Is the Chinese Military Weaker Than We Think?

[Hari Sud]

Here is the American Think Tank view of China's military.

(Bloomberg) -- China's military isn't ready to win wars despite spending heavily to modernize, according to a report commissioned by a U.S. congressional committee.

The People's Liberation Army suffers from "potentially serious weaknesses" that could limit its ability to conduct the operations required to fight and win future conflicts, the report by Rand Corp. a Santa Monica, California-based research group said.

"Although the PLA's capabilities have increased dramatically, its remaining weaknesses increase the risk of failure to successfully perform the missions the Chinese Communist Party leaders may task it to perform," the report said. It cited Taiwan contingencies, maritime claim missions, protecting sea lines of communications and some non-war military operations.

China has been modernizing its army as its economic expansion accelerated in the early to mid-1990s, with double digit spending increases on the armed forces in most years. President Xi Jinping, also chairman of the Central Military Commission, has ordered the PLA to prepare itself to win local wars supported by modern technology and by rooting out corruption.

China has the second-biggest military budget in the world after the U.S., which spent about four times more on defense than China last year. Its budget for this year is expected to be published next month at the meeting of the National People's Congress. The Rand paper was commissioned to support the deliberations of the U.S.-China Economics and Security Review Commission, which reports to the U.S. Congress.

Lacking Quality

The PLA's shortcomings fall into two broad categories, the report said. It's hampered by an outdated command structure, the poor quality of its personnel, a lack of professionalism, and corruption. Its other weakness is combat capability, which covers logistical weaknesses, insufficient strategic airlift capabilities, limited numbers of special-mission aircraft and deficiencies in fleet air defense and antisubmarine warfare.
Still, China is using its growing military muscle to aggressively assert its territorial claims in neighboring seas and is embroiled in disputes with Vietnam and the Philippines in the South China Sea that have led to confrontations. In November 2013, China declared an Air Defense Identification Zone over a stretch of sea that overlaps with Japanese and South Korean zones.


'Large Gap'

The Rand report said the PLA's leaders were aware of its shortcomings, with military analysts referring to the "two incompatibles" reflecting their assessment that the PLA was still unable to cope with the demands of winning a war under "informationized" conditions and successfully carrying out the PLA's other missions.

These shortcomings contribute to a "large gap" between China and the militaries of developed countries, especially the U.S., the report said.
The paper highlighted the challenges faced by the PLA Navy, whose new surface vessels and submarines "boast impressive capabilities comparable with those of a modern world-class navy." The navy remains challenged when it comes to integrating such complex modern weapons and equipment platforms, and its personnel aren't fully equipped to operate and maintain them, it said.
The air force faces similar problems: coping with multiple generations of aircraft, a shortage of key special-mission aircraft and "unrealistic" training.

A further challenge comes from China's defense industry, which, while having made "tremendous progress," suffers from corruption, lack of competition, entrenched monopolies, delays and cost overruns, quality control problems, bureaucratic fragmentation, an outdated acquisition system, and restricted access to external sources of technology and expertise.
The report concludes that U.S. military planners need to improve their understanding of the PLA's shortcomings so that they can ensure the U.S. and its allies are able to prevent China from using force to achieve its policy objectives.
To contact the reporter on this story: David Tweed in Hong Kong at [email protected]
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Andrew Davis at [email protected] Neil Western, Greg Ahlstrand

 

[Nicky G]

Weak or strong is always in the context of the comparison and intended target. In that regard, Chinese military is certainly not strong enough to cash the cheques that its national ambition writes.

However, I don't believe we are in any position to be complacent about China, particularly with the pest Pakis on the other side.

As a side note, not sure if this report alludes to this tidbit however I remember reading in some analysis that as a consequence of one-child policy many Chinese soldiers are well more reluctant to get into serious situations that a war would involve as compared to their poorer neighbors such as us for instance.

 

[no smoking]

Whose talking about Indo-China conflict?

Well, since we are discussing this in an India forum, certainly we should talk it from India point view.

What I said was the difference between diplomatic pissturing and hypothetical power projection.

You are right..the example is China sitting inside a BMW and saying that its a 777 and trying to fly the BMW by reading a 777 manual, which offccourse is torrented.

Well, what I said was that an American report doesn't make sense to an Indian reader.
All the military, technical and even political advantages enjoyed by US against China may not be found by India against China.

 

[sorcerer]

Well, since we are discussing this in an India forum, certainly we should talk it from India point view.



Well, what I said was that an American report doesn't make sense to an Indian reader.
All the military, technical and even political advantages enjoyed by US against China may not be found by India against China.

