What should China's military research focus on in the future?

ravenshield936 said:

also cyber can allow steal of enemy information. a very useful thing to gather intel and even research without doing it yourself

and like others said up there, crippling opponents' information network and system will turn them into sitting ducks for Chinese plans

Click to expand...

Indeed... but it is also not very wise to steal every bit of information. Because the information that one steal, might also be wrong or purposely put there as a way of sabotage.

Thus I believe the main focus on cyber was to improve on the nation's overall information network.

Another thing I could think of is China to launch more satellites and to finally complete her Beidou system. This would give them a much needed guidance system for their missiles and also improve on their conventional units such as their infantries, armoured, tanks and special force.

The future of China's military system would be to have a smooth system to link all the service arms together in one big integrated package. So the forces in frontline would be link directly to supporting elements from the rear.

All these required a larger number of satellites, UAV, AWAC, etc.

I think they need to focus on improving and advancing the development of ECM's and ECCM's.

By having either or but preferable both would help them be able to shape the battlefield to play to the strenghts of China's military.

rhino123 said:

Indeed... but it is also not very wise to steal every bit of information. Because the information that one steal, might also be wrong or purposely put there as a way of sabotage.

Thus I believe the main focus on cyber was to improve on the nation's overall information network.

Another thing I could think of is China to launch more satellites and to finally complete her Beidou system. This would give them a much needed guidance system for their missiles and also improve on their conventional units such as their infantries, armoured, tanks and special force.

The future of China's military system would be to have a smooth system to link all the service arms together in one big integrated package. So the forces in frontline would be link directly to supporting elements from the rear.

All these required a larger number of satellites, UAV, AWAC, etc.

Click to expand...

and hopefully china will also learn from US's cyber vulnerability and build a less vulnerable network

I'm suprised that some of one suggest something that are threatning or aimed toward the US or any great power, especially when major conflict between world power is mostly impossible due to the current social context. And the presence of NATO is still a very powerful deterrent.

Following the current and possible futuristic defense need, I'm more leaning toward 3 points.

1. Information dominance technology: Battlefield data collection, satellite and advance communication network, information and communication technology.

2. Joint-arms cooperation and coordination.

3. Developing and understand asymmetrical warfare and tactics.

rommel said:

3. Developing and understand asymmetrical warfare and tactics.

Click to expand...

You're kidding right? The PLA needs more understanding of asymmetrical warfare and tactics?

rommel said:

I'm suprised that some of one suggest something that are threatning or aimed toward the US or any great power, especially when major conflict between world power is mostly impossible due to the current social context. And the presence of NATO is still a very powerful deterrent.

Following the current and possible futuristic defense need, I'm more leaning toward 3 points.

1. Information dominance technology: Battlefield data collection, satellite and advance communication network, information and communication technology.

2. Joint-arms cooperation and coordination.

3. Developing and understand asymmetrical warfare and tactics.

Click to expand...

None of the developement as mentioned before is aimed at anyone. It is to provide credible deterrence aganist any aggressors. It is not aim to start any wars, but to prevent someone from interferring with China's own interest. It is something like China telling any country or super power, "I have a big gun. Might not kill you, but it sure will hurt alot if you step into my way."

By developing a weapon or a package, it doesn't necessary mean that the weapon will be used or aimed at some country (US or Nato or something like that.), it is just telling them to back off if they get too close.

Plus at present moment, only the US and the combine might of NATO and perhaps Russia had the advance capability of deploying massive amount of satellites, but who was to say that in future other countries will not also gain this capability. For China who wanted a big slice in the world she must have the capability to deny the usage of satellites to other would be opponents.

What you say in point 1 and 2 is credible and I fully support that notion. As for point number 3, I believe China is already quite capable in that area.

i agree with rommel's recommendations, though i still think strategic weapons still require constant upgrading.

space technology is quite important, though it could be somewhat included in the areas that rommel suggested there. all of those are what really gave the US an edge over other conventional forces today. we always talk about the B-2, tomahawk, apache and all that stuff, but none of those would work effectively without a good system to back it up.

anyone know of China's progress in stuff like information dominance tech or joint arms coordination?

rhino123 said:

What you say in point 1 and 2 is credible and I fully support that notion. As for point number 3, I believe China is already quite capable in that area.

