Posted on 11/21/2004 11:45:29 AM PST by TapTheSource
China Rapidly Modernizes for War With U.S.
Alexandr Nemets Tuesday, Aug. 10, 2004
During the last several months, there have been numerous hints in the Chinese and Taiwanese media indicating that war is more likely than believed here in the West.
Some strategists suggest that the 2008 Olympics scheduled for Beijing constitute a key benchmark, after which a war may be possible. However, it is clear that both nations are preparing for a conflict in the near term, and that 2008 may not be as pivotal as some experts believe.
In fact, China’s media have been repeating the mantra in their news reports that the People’s Liberation Army is preparing to gain a victory in this “internal military conflict in a high-tech environment.”
Chinese war planners have studied carefully the recent U.S.-Iraq War, a war that demonstrated to PLA strategists that U.S. military might is derived from its technological superiority.
China’s military experts conducted similar studies after America’s first Gulf War. One military study written by two Chinese colonels entitled “Unrestricted Warfare” suggested that China could not compete with America’s technological prowess.
Instead, China had to develop “asymmetrical” warfare to defeat the U.S. in any conflict.
Interestingly, “Unrestricted Warfare” became an instant best seller in China after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. In the 1998 book, the Chinese colonels suggested that a successful bombing by Osama bin Laden of the World Trade Center would be an example of this new “unrestricted warfare” concept.
Apparently, China feels much better positioned after the recent Iraq War and wants to challenge the U.S. on a technological level.
Almost instantly after the Iraq War, in May 2003, China’s President and Communist Party General Secretary Hu Jintao declared at the party’s Politburo meeting the necessity of “active support of national defense and modernization of the army.”
Hu emphasized the need for further integrating information technology (IT) into the PLA and mobilizing China’s entire scientific and technological potential for PLA’s needs.
As a result, the PLA’s modernization in these areas has accelerated significantly.
Since the second half of 2003, the PLA has been engaged in the latest stage of its RMA – Revolution in Military Affairs – program, which was officially announced by the chairman of China Central Military Commission, Jiang Zemin, in his speech on Sept. 1, 2003.
He emphasized that that PLA should transform itself into a “smaller and much smarter science- and technology-based army.”
Jiang defined the major tasks of new PLA reform as follows:
Reducing PLA’s ranks, primarily ground forces, by 200,000.
Maximizing IT and other advanced technologies – including nanotechnologies, space technologies, electromagnetic weapons, etc.
Improving the educational and qualitative training of PLA servicemen.
Transforming the PLA into an “army of one” that is comparatively smaller and of very high quality, similar to the U.S. Army.
Acquiring the most advanced weaponry.
The Russia Connection
During 2003 and 2004, Russia – jointly with Belarus and Ukraine – has been a major source of advanced weapons for the PLA.
According to official figures from Russia’s weapons export state monopoly, Rosoboronexport, Russia’s total weapons export in 2003 approached $5.7 billion, making Russia the second largest arms exporter after the U.S. (Please note that China is arguably the leading arms exporter in quantity of arms transported, as its weaponry is considerably less expensive than that of the U.S.)
China has purchased 38 percent of Russian arms exports, or around $2.2 billion.
If one takes into account the weapons deliveries from Belarus and Ukraine to China, along with “double use” nuclear and space technologies supplied by Russia to China, then Chinese real arms imports from greater Russia would, in my estimation, be $4 billion.
Clearly, Russia and her allies have been a huge factor supporting the PLA in its rapid modernization and planned confrontation with the U.S.
3-Pronged Strategy
The PLA has been following its “three-way policy” of advanced weapons acquisition.
This three-pronged strategy calls for China to gain technologically advanced weaponry through (1) imports, (2) joint (Chinese-foreign) weapons R&D, and (3) independent weapons R&D within China.
The details of this mechanism were given in the article “China’s military affairs in 2003,” published by the Taiwanese journal Zhonggong yanjiu (China Communism Research) in February 2004.
According to Taiwanese experts, though weapons import and joint R&D still play the major role in PLA modernization, the role of “independent R&D” has been increasing gradually.
Appointed in March 2003, new Chinese Defense Minister (former chief of Defense Ministry’s Armament Division) Col.-Gen. Cao Gangchuan was personally in charge of this work.