Really? There is no norm like that...That we should talk about things from only the indian POV. THis is an INdian forum where there is enormous scope for freedom of thught and expression mate..not Chinese mainland, where freedom of expression is curbed when by rules and laws and talks are done to satisfy Chinese POV.

oh..no.no...It does makes perfect sense when there is mutual alliance.
China is worried about US-INdia agreements because thats how political advantages are formed and technical and military collaborations follow.. China may not find this favourable.

 

[jackprince]

Nope they didn't lost just not worthy it anymore. By the end of vietnam war s.vietnam already lost. If prc or us fully mobilize Vietnam will lose. As far as scs plan has advantages against Vietnam. Why would prc invade Vietnam? Scs is about navy

The win or loss is determined by objective achieved or not. The N.Vietnam achieved the objective, so naturally they won it. So should their antagonist not be considered to have lost the war? The fact is USA and its armed forces has not achieved a single goal it has officially set since WWII. Now, the ulterior motives might have succeeded but then that is not on discussion here.

Also, by your logic Soviets also didn't lose in Afganistan? Or did it?

 

[Anikastha]

US invaded Vietnam, and lost.
PRC invaded Vietnam, and lost.
If PRC invades Vietnam today, it will lose.

@pmaitra "If PRC invades Vietnam today, it will lose."
How can you say that PRC will lose ? vietnam is too small to stand against CHINA.I have doubt.

 

[Yusuf]

@pmaitra "If PRC invades Vietnam today, it will lose."
How can you say that PRC will lose ? vietnam is too small to stand against CHINA.I have doubt.

Who won in Af-Pak in WoT
Who won in Af between Af & Soviets?
Who won in Vietnam?

What's the definition of victory?

Let me put if this way in Indo- China context. If China were to attack us, holding our ground is a victory for us & a severe loss if face for China. Guess why China hasn't attacked us after 1987 tussle?

 

[Anikastha]

Who won in Af-Pak in WoT
Who won in Af between Af & Soviets?
Who won in Vietnam?

What's the definition of victory?

Let me put if this way in Indo- China context. If China were to attack us, holding our ground is a victory for us & a severe loss if face for China. Guess why China hasn't attacked us after 1987 tussle?

Yeah , I understood.......

 

[no smoking]

Who won in Af-Pak in WoT
Who won in Af between Af & Soviets?
Who won in Vietnam?

What's the definition of victory?

Let me put if this way in Indo- China context. If China were to attack us, holding our ground is a victory for us & a severe loss if face for China.

Wrong definition.
The victory is whether you archive your goal in the war.

In Indo-China context. Before the 1962 war, the goal India had in her mind was the occupation of every piece land claimed by India while Chinese was to keep what she already occupied under the condition that India kept she occupied. The deeper of goal of Chinese was: bring long term peace to Sino-India border by making India dare not to come up with another "forward policy". The result was Chinese archive her goals and India failed. So, China won and India lose.

Guess why China hasn't attacked us after 1987 tussle?

Wrong again.
The strategic goal of China is to keep the current Sino-India border static.
1987 tussle was an accident without plan. India diplomats did everything they could to convince Chinese that there was no war plan and Chinese did believe that.
Since there was no danger of an attack from India, there was no need for Chinese to attack. Otherwise, Chinese will break her own strategic goal and then Chinese will lose even before the war starts.

 

[Ray]

Wrong definition.
The victory is whether you archive your goal in the war.

Indeed that is so.

However, when the goal is not achieved, changing goalpost with pious nonsense like 'teaching a lesson' does indicate an attempt to cover the failure with high faluting moral mule dung.

In Indo-China context. Before the 1962 war, the goal India had in her mind was the occupation of every piece land claimed by India while Chinese was to keep what she already occupied under the condition that India kept she occupied. The deeper of goal of Chinese was: bring long term peace to Sino-India border by making India dare not to come up with another "forward policy". The result was Chinese archive her goals and India failed. So, China won and India lose.

Oh sure.

China had prepared for the war. India was taken in by the Chinese chicanery of the Bandung Spirit thanks to our high moralist PM, who left the Army wanting in everything to fight a war and never used the Air Force.

Because of the stoic of the Indian soldier you failed in your goals and covered up your incapacity with pious pig dung as 'teach a lesson'.

You tried many times again. But the Army was now equipped and you were given a bloody nose each time.

You realised that it is a new Army you are facing and ever since, you have never dared another adventure and will never dare again.

So, it is horse snot when you say you wanted to bring peace.

