puts an army in Germany to figh the terrorists.

This game is set in 2010, so by what time could we expect China to be able to effectively put miitary units on foreign soil to engage terrorists and particicpate in peace keeping missions on the scale of the Coalition wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?

(Note) I know of China troops in Haiti and other trouble spots(/note)China not in the teorrist business, thats a war America and other terrorist victims are involved. Zero Hour sets the scene that China was attacked by terrorist thus drawing them in on the war on terror which is a very unlikely situation in present day. Like I said before, China is a peace loving nation and would not like to get into unnecessary conflicts, in this case with terrorist, Think about it. The PRC governtment fight terrorists, then doesnt that anger terrorists and make China a target too like the US and other countries? Terrorist attack a country based on their veiw. Seting the military on foreign soil is very unlikely in current day, plus I dont think the PRC wants to have their military spread across the world. The PLA was found to protect China; not go meddeling in some other country minding other's buisiness.

[Finn McCool]

OK, this entire website is turning into the "Command and Conquer Generals and Cool Military Pictures Forum". I am so dissapointed.

China's offensive capability...Well, right now, China doesn't need much of one. However, as China's economy grows, and it becomes a true superpower, it will inevitably need to maintain a global empire, just as the other superpowers of the modern era, Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States have done. China's empire will be the least noticeable one yet. As time has gone on and globalization has linked the world, it is no longer necessary for a superpower to physically own the territories it requires for economic prosperity, as the British did, or keep them as client states and political lackeys, as the Soviets did. The United States relies on its military and economic power as well as a system of "traditional alliances" forged after WWII to maintain supremacy. The Chinese empire will essentially be a child of globalization and be almost solely economic. Thus, China will have global economic interests across the world. ( No war will start without economic interests involved on some level, no war) The one thing that hasn't changed is that it is necessary to have a big military capable of global deployment to defend a superpower's economic interests. So, basically, what the Chinese need for the future is a powerful navy with carriers, an air force that can bomb anything anywhere in the world, (like the USAF), and a large, well eqipped professional core to the PLA that is capable of fighting a conflict anywhere. On the more political side of the equation, China needs allies to facilitate its global deployment, as well as to provide it with a core of international support and get around the geographical problems it faces. For example, a key link in China's potential core group of allies would be Indonesia, because it controls the Straits of Mallacca and Java, key chokepoints for the PLAN, has large amounts of raw materials, energy supplies and cheap labor, and is a "rising" economy. :china:

Well, there you have it. Sorry if the English is hard for some of you to understand. I used so vocabulary that some non-native speakers might have some trouble with.

[IDonT]

OK, this entire website is turning into the "Command and Conquer Generals and Cool Military Pictures Forum". I am so dissapointed.

China's offensive capability...Well, right now, China doesn't need much of one. However, as China's economy grows, and it becomes a true superpower, it will inevitably need to maintain a global empire, just as the other superpowers of the modern era, Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States have done. China's empire will be the least noticeable one yet. As time has gone on and globalization has linked the world, it is no longer necessary for a superpower to physically own the territories it requires for economic prosperity, as the British did, or keep them as client states and political lackeys, as the Soviets did. The United States relies on its military and economic power as well as a system of "traditional alliances" forged after WWII to maintain supremacy. The Chinese empire will essentially be a child of globalization and be almost solely economic. Thus, China will have global economic interests across the world. ( No war will start without economic interests involved on some level, no war) The one thing that hasn't changed is that it is necessary to have a big military capable of global deployment to defend a superpower's economic interests. So, basically, what the Chinese need for the future is a powerful navy with carriers, an air force that can bomb anything anywhere in the world, (like the USAF), and a large, well eqipped professional core to the PLA that is capable of fighting a conflict anywhere. On the more political side of the equation, China needs allies to facilitate its global deployment, as well as to provide it with a core of international support and get around the geographical problems it faces. For example, a key link in China's potential core group of allies would be Indonesia, because it controls the Straits of Mallacca and Java, key chokepoints for the PLAN, has large amounts of raw materials, energy supplies and cheap labor, and is a "rising" economy. :china:

Well, there you have it. Sorry if the English is hard for some of you to understand. I used so vocabulary that some non-native speakers might have some trouble with.

