The People's Liberation Army is the world's largest military force with two.
China has deployed 3 million troops on the high seas on the ground, in the air and in an increasingly powerful force.
As Beijing's military confidence grows, especially in territorial disputes with other Asian countries in the South China Sea, many are taking a serious look at the PLA and Beijing's ambition to modernize.
Over the past five years, China's military budget has increased by more than 10% a year. -
At least reported-
But what is the result?
Before the Chinese parade on Thursday, we asked Roger Cliff, a senior researcher at the Atlantic Council and author of the upcoming book "Chinese military power: assessing current and future capabilities, because of his attitude towards the PLA.
Here, what he must say is: how does the People's Liberation Army compare with the United StatesS. military?
In assessing military capabilities, we do tend to focus on material factors such as the number of tanks or soldiers.
But historically, this does not predict well the outcome of the war.
It is more about how the army is trained and organized, and the quality of the people they have.
People in AmericaS.
Military use a term called DOTMLPF: Theory, organization, training, materials, leadership, personnel and facilities.
I took this overall idea a bit and sliced my book in my own way to look at these dimensions.
The results are: If you look at measures like hardware, the Chinese military has certainly received a lot of attention recently and looks pretty good.
What is even more surprising to me is the quality of the staff.
The Chinese army, the PLA, has been creating better
Educated soldiers, My finding is that ordinary people's Liberation Army soldiers, even though we have the image of a peasant army, are also today --
Educated as his or her American counterpart.
China will not surpass the United States in military strength. S.
But they will definitely close the gap.
This has to do with what we are going to see [
During the parade.
Most of the systems they deploy now are comparable to most in the United States. S. military.
These still represent a small part of the Chinese army's equipment.
Many of them are still outdated, based on the Soviet design of 1950, but the new system they are launching now is comparable to that of most parts of the United States. S. military —M-1 tanks and F-
We have 16 fighters and destroyers in the Navy.
Most of these systems are in the United States. S. are not new;
They started at the age of 80 and 90.
Because for the past decade or so, we have been busy with conflicts in the Middle East, there are very few rebel conflicts, and we have not really jumped to the next --
Most of the power generation systems.
By 2020, the equipment of the Chinese army will look very similar to that of the United States. S.
Army of 2000
One way to look at it is, "Wow, even in 2020, they will still be 20 years behind the US. S.
But there is not much military modernization in the United States. S.
There will be no troops or troops by 2020.
So in terms of equipment, they really won't be so far behind us.
How about organizational structure?
There are some structural problems: they still have a model that is largely based on conscripts, that is, people introduce two-
The terms of the year, and then the vast majority of the terms.
So at any given time, you have a large number of people in the first or second year of their service.
But the fact that this is a little compensated, advanced non-
Officers are at least educated or better educated than Western officers.
When you look at the personnel, they have changed from a large-scale peasant army to an experienced army, and they are improving in other areas, such as the quality of their training.
But there are also some major problems, especially in the field of logistics.
What about their theory of operation?
One can roughly arrange different kinds of theory of operation along a range, starting from one end and starting from the theory of operation based on direct participation;
That said, with your best strength, try to attack the enemy directly and break his back through direct weapon conflict.
How is this almost America in World War II? S.
Britain won.
Their theory . . . . . . Not very flexible, just based on the use of material advantages.
Of course, in the early days of the war, the German military had a different theory, an indirect and Mobile Theory.
The idea is not to carry out weapon conflicts directly, but to look for weaknesses in the enemy's forces, attack them, try to paralyze him by destroying his organization, etc.
Interestingly, about 1999 of Chinese have implemented a new theory that emphasizes mobility and flexibility, attacks the enemy's weaknesses and avoids direct weapon conflicts.
This made sense in the context of the 1990 s, when they were far less physically and technically than potential rivals like the US. S.
Japan, even Taiwan at the time.
But the problem I 've found is that they don't have the right organizational structure or culture to implement such a theory.
If you have a theory of mobility and indirection, you need a decentralized, non-standardized organization so that it allows low
Level decision makers make the best decisions based on their environment rather than on standard operating procedures.
You also need to connect horizontally so that even if the people on the front line are not in the same chain of command, they can talk directly without having to queue up.
In fact, China's military organization is the opposite.
It was highly concentrated and all the decisions were kicked upstairs.
No one wants to take the initiative, no one is responsible, everything is mentioned on the chain of command, everything is highly standardized, you should follow the standard procedure, not deviate from the standard procedure.
Horizontal integration level is low.
