Is the PLA's main Ground Force modernisation phase complete?
- Thread starter SampanViking
- Start date
to be fair... corruption happened everywhere, not just China. And yes, we do need to factor in these corruption issue, but I do not think it is the main thing that is hindering the current growth of China.
China only began building a really professional military in the past decades, and only after the economic reform had been successful that China have enough money for hardware upgrading and giving their soldiers better training, all these happen only in fairly recent time. Unlike the west who are already more modern as comparing to China even in the Qing dynasty...
I do agree with the general that more emphasis is still placed on the Army, but with the stance slowly swifting to the Navy and Air Force. But Army still hold the bulk of the people in the entire PLA and so naturally more budget are to be allocated to these people.
And to be fair... I would not think that China could 'complete' the modernization process at all... even after their J-7 and J-8 have been totally replaced... I mean... come on, even Su-27 is so yesterday, although still effective, but is still old technology and hardly really very modern when compared to western's Rafales, Typhoon, F-35 and F-22...
Although many would have argued that China has been making leaps and bounds in their technological advances, but to have very effective and powerful technology (hardware) is one thing... to know how to use them effectively is another. In recent years, although there was an influx of more highly educated people being inducted into the military, we must not forget that the bulk of the soldiers are still peasants... so to hand these peasants with state of the art weaponries or equipment might not actually boils down well.
That say... I believe the modernization process is still a long route off... and there are many things that still needed to do for all the four elements of the PLA - Army, Air Force, Navy and Second Artillery.
China only began building a really professional military in the past decades, and only after the economic reform had been successful that China have enough money for hardware upgrading and giving their soldiers better training, all these happen only in fairly recent time. Unlike the west who are already more modern as comparing to China even in the Qing dynasty...
I do agree with the general that more emphasis is still placed on the Army, but with the stance slowly swifting to the Navy and Air Force. But Army still hold the bulk of the people in the entire PLA and so naturally more budget are to be allocated to these people.
And to be fair... I would not think that China could 'complete' the modernization process at all... even after their J-7 and J-8 have been totally replaced... I mean... come on, even Su-27 is so yesterday, although still effective, but is still old technology and hardly really very modern when compared to western's Rafales, Typhoon, F-35 and F-22...
Although many would have argued that China has been making leaps and bounds in their technological advances, but to have very effective and powerful technology (hardware) is one thing... to know how to use them effectively is another. In recent years, although there was an influx of more highly educated people being inducted into the military, we must not forget that the bulk of the soldiers are still peasants... so to hand these peasants with state of the art weaponries or equipment might not actually boils down well.
That say... I believe the modernization process is still a long route off... and there are many things that still needed to do for all the four elements of the PLA - Army, Air Force, Navy and Second Artillery.
antiterror13
Brigadier
Yes corruption is everywhere, but worse in China than most of western developed nations ... China must act sooner rather than later to stop corruption there.
Modernization is never ending process .. modern equipment now, will be obsolete in 20 years
True enough, but there is a big difference between Revolutionary and Incremental. The rational of my OP is based on the main Organisational and Equipment having completed its revolutionary transformation to a modern form and can now continue modernisation on an incremental basis.
It also is meant to reflect that Ground Force equipment is the cheapest per unit and so gives the best return per buck, which is useful at a time an economy is growing from a low base.
Hu has been promoting a larger number of new Generals into the other branches suggesting that a faster rate of modernisation is about to start within them and at a more revolutionary level that only a more developed economy can afford to support.
It also suggests that Air and Sea experiments of the last twenty years are about to rapidly bear fruit and replace much of the older inventories.
It also is meant to reflect that Ground Force equipment is the cheapest per unit and so gives the best return per buck, which is useful at a time an economy is growing from a low base.
Hu has been promoting a larger number of new Generals into the other branches suggesting that a faster rate of modernisation is about to start within them and at a more revolutionary level that only a more developed economy can afford to support.
It also suggests that Air and Sea experiments of the last twenty years are about to rapidly bear fruit and replace much of the older inventories.
antiterror13
Brigadier
Perhaps it is not too relevant to the topic. Do you think the capability gap between US army and PLA (army) is widening or narrowing ? if let say US army capability is 100 ... what is the capability of PLA (army) ? ... how about Navy and Air force ?
Obviously the gap is narrowing and doing so quickly.
In terms of equipment there is probably little to choose between comparable weapon systems, especially on land. The big difference is still going to be Battlefield Awareness and while I have nod doubt that this is not an issue for China at home and its very near abroad, this will currently, I am sure deteriorate rapidly over even limited distance. Expect this to start changing significantly though over the next few years given the rate new Satellite deployment currently at a rate of one a month.
A good example of this must be the T96 and T99 tanks. The biggest difference I can see between them (and the rationale for designing both) is that the T99 went to the units already trained and integrated into Battlefield aware networks while the T96 was a useful upgrade to those units that were not. As these units have been trained and integrated, we have seen the T96's upgraded and now reported to have almost the same capabilities of the T99.