You are forgetting the most crucial thing in force projection: logistics. Your expeditionary force will not last long with out bread, bombs, and bullets.

A system of alliance is a good idea, however, most of the countries that are on China's side are not exactly strong nor do they share an inherent cultural or ideological relation with China. For example, look at the US's strongest alliances and they all have one thing in common; they are liberal democracies.

[KYli]

You are forgetting the most crucial thing in force projection: logistics. Your expeditionary force will not last long with out bread, bombs, and bullets.

A system of alliance is a good idea, however, most of the countries that are on China's side are not exactly strong nor do they share an inherent cultural or ideological relation with China. For example, look at the US's strongest alliances and they all have one thing in common; they are liberal democracies.
So when are the inherant cultural and ideological relation ever play significant role of alliance in event of conflicts. There were more examples of same inherant cultural and ideological fighting each other as far as i know of.

[IDonT]

So when are the inherant cultural and ideological relation ever play significant role of alliance in event of conflicts. There were more examples of same inherant cultural and ideological fighting each other as far as i know of.

US allied with Britain in both world wars. There is a difference between an alliance because of common threat vs. and alliance of common defence. US-USSR alliance is an example of the first, once NAzi was gone it evaporated. US-Anglo alliance are still strong.

[isthvan]

China currently does not have any real offensive reach beyond Taiwan and it's immediate region… For that purpose it lacks aircraft carrier, LHD ships and fleet support ships… It is still regionally oriented military power…
I do not think that China currently really need aircraft carrier or global offensive capabilities… It really does not have treats or possible enemies with exception of Taiwan, and that war is not likely to happen… Not with amount of money Taiwan and US are investing in China and vise–versa…
What China or any other growing economy need is the ability to deploy troops in a low-medium threat environment to protect its economical interest and to protect their nationals… I am talking about kind of operation French, Australians, Italians, British and even US navy are conducting on regular bases (East Timor, Ivory Coast, Albania, Somalia…).
Basically you can gain more capabilities in areas you need with fleet of LHD ships well supplied with fleet of modern replenishment ships then with expensive aircraft carrier battle groups …

[KYli]

US allied with Britain in both world wars. There is a difference between an alliance because of common threat vs. and alliance of common defence. US-USSR alliance is an example of the first, once NAzi was gone it evaporated. US-Anglo alliance are still strong.
US and Britain had only became allied until 20th century, you might had forgot the war in 1812 or US's support of the French over Britain in the British-french War. There are no allied of common cause, but only the allied of interest.

[akinkhoo]

But say that based on assets that had to have military operations beyond their borders I have no doubt that there is not a single country bordering China that could hold out against a conventional attack even the Russians.i doubt china will have success in overcoming india or russia. the main problem in fighting offensively is logistic, china's warmachine cannot reach far without the ability to bring fuel and ammo to the tanks and infantries.

china's formation are largely stationary, they lack enduarence. division for fighting as expeditionary forces should carry more ammo and fuel, crewed with less manpower per platoon (to reduce amount of food their need), computer aided to reduce fatigue on the reduced crew for the expect weeks of combat (reinforcement will be slower then at home ground; something the chinese are use to is their almost endless manpower. but you don't have that in an offensive war); china simply does have such much experience with such a setup in modern warfare.

they either need to improve their logistical support or setup specialized unit for expedition to have any real offensive reach.

[Ender Wiggin]

actually in C&C Generals China was already attacked by terrorists, if China got attacked by a WMD don't you think if it was given the logistical support by NATO it would gladly go anywhere in the world to seek revenge for attacking Chinese territory?

