Time does not stand still, and to assume that China will is foolish. With wealth comes power, and China's military will likely be unrecognizable in 30 years. To underestimate one's enemy is simply stupid.
China’s Deceptively Weak (and Dangerous) Military
11–20 of 109 posts
Re: China’s Deceptively Weak (and Dangerous) Military
#12[deleted]
Re: China’s Deceptively Weak (and Dangerous) Military
#13I bet you could say all or nearly all of these bad-sounding things about the US military or any randomly selected Western military. There is surely some crank out there patrolling a SAC installation on horseback. The US certainly has capital ships that don't work and have to go right back to the shipyard. The US still operates 1950s-era aircraft that have been repurposed from airlift to bombers to mine layers to sign…
>"Elite" pilots of the USAF, many of whom are in fact in the ANG, also fly 10 hours per month, or even less[1]. Often ANG pilots are even better than the full-timers because they tend to be commercial pilots that joined the Air Force part-time because flying an F22 is the pilot equivalent of driving a Ferrari. These commercial pilots get thousands of hours per year of flying, which is often much more than a full-time…
> they tend to be commercial pilots that joined the Air Force part-time because flying an F22 is the pilot equivalent of driving a Ferrari.
It often goes the other way. Becoming a commercial airline pilot requires many hours in the cockpit. A great way to accomplish that is to become a USAF pilot. Your flight training is paid for (in fact, you get a salary to attend). You have a commitment (if you did ROTC it works out to 7-10 years total, flight training takes up the first part of that). Then you can get out, join the guard or reserve and work full-time for 6 figures, and part-time to earn a second retirement (a modest retirement, but gov't service is one of the few remaining sources for pensions).
EDIT: Also, a huge difference between heavies (commercial aircraft, cargo aircraft, refuelers, bombers) and fighters. They handle very differently, and pilots confusing the performance of one for the other can cause serious problems.
Re: China’s Deceptively Weak (and Dangerous) Military
#14Hmm. The Sino-Indian war dismissed as a minor border skirmish? It only went for a month, but it was in the Himalayas. Also, it only took the Chinese a month to get what they wanted[2]. Not to be outdone by the conventional army, China’s powerful strategic rocket troops, the Second Artillery Force, still uses cavalry units to patrol its sprawling missile bases deep within China’s vast interior. Is there any evidence a…
Well the Sino Indian war is much more a testament to the sheer incompetency and spinelessness of the then prime minister of India. He was caught off guard with the blatant abuse of Indian trust by China. There were no clear directives and because of this reinforcements were too late. The Indian Air Force at that time was vastly superior to what China had but again the fear and incompetence of Nehru got the better of him and the nation.
My point is that war doesn't show a strength of Chinese army as much as it shows the gigantic fail on the Indian side.
Re: China’s Deceptively Weak (and Dangerous) Military
#15I bet you could say all or nearly all of these bad-sounding things about the US military or any randomly selected Western military. There is surely some crank out there patrolling a SAC installation on horseback. The US certainly has capital ships that don't work and have to go right back to the shipyard. The US still operates 1950s-era aircraft that have been repurposed from airlift to bombers to mine layers to sign…
> There is surely some crank out there patrolling a SAC installation on horseback.
Well, that's a bit of an anachronism, as SAC hasn't existed since 1992.
Re: China’s Deceptively Weak (and Dangerous) Military
#16This is the most interesting part, for me: > The PLA, unlike the armed forces of the United States, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and other regional heavyweights, is by definition not a professional fighting force. Rather, it is a “party army,” the armed wing of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Indeed, all career officers in the PLA are members of the CCP and all units at the company level and above have political off…
I am given to understand that British soldiers entering the army swear their allegiance to the Queen, not to the constitution nor the population. So?
Re: China’s Deceptively Weak (and Dangerous) Military
#17Time does not stand still, and to assume that China will is foolish. With wealth comes power, and China's military will likely be unrecognizable in 30 years. To underestimate one's enemy is simply stupid.
China has often been wealthy, but has rarely been able to conquer... anywhere. They're not the first, or twentieth, place I would look if I were worrying about foreign aggression.
Re: China’s Deceptively Weak (and Dangerous) Military
#18One of the most important aspects of modern warfare is the asymmetry. It's best to pursue small efforts that can have stupidly large and devastating effect on your opponent.
China is investing in sophisticated information attacks to steal military and industry capabilities, disable infrastructure and remove a communications advantage from an invader.
Their heavy submarine focus threatens to obliterate trade routes and defend their own, causing others to hesitate to attack or suffer economic devastation. And their precision missiles are a described as a pocket of excellence within the army.
They can use their missiles to destroy military satellites, taking away advantages like communication and GPS. On the ground, sending missiles directly into concentrated C&C centres like air craft carriers, command posts, etc can turn the enemy into a semi-organised mob. With the enemy taken down a notch or two, suddenly China's moderately trained but extremely numerous ground forces can start to look fairly intimidating.
They mention horses for surveying as barbaric compared to survey helicopters, but what a great asset horses would be when both sides have used their precision missiles to take out all of the supporting infrastructure. No maintenance or fuel supply line needed, they even double as their own horse manufacturing line.
Whether these approaches are enough to defend or attack, who knows, but the strategy is an excellent and efficient one that shouldn't be underestimated. You can't just look at what forces they have, but what relevant effects they can achieve with those forces.
Re: China’s Deceptively Weak (and Dangerous) Military
#19This is the most interesting part, for me: > The PLA, unlike the armed forces of the United States, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and other regional heavyweights, is by definition not a professional fighting force. Rather, it is a “party army,” the armed wing of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Indeed, all career officers in the PLA are members of the CCP and all units at the company level and above have political off…
I am given to understand that British soldiers entering the army swear their allegiance to the Queen, not to the constitution nor the population. So?
The British don't have a constitution to swear on.
Re: China’s Deceptively Weak (and Dangerous) Military
#20This is the most interesting part, for me: > The PLA, unlike the armed forces of the United States, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and other regional heavyweights, is by definition not a professional fighting force. Rather, it is a “party army,” the armed wing of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Indeed, all career officers in the PLA are members of the CCP and all units at the company level and above have political off…
I am given to understand that British soldiers entering the army swear their allegiance to the Queen, not to the constitution nor the population. So?
Sure, but do they spend 40% of their time strengthening that allegiance?