The Prc Red Paper.

This paper is designed to negate the one system wins wars thought process that seems to be prevalent to the boards. here is what we know of the PRC combat power for the Asia battle space.

1.Biggest threat is about 270+ Su-27/30, 70-100 J-10, 70-100 JH-7, 500 J-8, 500 J-7 500 Q-5 120 H-6.That is bout 2,000 fighter aircraft and all of these aircraft are fairly modern or have been modernized to fire PGM,ASM and BVR missile not to mention land attack cruise missiles

2.Land based Missiles and Drones. Both ballistic and cruise compounded with Harpy attack drones. They will be able to launch about 1,000 of these in 16 hours. then there are things we don't know about.

3. Subs. will Surge 20+ fairly high quality boats that will give any navy fits to some degree.

4. surface fleet. very large numerically, most armed with High quality ASM.

5. information technology. a huge leap forward in netsentric warfare and situational awareness to combine these forces and to make cyber attacks against the OPFOR.

6. Intangibles and training. PRC military commander are not the commanders of 10 years ago. They learn and adapt much quicker. Pilots are given lasik surgery to have 20-10 vision with reports of many having more flying time than even American naval aviators. This is not a stupid force but one that is young, resourcful and AGGRESSIVE.

In closing all of this compounded together to create a organized strike packages can and will be very successful in the event of war. I would predict the PRC would be very successful in the first 30 days of any conflict depending on the OPFOR. The PRC does have a answer for the 20+ F-22 in Japan, carrier battle groups. Their biggest obstacle is the U.S submarine fleet which they are working on.

I think they also Believe they are going to take hits from both B-2 and cruise missiles but believe they can absorb such hits through system redundancy.

if the PRC are able to get a 60+ strike package to hit a carrier group and they sink a carrier killing 5,000 Americans. two things will happen. 1.U.S backs off or 2. Goes total war...that will depend on the president. If it is a liberal female it will be 1. If it is a conservative male then 2

Let's say, hypothetically speaking, that the PRC in a major regional war has its act together, and is able to successfully conduct a large-scale armoured or amphibious operation (and possibly with a large-scale airborne operation conducted in support) against a neighbouring state or states if war broke out between them. Initially, they may well achieve naval and aerial superiority at or soon after, the outset. Given the general capabilities and characteristics of the PLA that you've stated, Utelore, it may well be able to pull off the intial stages with a relative ease and a degree of success that may come as quite a shock to the rest of the world. Contingent, of course, upon their enemy's(ies)' own military strength and disposition, and the state of their relationships with other countries who may be able to assist them.

However, if during the follow-up something should go wrong and the war drag on rather longer than anticipated, with new factors possibly coming into play, how might the PLA be anticipated to perform if the unexpected, in a serious way, may occur? Are they too focused on winning the early stages of a war (much like the Western Allies were in WWII for example) and may have underestimated the importance and misunderstood the requirements of winning the follow-through and finishing the campaign/war? Are they psychologically prepared for that? Are their planning assumptions relatively solid, and their "triggers" for resorting to war appropriate? Or is there a real possibility that careful planning and preparation may be unduly influenced or even disrupted by internal political pressures that may arise in the midst of a crisis? Is the PLA today in general anything as mentally and physically tough as their worthy predecessors? Does the political leadership possess anything like the strategic grasp of their forebears and a basic, functional schooling in military matters? If not, is it amenable to solid, professional military advice?

In short, does the PLA have what it takes to pull off a short, Joint-Forces and/or Combined Arms campaign against a regional opponent(s)fairly quickly and successfully before something happens that causes the campaign to drag out into a more lengthy war with an uncertain conclusion?

I think the PRC has right now military power to win a war against its biggest neighbor in the region. That's right Russia. Not to include nuclear weapons. As in Nuclear war... the enemy is the nuclear war.

I believe what the PRC has done in the last 10 years is tantamount to Germany circa 1930 to 1940. I think on paper the russian air-force may look bigger but is in disrepair but just starting to come out of that. However, the Pilots of the PRC have much more flying hours and are just plain better.

