# Chinese Army Modernization - Article



## TangoTwoBravo (8 Feb 2006)

I just came across an interesting article in the Sep-Oct 2005 edition of Military Review regarding the long-term modernization of the Chinese Army.  It is written by LCol (retd) Dennis Blasko, a US Army intelligence officer with attache experience in China.  He overviews the modernization undertaken since 1985 and several key thrust lines emerge:

   (1)  Reduction in forces from over 2.2 million to 1.6 million

   (2)  changes in force structure

   (3)  new equipment (including high technology items)

   (4)   doctrincal revisions to focus on "Local Wars"

   (5)   improvements to the logistics system

   (6)   various improvements to soldier's "quality of life" and changes to officer/NCO professsional development

Looking at force structure and equipment, heavy and mechanized divisions now make up 40 percent of the force as compared to 20 percent a decade ago (due in part, no doubt, to the reduction in normal infantry divisions).  Interestingly, since the late 90s the army has added two amphibious mechanized divisions.  These are in addition to the two "marine brigades" owned by the navy.

Regarding training, since 1996 the PLA's focus has been on amphibious operations.  It is noted that over the past five years, one quarter of the PLA's field forces have trained by amphibious operations.  The PLA conducts both live fire and force on force training.  In addition, units are designated to test new concepts and focus on specific areas to garner lessons learned.

There are other interesting changes made to make the PLA a more "modern" force.  While all of this takes time, the Chinese leadership seems to be somewhat patient and takes a long view.  The image many Westerners have of the PLA from 1950 may well have to change.

The navy and airforce are touched on, but only in so far as to discuss their marines and airborne forces.  I guess I'm going to go and dig up some articles on those areas now as well.  I recommend the article as a quick and enlightening read on the PLA.  

Cheers,

2B


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Feb 2006)

I would recomend that you take a look at this web site. Another web site seems to be blocked or down but it laid out strategy and improvements in China's amphibious capabality.

http://www.sinodefence.com/army/default.asp

The Chinese have a very extensive information warfare capability. Many DOS attacks have been traced back to the PRC. In any conflict one can expect US networks to come under attack by hackers. The Chinese have seen 
the US military in action in DS, OEF and OIF which has spurred their efforts to modernize. Frankly modern systems are expensive and the PRC just doesnt have the money to modernize a huge military, it makes sense to downsize. Being a land power the PRC has come lately to the realization that to be a rival to the US they need a significant naval capability. Their Air Force was and is primarily made up of obsolete aircraft. They are modernizing by buying Russian aircraft or the licenses to produce them. This is expensive as well. Right now their objective seem's to be the military conquest of Taiwan. Their best equiped forces are positioned close to Taiwan as are hundreds of SSM's.


----------



## Chimo (8 Feb 2006)

I am cutting and pasting this segment from the same website. I think this paragraph is particularly telling:

"In recent years, the PLAN's maritime mission has evolved from a role of static coastal defence to one of “active offshore defence”. In this capacity, the PLAN can be used both as a tactical force and to support strategic national defence. The objectives of this new strategy are to assert China's role as a regional maritime power, to protect coastal economic regions and maritime interests, and to optimise the Navy's operations for national defence. The PLAN's responsibilities now include capture and defence of islands, and protection and blockade of sea-lanes of communication. Moreover, the PLAN is increasingly viewed by senior PLA leadership as integral to resolution of the Taiwan should force be required -- and for safeguarding China's Xisha and Nansha Islands in the South China Sea. Finally, the PLAN is likely to be increasingly used as an instrument of overseas diplomacy through participation in goodwill cruises and port visits."

http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/default.asp

If you are not aware of the tension between China and Taiwan it may be purdent to make yourself informed. It has real potential to become the "next" big shooting war.


----------



## Armymatters (9 Feb 2006)

The only thing China is missing for a head on confrontation with Taiwan is proper sealift. They are still using the old LST type transports, while everyone else has switched to the superior LPD and LHA type transports. I suspect in a war with Taiwan, the cutting edge of the PLA will be sent, including the most modern tanks, ships, and airplanes, along with the best of the infantry. Realistically, Taiwan doesn't have much chance of holding out, I say in a month's time, most of Taiwan would have fallen, and the Chinese will be mopping up what's left of Taiwan's military. The Chinese will then deploy their submarines around Taiwan and other anti-carrier assets to ward off any American attempts at intervention in the conflict, and station the best of their attack and air superiority jets on Taiwan. Also, sending the PAP to Taiwan will make it appear that the mission has now turned into a policing mission, so if there are attempts to retake Taiwan by the US, it will make it appear that the Americans are attacking a domestic police force, of which the PAP is.