[IDonT]

US and Britain had only became allied until 20th century, you might had forgot the war in 1812 or US's support of the French over Britain in the British-french War. There are no allied of common cause, but only the allied of interest.

Do you really think the US and Britain were that close in 1812. This was just a generation after the Revolutionary war. There historical ties were not exactly in good terms.

Secondly, the British and the US were not exactly on the same type of government in the 19th century. One was an imperialistic colonial power, while the other was a isolationist Republic. It was only during the 20th century that the US-British Relationship was cemented.

[MIGleader]

Idont, nations only look after their own interests. If one nation helps another, the result must somehow directly affect the first nation. '

Read the book Scorpia(It should be easy, as it is middle school level), but it will give you a good idea on how far Britian will go to help america.

[KYli]

Idont, after WWII the Great Britain Empire was in the state of decline, there are little they could do but to ally themselves with US. If Britain had the power they had in 18 century, do you think they would be an allied to US.

There are no question that nations only look after their own interests, so there are no such thing as allied of inherant cultural and ideological.

[bd popeye]

War can only happen in the foreseeable future between 2 bullshit nations or one big nation vs one bullshit nation like USA vs Iraq or China vs Taiwan but never China Vs India or China Vs Russia.

What do you mean by this statement? Particulary reguarding the USA? Bullshit nation ?? Whatever do you mean? Please explain yourself in a calm and rational manner. I myself have never intennionally insulted anyone or any country in this forum. You should not either.

[Gollevainen]

No need to worry about it, I take care of it...in my 'own' way:nono:

[IDonT]

Idont, after WWII the Great Britain Empire was in the state of decline, there are little they could do but to ally themselves with US. If Britain had the power they had in 18 century, do you think they would be an allied to US.

There are no question that nations only look after their own interests, so there are no such thing as allied of inherant cultural and ideological.

You and Miggy have misunderstand me. An alliance between two countries with similar culture, is much much stronger than an alliance between countries based on a mutual threat. For once that threat is gone, so is the alliance.

[KYli]

You and Miggy have misunderstand me. An alliance between two countries with similar culture, is much much stronger than an alliance between countries based on a mutual threat. For once that threat is gone, so is the alliance.
Your best friend will be your worst enemy, so yes two countries with similar culture will be much stronger alliance. But it don't gurantee anything else, when two countries with similar culture become enemy. They might became so bitter that hatred or resentment will last much longer and go deeper, so only nations interests will be more important in Alliance.

[Roger604]

What do you mean by this statement? Particulary reguarding the USA? Bullshit nation ?? Whatever do you mean? Please explain yourself in a calm and rational manner. I myself have never intennionally insulted anyone or any country in this forum. You should not either.

He means that war can only happen between a major power and a small state (like US and Afghanistan). Two major powers will not enter into a direct conflict -- but proxy wars can happen.


You and Miggy have misunderstand me. An alliance between two countries with similar culture, is much much stronger than an alliance between countries based on a mutual threat. For once that threat is gone, so is the alliance.


I don't agree with IDonT very much, but I have to agree here.

States with similar cultures are "natural allies" and "unnatural enemies". In that sense, US and GB are natural allies.

But there are exceptions. More importantly, states with dissimilar cultures can end up as allies for external reasons, but in the course of that alliance, forge deeper links through political interaction and culture exchange.

[KYli]

I don't agree with IDonT very much, but I have to agree here.

States with similar cultures are "natural allies" and "unnatural enemies". In that sense, US and GB are natural allies.

But there are exceptions. More importantly, states with dissimilar cultures can end up as allies for external reasons, but in the course of that alliance, forge deeper links through political interaction and culture exchange.
Not entirely true, US and GB are natural allied for many reasons. Simply implying they are allies because of their cultures will not be justified.

I just don't see the Culture thing had anything to do with deeper links, as much as history told us. There are many states with similar ideological fought each others, how many wars had China, Japan, vietnam and Korea had fought. And how many war the europe nations had fought each others, even US and Britain had fought few times before the WWII.