He has tried to decrease China’s dependence on Russian arms and increase the share of advanced weapons imports from Germany, France and Israel.
China also is engaged in joint weapons R&D projects with EU and NATO countries, including R&D of mid-range air-to-air missiles and highly precise satellite positioning (Galileo project).
The Air Force
China believes that in a conflict with Taiwan, air dominance will be key to a quick victory.
The PLA has been beefing up its PLA Air Force (PLAAF) and aircraft troops of the PLA Navy (PLAN).
Reportedly, by the end of February 2004, the PLAAF purchased from Russia 76 SU-30 MKK fighters belonging to the advanced “4 plus” generation.
PLAN air troops obtained 24 even more advanced SU-30 MKK fighters.
There is no data regarding future deliveries of the “finished” SU-30 from Russia to China; however, the Chinese aircraft industry is more or less capable now of producing the SU-30 as well as other fighters belonging to the fourth generation, or close to this level.
Dramatic modernization of China’s First Aviation Industry Corp., or AVIC-1, from 2001 to 2004, is of principal importance here (the data in this account are given in the above-mentioned article in the Zhonggong yanjiu journal).
Four major companies are developing China’s jet-manufacturing capability. Interestingly, each of these companies recently underwent radical modernization and upgrading, including advanced equipment obtained from Europe’s Airbus, claiming the help is for “cooperation in passenger aircraft production.”
Shenyang Aircraft Corp. continued, in the past year, to produce SU-27 SK (J-11) heavy fighters from Russian kits at a rate of at least 25 units annually, and the share of Chinese-made components surpassed 70 percent.
The same company now prepares SU-30 MKK (J-11A) fighters for manufacturing.
In the frame of “independent R&D” within China, the Chengdu Aircraft Corp. has mastered the serial production of medium J-10 fighters and FC-1 light fighters. These planes reportedly can match the U.S. F-16 fighter.
Here are some other developments in China’s air wing:
Guizhou Aircraft Corp. developed the advanced Shanying fighter-trainer, while Xian Aircraft Corp. mostly finished developing the new generation of FBC-1 (JH-7) long-range fighter-bomber, which became known as JH-7A.
Other enterprises, belonging to AVIC-1, mastered production of KAB-500 guided bombs and several kinds of air-to-air and air-to ground missiles.
By the end of 2003, the new generation of Flying Leopard, i.e., JH-7A, was being tested. This fighter-bomber’s weapons include new air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles of beyond-vision range, guided bombs, etc. This aircraft is adapted for anti-radar reconnaissance, effective low-altitude strikes against large naval vessels, and general strikes of ground-based and naval targets.
By the end of 2004, as a result of supply from Russia and increased fighter production at AVIC-1 subsidiaries, the number of advanced fighters of various kinds in PLAN air troops and the PLAAF – including SU-27 (J-11), SU-30 (J-11A), J-10, FC-1, Shanying, FBC-1 (JH-7) and JH-7A – could surpass an estimated 400 units. The Sea Component
China also sees its navy as critical in any successful assault on Taiwan.
The PLA Navy (PLAN) has numerous Chinese-Russian projects under way this year and next, including:
Purchase of two Russian Sovremenny destroyers, equipped with improved ship-to-ship supersonic cruise missiles (SSM) Sunburn 3M80MBE of 240 km range. Initially, Sunburn had a range of 160 km. However, in 2001-2003, Raduga Design Bureau in Dubna (about 150 km north of Moscow) designed, under PLAN’s orders, a much more lethal version of SSM.
Very probably, serial production of new SSM would be mastered in China, so it would be installed on two Sovremenny destroyers, purchased by PLAN in 1999-2000, on Chinese-built Luhu- and Luhai-class destroyers as well as Jiangwei-class frigates. According to media reports in the Hong Kong and Taiwan media, two new Sovremenny destroyers could be transferred to PLAN before the end of 2005.
Purchase of eight Kilo submarines, equipped by “super-advanced” 3M54E (CLUB-S) submarine-launched anti-ship missiles. In 2003, China already obtained 50 missiles of this kind, which would greatly improve PLAN’s striking capacity. China intends to organize production of these missiles. They probably also could be used on Chinese-built conventional submarines of the Song class.