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Feb 2006)

The PRC will lose alot of troops and equipment should they try to invade Taiwan. What cost is Beijing prepared to pay to take Taiwan ? If they are prepared to risk everything for victory then they probably will achieve their aim. But the cost in men, ships, planes, missiles not to mention the cost of rebuilding Taiwan will be very high and one that China can bear without alot of economic hardship.

If the PRC is able to slip a large commando force onto outlying islands and Taiwan proper then this may hinder the defenders efforts considerably. If the PLAN/PLA conduct an amphibious operation I think the first wave will have 50% losses. When Taiwan has expended its SSM's and Anti-ship missiles I think the 2d and 3d waves could hit the Taiwanese beaches. After that its just a question of time before Taiwan is crushed by the weight of shear numbers.


----------



## Armymatters (9 Feb 2006)

I have heard about some of the tactics the Chinese might use to invade Taiwan, and one of them is to take up civilian ships from trade, strap some artillery guns to them, and sail them towards the beaches. Not only will they be big targets that draw away fire from the transports and the landing craft, once on the beach, they in theory can act as a artillery platform.

I will have to agree with the assessment that the first wave will suffer tremendous casualties, without proper support or decoy's. I think however Beijing is more than willing to take the number of casualties just to get Taiwan. My assessment only.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (9 Feb 2006)

When assessing a threat, one must look at both capabilities and intentions (the could and would of a military option).  Capabilties are often easier to deduce than intentions, and intentions can change overnight.  

What would China be prepared to risk to bring Taiwan back into the fold?  What would the US be prepared to risk to prevent that from happening?  The same types of calculations were the bread and butter of the Cold War.  

Looking at another Island situation, I think that both Argentina and the UK misjudged each other capabilities and intentions in the period leading up to the war.  The Argentinian miscalculation of both the UK's capabilities and intentions was, however, of a more significant magnitude than that of the UK before the war.  It is certainly not an anlagous situation, but it does show some of the dymanic.


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Feb 2006)

You are correct Bravo about intentions and capabilities. The PRC has the intention of reuniting with Taiwan.
They have zero chance of success to achieve that politically which leaves the military option from the PRC view. If the communists are swept away in some revolution then perhaps a peaceful reunification is possible, but I wont hold my breath.

While the PRC has stated repeatedly that they want their renegade province back, they lack the conventional military capability. A weakness they are working hard to correct. Some reports I have seen that the PRC may have the minimum amphibious capability as early as 2008 to project ground forces to Taiwan. Personally I dont think they would be ready before 2010 at the very earliest but possibly in the 2012 time frame.

The site below has alot of good information particularly about previous amphibious ops and current capabilities. Its my fav site for PRC military information.
http://www.china-defense.com/


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (9 Feb 2006)

I suppose they could use their amphibious capability and veiled intentions as leverage against full Taiwanese indepedence.  A full-out invasion, if successful, would probably result in a somewhat scorched Taiwan.  This would be of little value to China, except on perhaps nationialistic grounds.  Would the resultant freeze in relations and trade be worth it?  

A credible threat, on the other hand, could instead be used to try to bring Taiwan in or prevent a move full independence.


----------



## Armymatters (9 Feb 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> You are correct Bravo about intentions and capabilities. The PRC has the intention of reuniting with Taiwan.
> They have zero chance of success to achieve that politically which leaves the military option from the PRC view. If the communists are swept away in some revolution then perhaps a peaceful reunification is possible, but I wont hold my breath.
> 
> While the PRC has stated repeatedly that they want their renegade province back, they lack the conventional military capability. A weakness they are working hard to correct. Some reports I have seen that the PRC may have the minimum amphibious capability as early as 2008 to project ground forces to Taiwan. Personally I dont think they would be ready before 2010 at the very earliest but possibly in the 2012 time frame.
> ...



It depends politically in Taiwan as well. The Pan-Blue Coalition (led by the Kuomintang, can you believe it?) favours reunification, but the current ruling Pan-Green Coalition (led by the Democratic Progressive Party) tends to favour Taiwan independance. The Pan-Blue lost the Presidential elections by a very slim margin, but recently, swept the local elections. The PRC right now _has_ the capability to take Taiwan, but it would be costly, both militarily and politically.


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Feb 2006)

Taiwan wont be intimidated and really fear PRC rule. Add to the mix a secret nuclear weapons program - no evidence they have it but I wouldnt be surprised.


----------



## Armymatters (9 Feb 2006)

One of the proposed ways I have read for the PRC to force Taiwan to their will is to enact a blockade Taiwan. As Taiwan is dependant on exports and imports of raw materials and foodstuffs, Taiwan will in short be forced to back down in face of such a blockade. The Chinese right now are quite capable of enacting such a blockade, with their submarines and surface ships.