[IDonT]

Not entirely true, US and GB are natural allied for many reasons. Simply implying they are allies because of their cultures will not be justified.

I just don't see the Culture thing had anything to do with deeper links, as much as history told us. There are many states with similar ideological fought each others, how many wars had China, Japan, vietnam and Korea had fought. And how many war the europe nations had fought each others, even US and Britain had fought few times before the WWII.

True, but those wars are a function of distance. In the past, your own backyard was the world. Therefore, you only have your neighbors to fight and make alliances. The distances were just to great.
Now that the world is smaller, such conflict is possible.

[KYli]

True, but those wars are a function of distance. In the past, your own backyard was the world. Therefore, you only have your neighbors to fight and make alliances. The distances were just to great.
Now that the world is smaller, such conflict is possible.
True, but it just had prove my point, it don't matter if they shared same cultures as long as they have conflict of interest. They still are willing to fight each other, nations put interests against everything else. History told us that similiar nations will compete against each other for the leadership role before they are willing to engage against outsider force.

[Dizasta76]

In my opinion, China needs to redress its quantity by introducing quality into its armed forces. In order to do so, China needs to evaluate its economic feasability, vis-a-vis the current growth. For such a thing to happen, China would need to weigh in the productive aspect of having a 2 million plus army. Whether that many troops are really needed, and if so, for waht purpose.

The basic doctrine, from what i gather, is that China's historical doctrine of its armed forces, has been defensive as opposed to offensive. Taking this into account, China would need to counter balance its rather lumbering weight of a big army, to a size which resembles more of the characteristics of a force multiplier.

Here technology plays a pivotal role. And unlike the United States, China has the advantage of shedding the burden of billions in R&D where starting from scratch would kill the economy. To that of an intermediatory technological advancement where proven or progressive technology is taken in. This allows China a far rapid pace in providing its armed forces with better equipement, at a cheaper cost.

The way i see it, over the next 20-25 years, China needs to shed atleast 900,000 troops in order to maintain a force that is able to project globaly.

Here there should be advancements in three aspects.

First one would be the army, where troops are trimmed down to about roughly 1.7 or 1.8 million. These are gradually trained and equipped with standard issue modern weapons. Also, the army needs mobility and for that China would need a significant capability in the Military Transport Dept (both fixed and rotary winged aircrafts).

Second one would be the airforce, where introduction to fighter aircrafts are based on two main capabilities. Range and detection. In terms of detection, China would need to develop a replica of Link 16 Datalink which would inter-connect not only the fighters with the AWACS, but also fighter with other fighters. As for range, well that should be achieved with Air Refuelers.

Third one would be navy, where its mobility and capability would entirely rest on carrier battle groups. For this, China would need to develop, over the next 15 years, aircraft carriers.

[Roger604]

Here technology plays a pivotal role. And unlike the United States, China has the advantage of shedding the burden of billions in R&D where starting from scratch would kill the economy. To that of an intermediatory technological advancement where proven or progressive technology is taken in. This allows China a far rapid pace in providing its armed forces with better equipement, at a cheaper cost.

This is almost verbatim what the leadership has been doing since the early 90's (fall of the Soviet Union).

The way i see it, over the next 20-25 years, China needs to shed atleast 900,000 troops in order to maintain a force that is able to project globaly.

They've already done that. Currently, there are 2.3 million.

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=1249

First one would be the army, where troops are trimmed down to about roughly 1.7 or 1.8 million. These are gradually trained and equipped with standard issue modern weapons. Also, the army needs mobility and for that China would need a significant capability in the Military Transport Dept (both fixed and rotary winged aircrafts).

I have no idea why you think their weapons are not "standard issue modern weapons." The newest Chinese tanks (like the ZTZ-99) are easily world-class. And they're making a new design with a gigantic main gun too.