Click to expand...

solarz said:

You're kidding right? The PLA needs more understanding of asymmetrical warfare and tactics?

Click to expand...

Asymmetrical warfare designate any kind of warfare which are not conventional. It's a very vast and complex domain, and no country is well prepared against all of its form. Even countries very capable of fighting asymmetrical warfare are vulnerable because it has so many different faces. For exemple, the US Military had learned lessons from the Vietnam War about guerilla harassement, but they were unprepared for urban insurgency. Or the North Vietnamese Army and the Viet-Cong, who has a good amount of knowledge concerning asymmetrical warfare, had some hard time countering US Army Special Force and US Navy S.E.A.L. commando raid behind their own line during the Vietnam War.

China might be quite capable. But is she prepared against any commando raid or deep line inflitration data collection/target designation by a potential ennemy ? Does she have a counter-insurgency program ready ? She's maybe prepared against the first part, but surely not the second. We haven't heard about the developement of the IED detection system or radio/cell signal jamming system which are crucial into counter-insurgency type of warfare. And there's no sign also of the development of a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle. So, those 2 points make me believe that she can still research on asymetrical warfare, especially when strategists and military planners thinks that most war in the next 2 decades at least will be fight that way.

rommel asymmetrical warfare is not something you are supposed to be prepared for. if you were already prepared then its not asymmetric lol. defining asymmetric warfare as anything not conventional prolly isnt very accurate, and i dont think asymmetric warfare has to be something remote like spec ops or insurgency, the US attack on iraq was as asymmetric as the subsequent insurgency against the US forces. i'd consider German armour vs Polish calvary pretty damn asymmetric, the same with NATO bombing of kosovo. to me asymmetric means there is a fundamental difference in the method of combat employed by both sides. the US forces has been fighting asymmetric warfare for quite sometime. if there is anyone that knows asymmetric warfare it'd be the americans. however America's asymmetric warfare was almost purely based on technological advantage, while its opponents must employ very primitive methods and equipments, and surprisingly achieved greater results than a professional army. there is a theory that says if your army is a generation ahead of your enemy, then you can beat him pretty easily, but if you are three generations ahead of your enemy, then you are gonna be in big trouble, because that's quite a propitious condition for waging asymmetric warfare.

rommel said:

Asymmetrical warfare designate any kind of warfare which are not conventional. It's a very vast and complex domain, and no country is well prepared against all of its form. Even countries very capable of fighting asymmetrical warfare are vulnerable because it has so many different faces. For exemple, the US Military had learned lessons from the Vietnam War about guerilla harassement, but they were unprepared for urban insurgency. Or the North Vietnamese Army and the Viet-Cong, who has a good amount of knowledge concerning asymmetrical warfare, had some hard time countering US Army Special Force and US Navy S.E.A.L. commando raid behind their own line during the Vietnam War.

China might be quite capable. But is she prepared against any commando raid or deep line inflitration data collection/target designation by a potential ennemy ? Does she have a counter-insurgency program ready ? She's maybe prepared against the first part, but surely not the second. We haven't heard about the developement of the IED detection system or radio/cell signal jamming system which are crucial into counter-insurgency type of warfare. And there's no sign also of the development of a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle. So, those 2 points make me believe that she can still research on asymetrical warfare, especially when strategists and military planners thinks that most war in the next 2 decades at least will be fight that way.

Click to expand...

what you say is so true. I will take your point one step further though. What we are focusing now is a defence done in her own soil. However, I believe it is more important in today's battlefield, is to fight in other people's soil. What I mean is, to pull the battle out, to launch strikes in enemy's or opposition land.

In these, I believe China should really focus alot in their Special Forces Training and deep operation like what the US and other major Western nation had been doing.

While back in mainland China, I believe that the main way to stop enemy's infiltration is not only the job of the PLA. Because no matter how much money and how much research you pump in, it is not possible to stop all fronts. So the old 'People's War' tactic still came into play. All citizens will become the eye and ear of the PLA. To achieve that, we would still have to come back to the stability of the country, the trust of average Chinese to their government, and things like that.