New Kilo submarines could enter PLAN service in 2005 or the first half of 2006. (Information regarding destroyers and conventional submarines was repeated in several articles in Zhonggong yanjiu in January 2003 through February 2004 and in multiple media reports from Hong Kong during the same period.)
Construction of “093 project” nuclear attack submarines and the “094 project” strategic nuclear submarine, using Russian plans and technology, at Huludao (a port city in northeast Liaoning province) military shipbuilding plant. By the end of 2005, PLAN would have in its service at least two “093 project” and at least one “094 project” nuclear submarines. Reportedly, Russia had to make significant improvements in design and weapons of these submarines, in accordance with Chinese customers’ requirements.
Along with Russian contracts is the construction of a new generation of destroyers, frigates and conventional submarines at modernized shipbuilding plants in Dalian, Shanghai, Qingdao and Wuhan cities. An upgraded PLA could be capable pf establishing sea control around Taiwan in 2008.
Aso important is the fact that both the PLAAF and PLAN would be equipped, by 2008, with perfect military information technology systems, more precisely by C4ISR (command, control, computers, communication, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) systems, which would make the use of the listed weapon systems much more effective.
"Despite the frantic hype the PRC Navy and Air Force simply aren't that great. No ship is absolutely invulnerable, and yes, a Carrier is sinkable, but we've got plenty of those."
***It would really only take the loss of one or 2 of these and we're down $1trillion or so, plus the loss of about 10k lives, and the U.S. is likely to lose stomach for more fighting.
"And destroying one would likely end up with the PRC losing all of their naval and air power-projecting capability in the process."
***This neglects the already mentioned strategy of asymmetrical warfare. An attack would be in the form of a swarm of antiship missiles, they wouldn't care if 90% of them get shot down. The remaining 10% could get through and sink carriers (with planes & men aboard) at the loss of a few dozen pilots and planes. After that, the power-projecting capability rests with the army, which engages in its own form of swarm tactics (previously utilized in Korea), with the willingness to accept tens of millions of casualties.
The PRC is likely to be completely helpless at ASW warfare, and, thus, incapable of projecting power anywhere overseas.
***China doesn't necessarily want to project power overseas other than across the Taiwan Straits, which are well within their currently tested missile capabilities.
The assumption you make is that the chinese, if they ever engaged in warfare against the US, would meet us mano-a-mano. It is common knowledge to all that facing the US in open warfare, where all the advantages inherent in the American style of warfare (3rd generation maneuver) come into play is basically a death trap.
***The maneuver card is trumped by the tight quarters presented on such a small island as Taiwan. And the chinese could wipe out the american air advantage with hundreds of thousands of cheap, light anti-aircraft missiles such as are flooding the market after the soviets were knocked out of Afghanistan. They would aim for the same approach to antitank weapons. An army marching in force with hundreds of thousands of swarming, cheap anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons would be formidable enough to instill heavy casualties in American lines. That's all they would be aiming for, they don't have to aim to win the battle. It's kind of like the Vietnamese, who said that our efforts at winning every battle were "irrelevant".
There is no force on earth that is as adept at destroying massed formations of men/aircraft/naval resources like the US is.
***Agreed, but there is also no populace that expects more from their armed forces than the American press.
If they send their J-11s and J-10s against our F-15s and F-22s, they will lose. If they send their T-72s against our Abrams ....you get the picture.
***If the Chinese send hundreds of J10s and thousands of antiship & antiaircraft missiles, how many do you think will be shot down? This won't be J10 vs F15, it will be J10 + 30 antiaircraft + 40 antiship missiles vs F15 & 1 ship.
What the Chinese will do is follow the formula that has consistently defeated super-power/regional-power level nations. 4th generation decentralized warfare (whcih defeated the US in Lebanon and Vietnam, Russia in Afghanistan and Chechnya, the French in Algeria etc etc).
***These 2 statements are contradictory with each other: "The Chinese are not dumb enough to follow Saddam's example of hoping to match the US blow for blow."
Not even the Russians could hope to last in an open conventional war against us.