----------



## aesop081 (9 Feb 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> One of the proposed ways I have read for the PRC to force Taiwan to their will is to enact a blockade Taiwan. As Taiwan is dependant on exports and imports of raw materials and foodstuffs, Taiwan will in short be forced to back down in face of such a blockade. The Chinese right now are quite capable of enacting such a blockade, with their submarines and surface ships.



And the US and other countries are quite capable of forcing such a blockade to end if they so wish.

Your assesment is rather short-sighted.


----------



## ChopperHead (9 Feb 2006)

As far as I know Taiwan is still techinically part of China. As they keep saying *IF* Taiwan tries to seperate and gain soveriangty then China would attack them. They recently made laws against it as well. so if they do invade taiwan then it's entirely legal. I do believe that the only Reason China has not invaded already and simply stopmed on Taiwan is the lact of transport and air power. China is a massive domestic and defensive power. If anyone where to attack China yes that includes the US they would be in for one hell of fight and would must likely loose. However China does not have the ability to deploy it's forces in any meaningful numbers. So untill they rectify that I dont see anything happeing with Taiwan. I also dont think the US will step in if China Invades. So far the US has not taken a very firm stance and given the current state of the US military I don't think they would risk a war with China or Commit the funds and manpower to secure Taiwan. It's just not that important.


----------



## Armymatters (9 Feb 2006)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> And the US and other countries are quite capable of forcing such a blockade to end if they so wish.
> 
> Your assesment is rather short-sighted.



I have actually seen a Chinese military exercise 3 years ago. It was a full combined arms exercise, consisting of a shore landing, air support, etc. They are more than capable of pulling it off, especially with the new equipment the Chinese are getting in (SU-30MKK's, Type 52 series destroyers, the current Sovremenny class destroyers, their new Kilo and Yuan class SSK's). My assessment that in such a conflict, the Chinese will deploy the best of their units, i.e. the cream of the crop troops, pilots, and sailors plus equipment is a good assessment as to what the Chinese might do.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (9 Feb 2006)

The "legality" of an invasion would be in the eye of the beholder, as often is the case.  We have armies because law takes a backseat to national interest.

As to capabilities, one problem that China faces is that by challenging the US at sea they are countering the US' greatest comparative strength with comparative weakness.  It is true that the mainland is there, but ranges for fighters etc are more limited that we tend to think when looking at a globe.

Still not a fight I would relish being in on either side.


----------



## 3rd Herd (10 Feb 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> I have actually seen a Chinese military exercise 3 years ago. It was a full combined arms exercise, consisting of a shore landing, air support, etc. They are more than capable of pulling it off,



Okay Army Matters,
I have been on bn ex's, regt ex's, brigade ex's and army ex's and for the most part either lugging the maps and radios, or driving the CO to various CP's and any other place that was of interest to him. Since then I have had the academic side as well, I still cannot judge with a hundred percent accuracy the capabilities of an entire combined arms operation.And yes I have had the CF course in judging and estimating an enemies capibilities This reminds me of a prof I had once his quote " well I saw an excesses once" my rebuttal was four photo albums. Two other students added in their photo albums it certainly changed the seminars in "The Making of a Modern Soldier". So again you do not have a clue about what you are talking about. Any other dino's feel free to add your thoughts...


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Feb 2006)

It's one thing for the PLA/PLAN to conduct an exercise at regimental or even division size, but to invade Taiwan they need to move several hundred thousand troops 100 miles in the face of air and naval forces of Taiwan. They couldnt even launch the op until they had air superiority, to put troops at sea without doing that would be reckless. So for the PLA taking out the airfields would be target number one. The other problem for PLA war planners is that there are really only 3 landing places for an invasion force and those are very heavily fortified.

Some experts think the PRC would need an invasion force at least as large as the D day force used in WW2.
The PLAN has maybe 10% of the force required but is expanding at a rapid pace. Here is a link to a 2001 article discussing a possible invasion scenario. I have to say the Taiwanese have also been modernizing and upgrading defenses. They have a limited anti-ballistic missile defense but with over 500 SSM's aimed at Taiwan these defenses would be overwhelmed by sheer numbers.

http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/2001/Autumn/art3-au1.htm


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (10 Feb 2006)

Good article.  Is that the Navy counter-part to Parameters?

I do wonder how much fire support the Chinese would be able to bring to bear for the landings.  Dieppe was supported by destroyers and air power.  Successful opposed landings in WW II were accompanied by battleships and cruisers in addition to air power.