We are well aware how you brought peace in Tibet, Xinjiang, South China Sea. Assuri River, and Vietnam, where you got a hiding of your life and brought your arrogance down by several notches.

So, spare us your Chinese propaganda.

Wrong again.
The strategic goal of China is to keep the current Sino-India border static.
1987 tussle was an accident without plan. India diplomats did everything they could to convince Chinese that there was no war plan and Chinese did believe that.
Since there was no danger of an attack from India, there was no need for Chinese to attack. Otherwise, Chinese will break her own strategic goal and then Chinese will lose even before the war starts.

There you go wrong again.

China never leaves anything static. They want to grab anything they can.

It is just that now there is no way of China to be like a striptease dancer singing 'What Lola wants, Lola gets'. This time around, Lola (China) will get what will make her real sore.

Quit trying to justify your incapability to do a repeat with such idiocy as

1987 tussle was an accident without plan. India diplomats did everything they could to convince Chinese that there was no war plan and Chinese did believe that.
Since there was no danger of an attack from India, there was no need for Chinese to attack. Otherwise, Chinese will break her own strategic goal and then Chinese will lose even before the war starts.

China never does anything that is not planned and thought through.

That is why they are a menace to peace in this world.

How come the 'Peaceful Rise' became a 'Hegemonic Rise'? It was through planning. Lull the world, arm to the teeth and then take on all in the areas of interest as in the SCS.

 

[Ashok mourya]

I think china is far more powerful what we are predicting,they are knowingly spreading the rumors that they are weak in military in order to avoid apprehensions of enemy nations. But in secretly/silently developing huge force that can overtake the superpower usa in a period of one or 2 decades.China is growing rapidly, both economically and militarily. It is training its troops for a variety of different missions, while at the same time developing air and naval assets to allow it to become a global power. However, such developments will take decades. China needs time to build not just the technology for modern warfare, but also to develop the necessary proficiency for its forces to deploy these systems effectively. In the meantime, it has developed capable deterrents, using anti-air and anti-ship missiles to negate the United States' strengths. The United States still has a significant lead on China, boasting the most technologically advanced and experienced military. China must first develop global capabilities, engage in foreign deployments, and expose its soldiers to combat before it can hope to challenge the United States.

 

[sorcerer]

US China Commission Moves Beyond the 'China Threat' Hype

In a bold move, the United States China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC) has again demonstrated its ability to operate independently from the "China threat" thesis that has bedeviled its work since its creation in 2000. Last week, the USCC released a study undertaken by RAND at its request on China's military weaknesses, a subject that it had all too often neglected in favor of over-hyped assessments of China's potential threat and exaggerated narratives about the country's military intentions. The RAND report, China's Incomplete Military Transformation: Assessing the Weaknesses of the People's Liberation Army (PLA), has been written by a group of authors whose collective expertise and balance is unassailable.

This report, though subject to the usual disclaimer about not representing the Commission's view, represents a major evolution in U.S. understanding of the world in which it lives and presages a more informed debate in the United States about the development path on which China is traveling. It also should contribute to a reduction in hysteria in the United States about China's military and national power.

Just two short citations from the RAND report are noted here to give some impression of its departure points. It says that a "better understanding of how the PLA itself sees these weaknesses and vulnerabilities is key to understanding its future modernization priorities; enhancing military-to-military engagement; [and] tailoring deterrence strategies." The report goes on to say that "to accurately and completely assess PLA weaknesses, it is essential to understand the various missions assigned to the force and the potential threat environments in which these missions may be conducted." These considerations have been all too absent in other public source studies.

Such questions are, one assumes, among the departure points of the Pentagon's annual report to Congress on the military developments in the PRC. Yet in the 2014 Pentagon report, the word weakness does not seem to appear. The word "lack" appears only twice, and the word "shortcoming" appears only twice. But the PLA's shortcomings are so profound, as the 200-page RAND report suggests, that they probably need a lot more attention in public than the Pentagon has been willing (or politically brave enough) to discuss or canvas objectively. For example, the Pentagon report notes that China "lacks the amphibious lift capacity that a large-scale invasion of Taiwan would require." So surely that must affect the type of threat China represents to United States interests. That is a pretty big "weakness" on the only significant military confrontation dividing China and the United States.