What has been happening on land is now likely to take off on Sea and in the Air in a big way this decade.
In terms of equipment there is probably little to choose between comparable weapon systems, especially on land. The big difference is still going to be Battlefield Awareness and while I have nod doubt that this is not an issue for China at home and its very near abroad, this will currently, I am sure deteriorate rapidly over even limited distance. Expect this to start changing significantly though over the next few years given the rate new Satellite deployment currently at a rate of one a month.
A good example of this must be the T96 and T99 tanks. The biggest difference I can see between them (and the rationale for designing both) is that the T99 went to the units already trained and integrated into Battlefield aware networks while the T96 was a useful upgrade to those units that were not. As these units have been trained and integrated, we have seen the T96's upgraded and now reported to have almost the same capabilities of the T99.
What has been happening on land is now likely to take off on Sea and in the Air in a big way this decade.
Just out of interest, bisides the big items like ZTZ-99 and stuff, we've seen lots of new IFV, APC etc. designes. How far has the deployment of these new systems into operational units actually progressed so far?
It seems the R&D phase to put the PLA capabilities to up to date standarts is probably mostly finished, but how about putting these things in the field and working with them?
It seems the R&D phase to put the PLA capabilities to up to date standarts is probably mostly finished, but how about putting these things in the field and working with them?
antiterror13
Brigadier
That's what I thought ... and then I read the article here ... very interesting and it seems make sense. your opinion ?????
Chinese General Declares Democracy The Ultimate Weapon
August 19, 2010: Chinese Lieutenant General Yazhou Liu has been giving speeches to his fellow officers in which he insists that China must embrace democracy, or perish. Liu recently got promoted, and his speeches and published articles continue. What is going on here?
Liu has been pushing his ideas for nearly a decade. Five years ago, he was ordered to shut up. So his public presentation of these seemingly heretical ideas ceased. But Liu kept talking to military and government officials in private. Now he has been allowed to go public again. The way he presents his ideas is compelling. He points out that the American military has continued to innovate, increasing the gap between Chinese and U.S. military capabilities. This, despite over a decade of intense reform and upgrades in the Chinese military. This gets the attention of Chinese generals and admirals. Earlier, the Chinese brass were appalled at how quickly the Americans demolished Iraqi forces (using weapons and tactics similar to what China has) in 1991 and 2003. The Chinese military leadership was also shocked at how much the American forces had improved between 1991 and 2003. The quick conquest of Afghanistan in 2001 was also an unpleasant surprise, as this was a very different war than the two in Iraq. Chinese commanders speak boldly, and publicly, of how they are developing methods to defeat all this American cleverness, but Liu knows better, and his private conversations with fellow generals has changed a lot of minds.
Liu's backing of democracy is purely practical, and really has nothing to do with political beliefs. He describes American democracy as a system designed by a genius for effective use by stupid people. As Liu puts it, ''a bad system makes a good person behave badly while a good system makes a bad person behave well. Democracy is the most important reform for China, for without it there can be no sustainable growth.''
Liu has also been active in anti-corruption efforts, and points out that democracies tend to have far less corruption than non-democracies. This gets the attention of Communist Party officials, who have long believed that the Russians made a mistake by enacting economic reforms as well as political ones. Liu points out that the Russians had no choice, as the communists in Russia were completely discredited, and the economic reforms followed the political collapse.
Liu points out that communists can compete in a democratic environment, especially since Chinese communists have abandoned the most destructive aspects of traditional communist doctrine (state control of the economy). But growing corruption, especially among communist officials, is crippling China and threatens the economy, as well as continued communist control of the country. Better to compete in a democratic environment, and risk losing national power, than to proceed with the current system and risk everything. Liu is being listened to by a lot of senior officials, both military and government, who back clean government. But the "dirty communists" are opposed, and that is a formidable opponent for someone like Liu.
Liu is a special kind of officer. He's a political officer, a job invented by the Russians during the Soviet period. The political officer is assigned to units from company size on up, and is second in command of the unit. The political officer is responsible for the political loyalty of all the officers and troops in the unit. He also acts as a (non-religious) chaplain, morale officer and publicist for the unit. These days, political officers rarely say much about communist doctrine, as few Chinese care for it. Political officers do serve as a source of grassroots information on what's going on with the troops, and the word is that corruption is a big issue with military personnel as well. Change is in the air, whether communist officials want it or not. Liu offers a way out, but there's no guarantee that enough of these officials will take it.
RedMercury
Junior Member
Oh strategery page says it, it must be true!
Well it may potentially be taken out of context or exagerated, the same way people speculated Hu Jintao, when he first became president, was exalted by the media as a liberal reformer but then failed to meet those expectations by the western press.
Its probable that pro-democracy types do exist, but democracy will be implemented slowly and most likely will not follow a western liberal model.