***The chinese will be going for an open UNconventional war.
"***It would really only take the loss of one or 2 of these and we're down $1trillion or so, plus the loss of about 10k lives, and the U.S. is likely to lose stomach for more fighting. "
Modern aircraft carriers are extremely tough ships as the fires aboard the Oriskany(I believe), the Forrestal, and the Enterprise attest. Even the Franklin, I believe it was, suffered tremendous damage during WW2 and survived. But it's irrelevant since a crippled carrier might as well be sunk for the time it is under repairs. And if the free traders have their way the steel makers that produce the large componets for conducting the repairs will be out of business. Their equipment bought up and scrapped or shipped overseas. The ships might very well be unrepairable.
"***China doesn't necessarily want to project power overseas other than across the Taiwan Straits, which are well within their currently tested missile capabilities."
It'll be more than just the Taiwan Straits. They'll do their best to intimidate the Phillippines, Malaysia, Japan, and S. Korea into halting the supply of all military-critical components to the US. Once that happens, it won't take long before our technological edge starts to erode. Besides, the Chinese are patient and are not likely to try anything until American free trade policies have given them technological parity with the US in 20 years or so.
Modern aircraft carriers are extremely tough ships as the fires aboard the Oriskany(I believe), the Forrestal, and the Enterprise attest. Even the Franklin, I believe it was, suffered tremendous damage during WW2 and survived.
***I had this discussion with a reporter for Jane's Weekly at the OshKosh fly-in. He said that modern aircraft carriers are actually relatively thin-skinned concrete compared to the WWII behemoth battleships. Just one missile could get through and cause tremendous damage, whereas the armor on the old battleships would just make an antiship missile bounce off. There was an accident in the Caribbean in the 1980s where one aircraft missed its landing wire and the resulting fire caused $500M worth of damage. Once a missile gets through and starts a fire, the gig is up, especially in a NUCLEAR powered ship, where the downside is a mushroom cloud.
It'll be more than just the Taiwan Straits.
***Yes, if the Chinese are successful. Once a nation-state on the offensive tastes victory, they tend to keep moving in that same direction.
Besides, the Chinese are patient and are not likely to try anything until American free trade policies have given them technological parity with the US in 20 years or so.
***The Chinese are NORMALLY patient, but this is an extraordinary time, the first time in history that there has been such an unbalanced male-female ratio in a society. They have been "patient" in their own minds since Mao pushed Chang Kai Check off the mainland. Their sensors are tuned to any perceived weakness, just like the Germans prior to WW1.
As a postscript, I should note that I had similar fears when we went up against Iraq in the first Gulf War. I felt that Saddam could assemble a littany of "Sahibs in their Cessnas" and overwhelm the defenses of our carrier fleet prior to a ground based engagement. But Saddam "was no general" (Schwarzkopf's assessment), he didn't attempt such a bold maneuver. His tactics & strategy were easily outfoxed, as long as Colin Powell wasn't working on the plan. I sure hope the Chinese generals are as dimwitted as Saddam.
PING 2 POOHBAH
THX TapTheSource
"If we do something real early, like recognize Taiwan as an independent nation in the next 4 years (like they deserve), it could force China to back down, taking away their future catalyst for war."
I agree. But that would mean that the Taiwanese need to claim independence, which is like asking a child to do the dishes. Sure, maybe they'll do it but you're never really impressed with the results. I do think that on the basis of how aggressors tune their ears to weakness, this next 4 years will probably be the only true window of opportunity for Taiwan to extricate itself. After that, they're a future writeoff.
You're kidding right? Mushroom cloud?
"You're kidding right? Mushroom cloud?"
Okay, maybe that's not an accurate description of the downside, but it saved a lot of wordiness. The downside would be a giant column of radioactive steam rising from the overheating, sinking reactor, lasting possibly several months before the nuclear reaction plays itself out. This radioactive steam could poison everything it touches. Think Chernobyl but in a giant tub of water. In some respects, a mushroom cloud would be preferable.
It's a lot cheaper to park a couple trident subs off the coast
Unless it sank in 5 feet of water, no steam would reach the surface.
"Unless it sank in 5 feet of water, no steam would reach the surface."