How is the culture of the Chinese army?
If you look at the culture of the organization, I find a similar problem.
If you want a theory of operability and innovation, you need an organization that values initiative and innovation, creativity and risk --taking.
Instead, we have an organization that values discipline and loyalty.
Not the kind of organizational culture you want to implement, but a theory that requires commanders on the battlefield to make quick decisions and take advantage of short-lived opportunities that only they can see and need to take advantage of right away, otherwise the opportunity will be missed.
I think this is the fundamental weakness of the Chinese army.
They got all the material and the obvious non-
The material factors that enter the effective army, but they do not actually become the organization or culture required by the army.
But it sounds like their weapons and their-stated or not —
Highly structured organizational culture.
Aren't they getting closer and closer when they get these new toys?
This is a good point of view.
The idea is that they need to have a motor and indirect theory because of their material disadvantage, and the idea becomes less and less convincing.
They are becoming less and less inferior in material.
My career includes worrying about how China will use their growing material capabilities.
Although they do not have Agile Organizational structure and culture.
Of course, there are many ways they can make things difficult in America. S.
However, compared with the United States, they are not in a position of material advantage. S.
I think it does translate into disadvantages before you reach this point.
Therefore, don't ignore the importance of China's equipment capabilities in terms of weapons and equipment, but they do lag behind the United States in technology. S.
In terms of the quality and quantity of its system --
China has more soldiers, but not more than the United States. S.
In terms of fighter planes, warships, etc. And U. S.
Technology is better than China.
What are China's advantages?
China does have an advantage, that is, the most likely conflict in China's backyard. Whereas the U. S.
When it is involved in a war, it is usually on the other side of the world, and it must project power to the other side of the Earth.
This gives China a local advantage.
Of course, the Chinese army is becoming stronger than other forces in the region, such as Japan, Taiwan or anyone else in the region.
However, there are some fundamental weaknesses in the organizational culture, which is less than the impression that it looks like when just looking at the material capabilities.
Of course, they cannot compete with the United States. S.
As a global superpower
There are many reports of corruption in the Chinese army.
Senior military officials have been dismissed on corruption charges and talk about bribery for promotion deals.
Will this affect their efficiency?
Corruption is an act.
So there are two important reasons for this.
First, there is a certain cost of corruption.
The money for changing hands is for other purposes.
It is not used to buy a device or something, but to buy a promotion or something like that.
Thus, corruption brings economic costs.
There are also costs in terms of organizational efficiency, because in the case of promotional bribery, this means that the person who gets the promotion is not the most capable person, but the person who provides the maximum bribe.
Therefore, the organization did not promote the most capable people.
This is a huge and important issue for the PLA.
But the problem is that the PLA is focused on behavior, not on the values behind it.
Why is the PLA corrupt?
Because it's clear that money can be earned, whether it's a promotion or helping others get promoted.
But there is also a set of values related to corruption.
Corruption is often more common in organizations with lower levels of trust.
Corruption is often more common in organizations that value loyalty.
The problem I see is that the Chinese leadership is trying to put an end to this behavior without changing the underlying values and economic incentives that lead to this behavior.
Why should China do this parade and why now?
There is a lot of speculation about this.
China has seen such demonstrations before.
The most recent was 2009.
It shows impressive ability to travel, colorful uniforms and more.
But in the past, they did it on the anniversary of the founding of New China, not this time.
Now I am in the area of speculation, but it is clear that the supreme leadership has decided to hold this military parade, which probably means President Xi Jinping.
He hopes to hold a grand military parade in part to send messages to other countries in the region, but more importantly, the domestic audience.
One can imagine why Xi Jinping sent such a message.
The first is to emphasize the importance of the Chinese army and the security threat that exists in China.
Second, he stressed that he is creating a strong China.
This is certainly an integral part of his signature campaign to promote the Chinese dream.
Part of it is a powerful China or a powerful army.
So I think he wants to convey the message that he is doing this.
One interesting thing to look for is-
In 2009, I was a little impressed by how colorful and friendly it was.
Although it was a military parade, it was not, in my opinion, a very ominous or threatening parade.
Friendly looking.
So it will be interesting to see if the same tone will appear this time.
Or do they want to look more serious or more threatening?
It will be an interesting thing to pay attention.
Is this all about going hand in hand with everyone?
They are sending a message: Is this a good army to help us?
Or are they communicating the message that this is a huge, rough, mean, tough army that will surprise you if you try to get in the way of them?
I think it will be an interesting thing, presumably it will be part of the information.