Is China’s military a paper tiger that will fail miserably in real combat? So argues this video:
The narrator claims that some of the formidable picture we have of the Chinese military is due to China’s successful propaganda machine. He outlines three reasons to believe China’s military is weaker than it appears:
- Both former and current People’s Liberation Army personal feel extremely disgruntled by their treatment at the hands of the Chinese Communist Party, and their loyalty would not be assured in a serious crisis. They’re also not well-trained, and got their asses kicked by Indian Ghatak reconnaissance troops in the most recent border clash. “Reports indicated they snapped the necks of at least 18 Chinese soldiers.”
- China’s air force is ill trained and badly equipped. “The Chinese pilots have very limited exposure when it comes to real battle in the skies or exercise like Red Flag. Unlike American, French, Russian, or Indian pilots they have not been exposed to different tactics implemented by different air forces and air defense battalions.” The Chengdu J-20 fighter, made with stolen American tech, is not particularly stealthy, has no export customers, and China is still buying Russian Su-35s. “Chinese avionics, sensor technology, and electronic warfare capabilities are generations behind American or European ones.”
- China’s navy has multiple problems. Chinese subs are loud and easily tracked, and the Shenyang J-15 carrier plane (a copy of the Russian Su-33) “uses indigenous Shenyang Li Ming WS-10H engines which are underpowered.” I’m not sure how valid the last point is, as there are reports that Shenyang FC-31 carrier plane just started mass production.
China is seldom as strong, or as weak, as it appears to be. The video only touches on a few aspects of China’s military, so it’s hard to making sweeping statements based solely on the points presented. Still, it does provide additional data points.
Tags: aircraft, Chengdu J-20, China, Communism, Foreign Policy, Ghatak, India, Military, People's Liberation Army, Russia, Shenyang FC-31, Su-33, Su-35, submarine, video
Pretty much the same as the vaunted Soviet forces during the height of the cold war. Whenever it was US military equipment being used against Soviet equipment in proxy wars (usually Arab-Israeli ones) the US equipment always came out on top. I seem to recall a possibly apocryphal story about one Arab government when offered more surface to air missiles sent back a reply, “Stop sending us surface to air missiles and start sending us surface to aircraft missiles….”
When Viktor Ivanovich Belenko flew his Mig-25 into Japan, we discovered this very modern aircraft was riveted, not welded, had vacuum tubes for radar, not solid state, and various other real deficiencies.
Long ago, in a land far, far away Beijing invaded with twenty divisions and at least 500tanks. The invincible Vietnamese Army kicked their butts. The Chinese excel at using masses of simply trained lightly equipped troops. In a conventional battle they’d get crushed, just as the Russians have been repeatedly defeated, the last time in Syria.
‘Paper Tiger’?
Dunno ’bout their Army – or much of their Air Force, but I use to know something about contemporary war at sea.
Back before they were so interested in ‘climate change’ the Naval War College had an excellent set of studies on the Chinese Navy. The best of them focused on the area most likely (along with spys, code-breaking and electronic warfare) to have war winning consequences against the US Navy in the regional setting, mine warfare.
Bottom line then (2009)?
“…Washington seemingly has little choice but to adopt a cautious strategy concerning the Taiwan issue and face the uncomfortable truth that it cannot feasibly defend Taiwan militarily over the long term.”
https://www.andrewerickson.com/2009/08/chinese-mine-warfare-a-pla-navy-%E2%80%98assassin%E2%80%99s-mace%E2%80%99-capability/
So, while their forces aren’t the caliber of Reagan’s Navy – neither are ours anymore. Don’t kid yourself.
They’ve seriously, intensively, studied the anti-carrier and ASW problem for decades and started from where the Soviet Union left off.
Think how comprehensive their intel on the US Navy, our tactics, our leaders, our weapons systems and sensors are? Beyond their own resources the Israelis have provided them hardware including an AWACS, probably Patriot missiles, and God only knows what critical human intelligence.
They’ve got our number.
And, think asymmetrical.
Their diesel electric submarines clank some on diesel, but make as much noise as a flashlight when submerged and on battery. And when operating on battery they could sail over an ASW mine field that would kill a US SSN.
Similarly, not wanting to spend on TU-22Ms – but wanting the air component of an anticarrier strike the Chinese went with anti-ship ballistic missiles. Probably a better choice. They studies the ‘correlation of forces’ and almost certainly copied the old Soviet equation. 2-3 nuclear warheads per regiment. PROBABLY ALL anti carrier ballistic missiles ARE nuclear armed. CEP against a moving ship vs prob kill demands it.
Xi no doubt fully appreciates having the W-88 armed, multiple payload missiles that can hit US cities (both thanks to Bill Clinton) and knows tactical nukes against a CVBG will (now) not bring nuclear retaliation against his home land.
So my guess is Xi and the PLA and PLA-N flag officers will choose when to precipitate a crisis and end the unchallenged dominance of the US Navy – at least on their side of the Pacific.
[…] “Reverend” Warnock Praises Cuba’s Dictatorship, Condemns U.S.A. BattleSwarm: Is Red China’s Military A Paper Tiger? also, .50 BMG Vs. Heavy Metal Cafe Hayek: Brilliant Essay On COVID Derangement Syndrome CDR […]
[…] (Previously.) […]