The 2014 Pentagon report offers no significant assessment of China's cyber military capability, cleverly substituting a description of China's wish-list for cyber warfare. (It does offer some limited description of China's cyber espionage capabilities.) As my colleague, Franz Gady, has observed, the recent RAND report from the USCC does offer a well informed and highly critical view of China's cyber war capabilities. It says: "China also sees itself as potentially vulnerable in the electromagnetic spectrum. One area in which this concern has been particularly pronounced is Chinese concern about cybersecurity weaknesses. Indeed, the PLA clearly views itself as occupying a relatively disadvantageous position due to its perceived inferiority in the key aspects of 'network military struggle.'" This is the view of most experts on this subject as summarized in my book, Cyber Policy in China. The book looks closely at Chinese leadership assessments of its industrial base in the ICT sector and the slow pace of reform of commercialization of university-based R&D.

The new RAND report on China's weaknesses commissioned, to its enduring credit, by USCC, will become a much needed benchmark for all subsequent U.S. and international public debate on China's power and its military intentions.

US China Commission Moves Beyond the ‘China Threat’ Hype | The Diplomat

 

[sorcerer]

4 Reasons China Can Fight a Modern War

Perhaps the biggest question about China's rise is whether it will inevitably lead to a military conflict with other powers, particularly the existing superpower, the United States. It is undoubtedly true that no one wants to see a general war between China and the U.S., though in reality both countries might be dragged into a war that they do not want to fight in areas like the East China Sea. If that happens, many analysts believe that the PLA does not stand a chance against the mighty U.S. military for a series of reasons, ranging from poor training to lack of war experience. Such an estimate might be true, but it might also truly underestimate the fighting power of the PLA, thus contributing to misjudgment and poor policy-making overall. Thus, accurately assessing the power of the PLA is a critical part of any serious military planning by the U.S. and other countries.

As a general rule, the outcome of a possible war involving the PLA and another military depends on many factors such as comprehensive capabilities, strategies, and fighting resolve. Recent analyses (here, here, and here) that are skeptical about the PLA's probability of winning tend to focus on its command structure, training, corruption, inexperience, and inadequate equipment as key factors. But, there are four reasons that the PLA can fight a modern war and even win one under certain conditions.

First, equipment is essential. As has been pointed out, the PLA has transformed itself into a powerful military after more than 20 years of continuous investment. Although in terms of hardware, the PLA still cannot compete with the U.S., the mightiest fighting machine in the world, the PLA nonetheless stands a good chance against its main potential rival in Asia, Japan. Although some might claim that Japan now has an edge over China, very soon China's PLA will surpass Japan's SDF in terms of hardware given China's economic size and greater military spending. The PLA's spending is already at least twice as large as Japan's and this trend will continue in coming years, thus giving the PLA a big advantage down the road. So, in ten years' time, the PLA will have superb military hardware that is only second to the United States. This is one necessary condition for the PLA to fight a modern war.

Second, training is also important. Needless to say, hardware alone cannot guarantee that the PLA could fight a modern war as the PLA's software is just as important. The PLA itself has pointed out various problems of its training in terms of style and standards. Here, corruption is the number one problem. There are 30 senior military officers who are now under official investigation for various corruption charges and there will be more soon. The good news, however, is that President Xi Jinping is determined to eliminate corruption within the PLA. When he is finished, there is good reason to believe that the PLA's fighting ability will increase significantly. It will take some years though, but at least the PLA is heading in the right direction now.

Third, military experience is overvalued. Many question the PLA's ability to fight because it has not fought a real war for about 30 years. The U.S. military, in the meantime, has fought at least three major wars since the end of the Cold War. The PLA, thus, has a "peace disease." But people have overestimated the value of experience. Yes, it is true that the U.S. military has ample experience, but many other militaries do not, including Japan's. So China's lack of war experience might hurt its chances of winning against the U.S., but not necessarily against other rivals. Modern militaries can learn and adapt quickly too. The PLA might suffer early setbacks once a war starts, but the final outcome will more likely depend on comprehensive capabilities and strategy.

Fourth, resolve is absolutely critical. This factor has not been given adequate attention by military analysts when estimating the PLA's ability to fight a war. If the PLA does enter a war, then it most likely will be a defensive war for China in areas near its borders. This is about defending China's sovereignty and territories and this is fundamentally different from conquering others' territories. Thus morale will be high. If history is any indication, the Korean War tells us that the weaker Chinese army could repel and defeat a stronger U.S. army. The fact that China then was fighting for its sovereign integrity is a key factor in explaining the defeat of the United States.

In sum, the Chinese PLA can indeed fight a modern war regardless of its potential opponent. Whether the PLA can win a war is a different story as it depends on many different factors. The key point is not to only focus on the PLA's material capabilities; instead we should examine the PLA's morale and resolve, two factors that have so far not been seriously studied.

4 Reasons China Can Fight a Modern War | The Diplomat