The PRC ground forces, I believe, have a better tank in the Type-98 and 96 as most russian tanks still do not have true thermal imaging sites while about 3,000+ PRC tanks do.

The Training of the PRC officer and NCO corp has grown quantum leaps ahead of a Top heavy russian officer corp that has shown little regard for training and care of its soldiers but in fact brutalises them for a 1 year contract were they learn little and then quit.Not good when FSB units are better than your army. We are now starting to see true NCO's in the PLA with 7-10 years experience under the command of very competent leadership.

This Leadership is and has learned the art of mobile land/Air war the likes of the U.S. and this leadership has a very open mind as to what has been successful given their transformation after gulf war 1, Kosovo, and Iraq Freedom. They send out highly intelligent officers to all kinds of western countries learning "new tricks of the trade" while still learning russian based philosophies of war. They are taking all this knowledge and reverse engineering a system that is unique to them that seems very good.

Finally, The PRC is using its greatest asset. It 1.3 billion population. It is going out and finding the smartest and strongest of its people and placing them in the PLA. With that population and a Industrial Base of 1945 america there are no limits to what China can do. They will be a true super power by 2015.

Most impressive.

On a more specific point, there are lots of pics and vids that show PLA Infantry and Armour in training or on exercise that seem to depict troops who are maybe a little less than full masters of things from weapons-handling to Infantry-Armour cooperation. Now, I am under the impression that the PLA's priorities are generally top-down - get the Strategical right, then get the Operational right, and then get the Tactical right. Are these impressions generally accurate, or are they very much mistaken. For example, Infantry and Armour units seem a little unfamiliar with each other on EX vids. And what about the new UAC/OMG-type Group Army configurations that up to five Group Armies are converting to? Thoughts on these?

Yes, I agree that there are PLA units that are still not very well trained in combined arms operations BUT, there are units that are and have shown great abilities. Remember, the PLA is very secretive about its military capabilities. For instance when you see a SU-27 firing rocket pods at ground targets at 1k.

I can guarantee you that in a real fight you will not see one SU-27 with a rocket pod:roll: now, I have seen vids of Type-96 firing on the move at about 18mph then right after the shot I see the tank speed up to get out of its own dust bowel to fire again. That is a sign of a good tank driver comunicating with his gunner and TC.

I have also seen some basic infantry vids of PLA troops "cutting the pie or snaking into a room via cris cross or coming on line and bounding overwatch. this is another sign of good war trade.

Norfolk said:

In short, does the PLA have what it takes to pull off a short, Joint-Forces and/or Combined Arms campaign against a regional opponent(s)fairly quickly and successfully before something happens that causes the campaign to drag out into a more lengthy war with an uncertain conclusion?

Click to expand...

Note that in past conflicts, like the 62 border conflict with India, 69 conflict with Soviet Union and 79 conflict against Vietnam, the Chinese exhibited great control over the use of the force, and in the case of Vietnam, China was willing to pullout even though some strategic objectives were not achieved inorder to prevent the conflict from escalating.

You may be underestimating the Russian armed forces.
If you compare the insanely bad state of the first and second Chechen wars with comparably more recent operations in Georgia, it stands to reason that assuming bad morale and a state of total disrepair is no longer valid.

Secondly, and I think that this may be the more interesting point, we may soon have a reversal of the situation during the 3rd Indo China War.
During the 3rd Indo China war, China threatened Russia with Nuclear War if Russia (according to its treaty obligations with Vietnam) acted military (even if only conventional) on behalf of Vietnam. Russia did not wish to risk WW3 over the issue, in addition, continued Vietnamese resistance prevented the Soviet Union from having their hand forced. There was also a significant pro peace sentiment in the population, life standart in the Soviet Union was actually improving, and many were loathe to risk this over Vietnam.
Today, the living standart of some parts of China already exceeds the standart of most of Russia, the Chinese have much more to lose now than they had in the 70s.
While this does not mean a lack of Chinese assertion in regards to Chinas less nuclearly endowed neighbours, there is nearly no conceivable way that the China will risk total devastation other (parts of) Siberia, especially if significant parts of Siberias riches are available to the Chinese via peacefull means.