As for transports, they're buying them from Russia. In sufficient qualities to mount a Taiwan invasion.

Second one would be the airforce, where introduction to fighter aircrafts are based on two main capabilities. Range and detection. In terms of detection, China would need to develop a replica of Link 16 Datalink which would inter-connect not only the fighters with the AWACS, but also fighter with other fighters. As for range, well that should be achieved with Air Refuelers.

China has had these technologies operational since the late 90's / early 2000's, I think.

Third one would be navy, where its mobility and capability would entirely rest on carrier battle groups. For this, China would need to develop, over the next 15 years, aircraft carriers.

People on this board have been saying that the Varyag will roll out of port as a training vessel somewhere around 2008.


I think your entire plan sounds perfect, but about 15 years too late. This isn't the "1990 PLA" anymore.

[Dizasta76]

This is almost verbatim what the leadership has been doing since the early 90's (fall of the Soviet Union).



They've already done that. Currently, there are 2.3 million.

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=1249



I have no idea why you think their weapons are not "standard issue modern weapons." The newest Chinese tanks (like the ZTZ-99) are easily world-class. And they're making a new design with a gigantic main gun too.

As for transports, they're buying them from Russia. In sufficient qualities to mount a Taiwan invasion.



China has had these technologies operational since the late 90's / early 2000's, I think.



People on this board have been saying that the Varyag will roll out of port as a training vessel somewhere around 2008.


I think your entire plan sounds perfect, but about 15 years too late. This isn't the "1990 PLA" anymore.

Well does sound pretty impressive, considering the fact that China's momentum is rollicking along, unimpeded! The only thing that needs to be done is abstaining from any provocative gestures that would only hinder in the current economic growth.

It is imperative that China manoeuvres to incircle tiwan, by forging economic alliance with regional players such as Japan (with a brave smile), Russia, South Korea, Malaysia and Singapore.

This would ensure the geo-political strategem tilting heavily in China's favor. Where China should manupilate and capitalize its advantage of economic strength.

Lastly, i'm sorry that i've come late to the party where China has achieved so much in so little time. I pray that both China and Pakistan can grow stronger, together and forge an economic bond which is as strong as its political alliance.:)

[SampanViking]

Funny how these conversations go round in circles.

I am really not worried about the state of China's equipment and capacity now. Yes much of the equipment is obsolete and certainly inferior to those neighbours with whom there can be said to exist a risk of conflict.

I say neighbours, but in reality I see only one. Japan. I know much more is said about Taiwan, but I think this risk is now vanishing rapidly over the horizon and a very new atmosphere of reconciliation and co-operation coming to the fore.

Sino-Japan relations on the other hand are a growing threat to the region, especially as Japan moves away from its recent Pacifist position. Combine this with traditonal rivalry, unfinished history and current disputes the outlook is certainly one that gives cause for concern.

Can we draw any conclusions as to the outcome if these two nations clashed, based on their current balance?

Well No, I do not think we can. No question that Japan is far better equipped and prepared than China and could certainly deliver a hard and quick kick to the PLAN PLAAF etc, where it hurt. But that is hardly going to be it. By this logic Dunkirk and Pearl Harbour would have been killer - knock out blows that put the US and GB out of WW2 permenantly. Obviously this was not the case.

It is not what your capabilities are at the beginning of a war that matters, but where they get too by the end of it. Any major conflict involving China will not a be a short 5 minute affair like Afghanistan or Iraq, it would last for years.

This gives China the advantage of being able to utilise its vast territory, inexhuastable manpower and massive Industrial/Production Capacity. These are the factors that will buy China the time it needs under war conditions to turn the tide in its favour and develop the capabilites it needs to win such a conflict. This is what the Allies did to the Axis in WW2 and that doctrine still holds true today.

I would further suggest that this is why the PLA is happy to continue its modernisation and development in the current graduated way, rather than mass replace its veteran inventory with contemporary designs in a hurry.

