Chinese forces capable of rapid deployment - now and within ten years?

China already has RRUs, rapid reaction units, that can be deployed in a few days. However, as far as their ability to extend beyond China's immediate area and to Africa or the Middle East, they currently are lacking there.

However, that's what I think Gwadar port is for. I'm not sure when, but I expect China to move at least one 071, possible some Zubrs if they buy 'em, and an aircraft carrier at or near that port.

This is probably the purpose of Gwadar, to serve as a military arm to Africa and the Middle East. I'm also curious if anyone knows if the port they're talking about building in Sudan would support military operations.

That is why China carry out Peace mission 2006. With first time utilizing airborne and practice with Russian who has many years of experience of airborne tatics.

Presently I don see China having the need to project as far as South America.With most of China natural resources required from Middle East and Africa. China present tatic is to possess a strong and powerful airborne within which can be deployed even faster than naval deployment. Although there is no substitute for the heavy equipment that naval can bring in. China predicted a limited and quick war for such intervention.

China has recent deployed a new type of airborne armour vehicle and comfirm has dedicated airborne units. Most importantly is the purchase of 30 IL-76 and 8 IL-78 military transport plane from Russian. Together with its exisiting fleet. China will have a formitable airborne fleet,not to mention its Y-8 and Y-9 fleet. How many armour vehicle,troops can they ferry in one go?

Fly through Pakistan and they can quickly reach Middle East..

I think China may be more interested in putting some of its navy in Gwadar port to project themselves.

Originally Posted by Vlad Plasmius

I think China may be more interested in putting some of its navy in Gwadar port to project themselves.

That will raise a lot of noise from other countries. China usually likes to keep low profile on these kind of things!

It might raise some noise, but I doubt anyone's going to care. I think China has every intention of deploying its navy there. It'll raise noise with India, but maybe not as much with other countries.

Originally Posted by Vlad Plasmius

It might raise some noise, but I doubt anyone's going to care. I think China has every intention of deploying its navy there. It'll raise noise with India, but maybe not as much with other countries.

I think Uncle Sam will raise more noise than India... Japan will be another one that make a big fuss of this deployment. That is why China set up airborne unit which can be quickly deploy but at the same time stay within China own territory so that no other countries are going to say anything about it?

With airmobile units we must remember that their use is somewhat limited.

As lightly amoured and motorized, as such they are not ideal use for "peace forcing" or "police" operations unless there is very small risk to go against anyhting with even the slightest resamble of army. This was showed true in the various outbreakings during the Soviet union collapce, where russians used quite similar concept, tough more heavily armed airbrone units than in china to try to cease various uprisings. The saddest example was the first Chetchen war.

Air mobile units where forced to fight as a normal mechanized infantry and as they were ill-equipted for it, they recieved heavy penalty.

But using Air mobile units against poorly armed opponents, peoples uprising without any real assests of modern armed forces is equally ill-suited for Soviet/Chinese style Air mobile units. They are not equiped for these sort of operations which are more of normal police grwoud-control and UN peace keeping style missions. Airbrone units are not peace keepers, they are just too expensive to be used as such.

So where do you need Air mobile units? Well the soviet doctrines (Which china seems sadly to follow) mented them being units that are dropped behind enemy lines to cause havoc on low-protected targets like supply lines and ect. There was never any real hope for those units to be able to break free, back to the friendly lines unless the lines where moving to positive direction. (which was excepted to happen however).
But even during the Soviet days the massive airdrops (which are neccerical if you plan to field large vehicles in needed quantivities) were soon realized to be completely outdated. Western airdefence wouldn't have any proplems to shoot down the slow and vunarable transport planes.
Thus soviet started to developt the idea of helicopter assaulting (alongside with the experience from Vietnam). However helicopters have far limited radius so the overall idea of mehcanized airbrone units beguns to fade.

China is only now moving to that direction in which the soviet union found not workable. This I find rather alarming. Soviets had the benefit of huge helicopter armada with C130 size Mi-26s and only slightly smaller Mi-6 that where able to transport the BMD series AIFVs. China hardly has adequate medium size helicopter fleet so it needs to rely on Il-76 and Y-8 to transport its air mobile units...

As I have understood this topic in the first place it wasn't that much about airborne troops being actually droped on a hot battle field.
But more like units that can deploy rather fast (though air-transports). Meaning the way is rahter safe and there's a secured staging area. (A bit like the NRF, EU battle groups, US 2nd ACR-light [now different unit])
And I think such units are of use today.
It's perhaps more a question if China sees a necessaty to have such capabilites. In a wake of low to medium scale military conflicts around it's boarders or rather close beyond them these units could do quiet well, I think.
And to have air-mobile troops to a certain extent for fast maneuvers may proof quiet helpfull.

Originally Posted by Gollevainen

With airmobile units we must remember that their use is somewhat limited.

As lightly amoured and motorized, as such they are not ideal use for "peace forcing" or "police" operations unless there is very small risk to go against anyhting with even the slightest resamble of army. This was showed true in the various outbreakings during the Soviet union collapce, where russians used quite similar concept, tough more heavily armed airbrone units than in china to try to cease various uprisings. The saddest example was the first Chetchen war.