The submarine box looks interesting.  The airpower stats are also interesting.  What is China's air to air refueling capability?

A landing of this magnitude would be a massive and very risky undertaking (stating the obvious I know).  OVERLORD was the result of lessons learned from two years of landings in Europe and the Pacific.

Looking away from Taiwan for a moment, could China project power elsewhere?  The projection of maritime power without a real carrier is a rather hollow reed (we should take note ourselves).  I see that China is interested in developing an aircraft carrier.


----------



## JBP (10 Feb 2006)

I would agree that China would need to attain Air Superiority first as the Taiwanese self defence forces do have many fighter aircraft. But, China would be able to overwhelm them in sheer numbers in that regard as well. It's not too hard for a modern fighter aircraft or even an older model to fly 100 miles, fight, then land back home. Now days it's more like they fly several hundred miles, fight, fly several hundred back and then land at home. Even the "dime-a-dozen" J7E Fishbeds (Basically a modernized Mig 21) can do that. 

Without serious US&Allied backup, I believe that regardless if it's 2008-2012, even almost now, Taiwan would be overcome regardless.

Would the USA really want to go into a shooting war with China over Taiwan though? Really? They'd have to send an incredible number of ships from thier inventory, probably the largest naval flotilla ever assembled in history, and enough support for them also, add to that ground forces to help Taiwan defend itself too. 

Can we see them committing that much manpower and material???

I have a nagging feeling the US is more concerned with other threats that it would save it's forces for than Taiwan. Does the US Navy have any carriers sitting in Taiwanese territorial waters??? I heard that some years back apparently they did have them stationed there... Not so sure about now days with Iraq+Afganistan having happened. 

In anycase, I would like to add I am by no means educated about Taiwan or that locale of the world in particular but these are simply my views based on geo-political aims that I've seen and the current status of the world and the USA's willingness to committ to such an endeavour after thier forces have been stretched so thin for so long. Again, I suppose we're not talking about them having to do it right now, but even if it was by 2008, this counting if the USA doesn't committ to war with anyone else, they'd just probably be getting back on thier feet and ready to go.

Then again, look at Vietnam, THAT was one heck of a committment!


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Feb 2006)

Yes the Naval War College Press serves the same function as Parameters.
The PLA has plenty of SSM's not sure how accurate they would be. 
The PLAAF has ordered  8 IL-78 Midas aerial refuelers from Russia. The H6 tanker[12-20 ac] based on the TU-16 is the other tanker but it is inferior and the probe isnt compatible with the Su-30MKK. So if Taiwan could target these aircraft it would be a real blow to air superiority aims.

The PLA has a large special operations capability and could be expected to be used to prepare the way for any landing operation.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Feb 2006)

3rd Herd said:
			
		

> Okay Army Matters,
> I have been on bn ex's, regt ex's, brigade ex's and army ex's and for the most part either lugging the maps and radios, or driving the CO to various CP's and any other place that was of interest to him. Since then I have had the academic side as well, I still cannot judge with a hundred percent accuracy the capabilities of an entire combined arms operation.And yes I have had the CF course in judging and estimating an enemies capibilities This reminds me of a prof I had once his quote " well I saw an excesses once" my rebuttal was four photo albums. Two other students added in their photo albums it certainly changed the seminars in "The Making of a Modern Soldier". So again you do not have a clue about what you are talking about. Any other dino's feel free to add your thoughts...



Armymatters, 

I will add to 3rdHerd's coment by saying that naval exercises, not matter what country conducts them, are usualy carefuly scripted affairs. Soviet exercises were notorious for their repetion of a single plan.  It was the same over and over, no surprises , no requirement to adapt to changes.  I doubt that the Chinese are any different.  I have seen how things go wrong on exercises having just returned from a rather large  JTFEX is southern california and having done and even larger COMPTUEX last october with the USS Ronald Reagan carrier battle-group.  Fying overhead on an LRPA lets me see the bigger picture vice being locke dup below decks on a ship.  Things never work out as planned no matter how well scripted.  And in these cases we are talking about a long-standing, all volunteer, professional navy.  All you current education asside, i think you are overlooking the fog of war and realities in the field.  The chinese lack operational experience, their troops and equipment in alot of cases is of questionable quality and effectiveness and their ability to remain supplied with advanced weapons is also, IMHO, doubtful.  In all this i think you underestimate the US commitment to the asia-pacific region, especialy if the US disengages from Iraq.  The US has a long history of political and military backing of Taiwan as well as other nations in asia who fear too much Chinese influence in the region.

Now, you seem to have apointed yourself the expert of everything, thats all fine and dandy but one day you will discover that there is reality outside the books and websites you seem to have your nose buried into


----------