Now lets see if we can discuss these issues without the customary BS - Sampan

[Finn McCool]

Yes Sampan, I agree. Howver, I do not think that long wars are particularly feasilble, or possible, for modern superpowers because of the threat of nuclear war and the increasing interdependence of globablization. I think that China should pick up its modernization pace, because it already has global economic interests, and is much more likely to be involved in smaller wars like Iraq or afghanistan that are caused by economic interests. For an account of how I think China would fight these wars, you can watch the military story thread, because when I have the energy and time, I'll finish my account of China invading a failed-state Indonesia, with a slightly more modern PLA.

[Obcession]

First one would be the army, where troops are trimmed down to about roughly 1.7 or 1.8 million.

The army is already at 1.8 million.

To Finn:

China can already wage wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, but only if that country shares borders with China. The more modern elements of the PLA, such as the 38th and 39th GA, the marines, 3 airborne div's, and other RRU will have no problem dealing crippling damage to a small and weak state such as the 2001 Afghanistan and Iraq. The main thing PLA lacks right now is infantry - artillery and infantry - air support. Certainly PLA is not able to control forward close air support as efficiently as the US.

As for countries half of the globe away, yea, we need some carriers alright.

[Gaginang]

China can deploy its forces in an offensive land war, as Ender said. Invading the -stan nations on its Western border would be easy for China. Nepal, Bhutan and India would be more of a logistic problem but the first two would be a cakewalk. Let's not talk about India.

The real trouble is in a force projection scenario. China could never do what the US did in Iraq (move an entire invasion force with all the logistic and combat support it needs all the way across the world). Although I don't know what capabilites the Chinese have as far as more limited operations. For example, could the Chinese invade Madagascar? (horrible example, but its size, distance, international clout/alliances (or lack thereof) and military capability make it the best one I could think of).

i disagree with your scenario dat china could not project it's power like the US. if you know chinese history, you would know china had projected it power all the way to africa (zheng he) if not all the world. before western emerge from their egg shell (medievil)

the question is, why would china want to invent in this costly objectives, while it can save its money to buy a better living standard, i hope china wouldn't follow the way of the westerner did, like ww1 and ww2 , westerner destroyed and bankrupt all its saving from all its exploits of the natives peoples its conquered.

[SampanViking]

Hi Gaginang, please stay away from Political opinions as they are not permitted on this forum. Otherwise I would agree with you that modernising its society should be China's main priority.

Regarding China's power projection, I think I should make a point. In terms of overland power projection, the situation for China is probably not so far different from that of the US or NATO as you may think. Movement across territory will be controlled by the permission of other soverign states. Potentially China would have the ability to deploy troops to the borders of its SCO Allies, and this covers a vast distance through Asia and into Europe.

The difference though is at sea and Obviously here China is very limited in its capabilities. Even so, they should develop naturally in response to its legitimate trade security requirements, rather than as an all out Arms Race.

[FreeAsia2000]

Hi Gaginang, please stay away from Political opinions as they are not permitted on this forum. Otherwise I would agree with you that modernising its society should be China's main priority.

Regarding China's power projection, I think I should make a point. In terms of overland power projection, the situation for China is probably not so far different from that of the US or NATO as you may think. Movement across territory will be controlled by the permission of other soverign states. Potentially China would have the ability to deploy troops to the borders of its SCO Allies, and this covers a vast distance through Asia and into Europe.

The difference though is at sea and Obviously here China is very limited in its capabilities. Even so, they should develop naturally in response to its legitimate trade security requirements, rather than as an all out Arms Race.

I believe Chinese thinking about it's strategic interests is always going to be different than american. There's an interesting RAND pdf document on the two countries strategic thought if you can find it. basically China has always been more interested in influence than power.

Now as regards the sea I totally agree with you and this is going to be a big issue between the two in the future. at the moment the US keeps on trying to warn off china from attrmpting to even obtain parity and clearly this position cannot ever be accepted by the chinese.