Air mobile units where forced to fight as a normal mechanized infantry and as they were ill-equipted for it, they recieved heavy penalty.

But using Air mobile units against poorly armed opponents, peoples uprising without any real assests of modern armed forces is equally ill-suited for Soviet/Chinese style Air mobile units. They are not equiped for these sort of operations which are more of normal police grwoud-control and UN peace keeping style missions. Airbrone units are not peace keepers, they are just too expensive to be used as such.

So where do you need Air mobile units? Well the soviet doctrines (Which china seems sadly to follow) mented them being units that are dropped behind enemy lines to cause havoc on low-protected targets like supply lines and ect. There was never any real hope for those units to be able to break free, back to the friendly lines unless the lines where moving to positive direction. (which was excepted to happen however).
But even during the Soviet days the massive airdrops (which are neccerical if you plan to field large vehicles in needed quantivities) were soon realized to be completely outdated. Western airdefence wouldn't have any proplems to shoot down the slow and vunarable transport planes.
Thus soviet started to developt the idea of helicopter assaulting (alongside with the experience from Vietnam). However helicopters have far limited radius so the overall idea of mehcanized airbrone units beguns to fade.

China is only now moving to that direction in which the soviet union found not workable. This I find rather alarming. Soviets had the benefit of huge helicopter armada with C130 size Mi-26s and only slightly smaller Mi-6 that where able to transport the BMD series AIFVs. China hardly has adequate medium size helicopter fleet so it needs to rely on Il-76 and Y-8 to transport its air mobile units...

Using helicopter to transport armour vehicle is even more dangerous. THey are heavily loaded and fly very slow and is a big target for ground defense. Using Y-8 and IL-76 to airdrop armour unit is more pratical cause military transport plane is fast and possess greater range,they can pratically drop further away from air defense unit. Althought it will also mean less lethal in attack!

Regarding about Russia in Chechen. Airborne tatic is not to blame for the defeat! The Russia that time is still recovering from Soviet collaspe. Soldier moral all time low. Leadership is horrible(The armour march to Gronzy is sucidal)... 18 yrs old young recruit was throw into battlefield against veteran Chechen fighter!All this held a high percentage for faliure of Russian in Chechen!
How do u expect a victory?

I think air units can be used very effectively. Ultimately it depends largely on how they're armed. They can certainly be armed for anti-tank and anti-air attacks as well as bring mortars for some attacks. In significant numbers, with air support, airborne troops could be highly effective.

That would likely be the problem Russia experienced as well as possibly poor communication. I'm not too sure about how Russian forces were used during that time, though.

Used in conjunction with air support and heavy arms such as anti-tank weapons, airborne troops could prove just as deadly, if not more deadly, than regular ground troops.

Regarding about Russia in Chechen. Airborne tatic is not to blame for the defeat! The Russia that time is still recovering from Soviet collaspe. Soldier moral all time low. Leadership is horrible(The armour march to Gronzy is sucidal)... 18 yrs old young recruit was throw into battlefield against veteran Chechen fighter!All this held a high percentage for faliure of Russian in Chechen!
How do u expect a victory?

I did say that Air mobile units where forced to fight as a normal mechanized infantry and as they were ill-equipted for it, they recieved heavy penalty. It means that for example in Chetchenia (and more properly in the first part of the campaing) Russians used the airbrone units as normal mechnized infatry but with their illsuited equipment. The one reason to this was that unlike in normal divisional units, the general morale was high in Airbrone units (as it normally is with all special forces). And the "veteran Chechen" is bit weird word...against who where those chechen fought before to gain that "veteran" status?

Originally Posted by Gollevainen

I did say that Air mobile units where forced to fight as a normal mechanized infantry and as they were ill-equipted for it, they recieved heavy penalty. It means that for example in Chetchenia (and more properly in the first part of the campaing) Russians used the airbrone units as normal mechnized infatry but with their illsuited equipment. The one reason to this was that unlike in normal divisional units, the general morale was high in Airbrone units (as it normally is with all special forces). And the "veteran Chechen" is bit weird word...against who where those chechen fought before to gain that "veteran" status?

Ok veteran shall not be the word used. But those Chechen fighter were former USSR regular who had many years of experience as a soldier! But I seriously doubt Airborne division morale were high. Even if it is true,their unit were lowly fund and badly maintain. If will be very difficult for them to perform as previous USSR standard!

No, the collabsing USSR and the emerged Russian state kept the airmobile units as their most highly praised units and they were maintanned as best possiple condition that the resources and state of the nation allowed at that time.
Chechens won mostly becouse they used decade old gurellia warfare tactics that can give serious proplems to innovatívely slowly responding opponent, such like Russian VDV

The russian airborne forces performed well alongside spetsnaz in afghanistan, conducting ambushes and anti guerilla operations. The light equipment and high mobility mean that they are better suited than normal mechanized forces to these tasks. But as you say, if they are forced to act as regular infantry, they are at a disadvantage. Airborne forces are best used for offensive action.