Yikes, that means the sea itself would be radioactive. I seem to remember lava flows from Hawaii causing steam vents at several hundred feet of depth, but you're probably right, there's a point where the steam transitions back into water. Either way, we're looking at a terrible mess.
Mess, sure, but remember, more people have died in Teddy Kennedy's car than have been killed by American civilian nuclear reactors.
Kevin, to put a none-too-fine-point on it, you're completely ignorant of how nuclear reactors work.
The only way a conventional antiship missile hitting a nuclear-powered ship would generate a mushroom cloud:
1. The missile warhead must disassemble the reactor
2. The missile warhead must then process the reactor fuel into weapons-grade material
3. The missile warhead must then reassemble the bomb-grade material into a supercritical configuration...
And all this must happen in a millisecond or so.
I doubt that...China has painted themselves into a corner re: trade. They can't use their nuclear arsenal on Asia or America to blackmail anyone. Why kill off your best customers? Their economy only survives and prospers because of the U.S., S. Korea, Taiwan and Japan. Lets also remember that they are a country that cannot (independently) feed their own people.
They cannot "take" Taiwan. It would automatically draw the U.S., S. Korea, Taiwan and Japan vs. China in a non-nuclear war, I'd call it WWIV. Its lose-lose for China there too. The export dollars they use to build their military and feed them would dry up quickly. They would lose their customer base and get their ass handed to themselves militarily.
It is interesting that the Chinese are planning and researching "space" weapons to take out satellite's. A good part of our technological/military advantage against them depends on satellite technology. They would create a more level battlefield if they accomplished this. I hope folks in the Pentagon have countermeasures and plans for this.
Unless Minister Louis Farrakhan gets hired as a consultant to "The Million Man Swim."
I guess you didn't read the remaining comments on mushroom cloud.
That makes you the ignorant one.
But your post was fascinating, in a useless sort of way.
Oh, I wouldn't be that picky; it's got at least 10 ms before subatomic particles get too far away to be of much use. Heck, slow neutrons stick around a lot longer...
The swim isn't the only scenario...
1. Missile attack then air drop
2. Hide troops in regularly scheduled flights
3. Missile attack until surrender
4. Internal Taiwanese coup (helped by China)
5. Missile attack, followed by simultaneous beach landing and airdrop
I'm not saying any of these would be successful, but there are several scenarios to look at. Very interesting scenarios I might add.
The big question is whether the US will intervene with its navy.
One non-military response would be to cancel all Chinese held US treasury bonds/bills. That would HURT.
Missile attacks are useless without nukes. About all the atatcker accomplishes is to alert the defender.
Hiding troops in regularly scheduled flights is pretty stupid--because it would be rather obvious (a bunch of young men suddenly start showing from Mainland China--yup, nobody gets suspicious...)
Beach landings are out of the question unless Louis Farrakhan is setting up the Million Man Swim.
I think all missile attacks alert defenders. Nothing like having something go kaboom in your backyard - to shake you out of bed.
Currently there are several hundred to maybe a thousand missiles aimed at Taiwan. There are probably pre-targetted at military bases, airports, etc etc. If we assume (safe bet) that Taiwan have been given decent Patriot missile batteries, then Taiwan can shoot down a few of these missiles. If Chinese launches all missiles at once, then the Patriot batteries will be saturated. (in both area of coverage and launcher reload capacity)
Ok... so Taiwan is alerted. What is Taiwan's response?
Hiding troops on flights can be done. You ground the current plane and send a transport plane in its place. Coordinate the flight dispatcher and set the transponder to match the expected squack code.
Ok, you say beach landings are out of the question? How exactly?
China probably doesn't have enough LSTs or pure military vessels to do a amphibious assault. But they do have a bunch of container ships. You can fit alot of equipment on those. I wouldn't be surprise if the Chinese figured out how to put Russian IADS on ships.
The big question on the ship landings
1. Can you do it without satellite detection?
2. How fast can you off-load on the beach?
3. How fast can you get out of the staging area?
4. US subs? (will they act at all)
5. US carrier battle groups in the area? (again if they act at all)
6. Will the Taiwanese air force survive the missile barage to assist in repelling the naval landing?
A beach landing is probably not realistic, unless you combine it with a sustained airstrike.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.