My tentative conclusion is that, given realistic leadership, stability should hold between the United States and China so long as four conditions are met:

1. China continues not to challenge the United States on the high seas.
2. The United States accepts that China, and indeed other Asian powers, will grow relative to the United States in relative influence and power.
3. The Taiwan situation can be managed.
4. Leaders in both countries do not turn their publics against the other.


http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2005/Sep/maySep05.asp

It's a bit like a Rome and Carthage situation. Rome will in the end acquire the blueprints and amass a navy if it intends to be an independent power. Sea power as well as dominence in space are vital.

[SampanViking]

Hi Free Asia

Yes a good article, I am glad there are Professors that share my considered views:p

The Oil wars are an interesting point. Would the USN want to cut off Oil going to China to fuel US Owned Factories, making US financed products?

Would the PRC want to disrupt Oil going to the US to support American consumption habits?

This whole Globalisation business has the capacity of lowering the entire tone of an otherwise promising future war:roll: ;)

[adeptitus]

Let's divide the short-comings into hardware and software categories.

Hardware would include things like military budget ($$), ships, planes, manpower, logistics.

Software includes training, experience, diplomacy, etc.

In the hardware department, the PRC today has the financial power to afford a modest sized military similiar to UK or France. As already demonstrated, UK has the "power projection" capability to re-take Falklands in the 1980's, and will continue to have such capability with the 2 future Aircraft carriers.

The PLAN is lacking in hardware (CV, carrier aircraft) and oversea supply bases. US, UK, and France all have oversea posessions or bases, the PRC does not. This would limit the PLAN's deployement by fuel, supply, & re-supply conditions.

IMO aircraft carriers are pretty expensive, so the PLAN could start off with smaller helicopter carriers and engage in oversea disaster relief operations to start.

In area of software, the PRC can afford to pay for good training, but the PLA lacks actual combat experience. US and UK gained a lot of combat experience through both Gulf Wars, and are improving their urban combat capability & experience in Iraq. The PRC has only sent very limited number of military police to assist in UN Peace keeping force in places like Haiti (?).

To improve experience, the PRC would have to more actively engage in oversea disaster relief operations, UN peace keeping missions, and possibly even following the US into "police actions" against 3rd world nations. Instead of saying training or actual combat experience is better, I'll say that both are needed in the "software" development.

[FreeAsia2000]

Let's divide the short-comings into hardware and software categories.

Hardware would include things like military budget ($$), ships, planes, manpower, logistics.

Software includes training, experience, diplomacy, etc.

In the hardware department, the PRC today has the financial power to afford a modest sized military similiar to UK or France. As already demonstrated, UK has the "power projection" capability to re-take Falklands in the 1980's, and will continue to have such capability with the 2 future Aircraft carriers.

The PLAN is lacking in hardware (CV, carrier aircraft) and oversea supply bases. US, UK, and France all have oversea posessions or bases, the PRC does not. This would limit the PLAN's deployement by fuel, supply, & re-supply conditions.

IMO aircraft carriers are pretty expensive, so the PLAN could start off with smaller helicopter carriers and engage in oversea disaster relief operations to start.

In area of software, the PRC can afford to pay for good training, but the PLA lacks actual combat experience. US and UK gained a lot of combat experience through both Gulf Wars, and are improving their urban combat capability & experience in Iraq. The PRC has only sent very limited number of military police to assist in UN Peace keeping force in places like Haiti (?).

To improve experience, the PRC would have to more actively engage in oversea disaster relief operations, UN peace keeping missions, and possibly even following the US into "police actions" against 3rd world nations. Instead of saying training or actual combat experience is better, I'll say that both are needed in the "software" development.

Hmm I think the PLAN is more likely to copy the English and French approach to the periods leading up to the 7 year war or the Pomeranian War

trade bases followed by military.