5 ms·

> yet don't hear a peep about Chinese military issues on Global Times or XinHua How much did you hear about Russian military issues in January?

jameshush 4y ago
I believe OP was being sarcastic but for got to add a `/s` or `</sarcasam>` :)
dirtyid 4y ago
I primarily keep up to date with PLA, but tangentially that means plenty of RU info. There has been years of reporting and comparison between RU vs PRC modernization process, MIC development, acquisitions, training etc. RU one of the few countries PLA cross trains with, and the stories coming out for years weren't flattering. For reference, there was analysis years ago guestimating much countries spend on training per soldier per year (not adjusted for PPP), IIRC something like RU ~20K, UKR ~40K, NATO (avg) ~60K, PRC ~90K, USA ~200K. Even sadder for when you include hours on expensive platforms, i.e. PRC pilots get as much cockpit hours as US (sometimes more), PRC carrier ops exceeding RU sortie rate on Soviet designed hulls. Bluntly, even on paper, RU military was massively underfunded and their poverty modernization efforts wasn't likely to field competent military for large campaign, ergo starting with a flabbergastingly small special operation that was difficult to sustain after turning into large scale war. Without full mobilization, with how much they committed relative to UKR, they're performing about on par with expectations, especially against flood of western platforms. Also general consensus between RU and PRC military watchers is RU boasts about top end capability but rarely delivers vs PRC quiet about top end capability but over delivers (see handful of Su57s vs 150+ J20s) despite both first flight ~10 years ago.
- hef19898 4y ago
  Just how good Chinese military capabilities, training and systems are, has to be seen (preferably we never find out so). I am not aware of any Chinese forces being involved in actual conflicts since Korea.
  - dirtyid 4y ago
    No one has experience with modern peer war on high end platforms. IMO tech+doctorine sufficiently unknow that training + resources better proxy than fighting wars with 3rd world insurgents. Fact is US is using F35s for J20 agressor squadron vs F18s for SU57. Meanwhile USN reluctantly admit PRC antiship tests hit moving targets and host of dramatic US modernization efforts suggest PRC capabilites are real and commiserate with PRCs science+industrial base. But as for how well prepared TW is relative to PRC, that's more or less known. There isn't 4d chess behind ROCAFs current dismal state and overall profound unseriousness at adopting porcupine concept that's causing Pentagon consternation. But yes, not needing to find out is best.
  - dingaling 4y ago
    Chinese forces were soundly outfought by Vietnam in the 1979 border conflict, which led to many reappointments and changes of philosophy within the Chinese military. It can be seen as the inflection point where China realised that churning out vast numbers of obsolete Soviet designs had to yield to quality and training.

jameshush 4y ago

I believe OP was being sarcastic but for got to add a `/s` or `</sarcasam>` :)

dirtyid 4y ago

I primarily keep up to date with PLA, but tangentially that means plenty of RU info. There has been years of reporting and comparison between RU vs PRC modernization process, MIC development, acquisitions, training etc. RU one of the few countries PLA cross trains with, and the stories coming out for years weren't flattering. For reference, there was analysis years ago guestimating much countries spend on training per soldier per year (not adjusted for PPP), IIRC something like RU ~20K, UKR ~40K, NATO (avg) ~60K, PRC ~90K, USA ~200K. Even sadder for when you include hours on expensive platforms, i.e. PRC pilots get as much cockpit hours as US (sometimes more), PRC carrier ops exceeding RU sortie rate on Soviet designed hulls. Bluntly, even on paper, RU military was massively underfunded and their poverty modernization efforts wasn't likely to field competent military for large campaign, ergo starting with a flabbergastingly small special operation that was difficult to sustain after turning into large scale war. Without full mobilization, with how much they committed relative to UKR, they're performing about on par with expectations, especially against flood of western platforms. Also general consensus between RU and PRC military watchers is RU boasts about top end capability but rarely delivers vs PRC quiet about top end capability but over delivers (see handful of Su57s vs 150+ J20s) despite both first flight ~10 years ago.

hef19898 4y ago
Just how good Chinese military capabilities, training and systems are, has to be seen (preferably we never find out so). I am not aware of any Chinese forces being involved in actual conflicts since Korea.
- dirtyid 4y ago
  No one has experience with modern peer war on high end platforms. IMO tech+doctorine sufficiently unknow that training + resources better proxy than fighting wars with 3rd world insurgents. Fact is US is using F35s for J20 agressor squadron vs F18s for SU57. Meanwhile USN reluctantly admit PRC antiship tests hit moving targets and host of dramatic US modernization efforts suggest PRC capabilites are real and commiserate with PRCs science+industrial base. But as for how well prepared TW is relative to PRC, that's more or less known. There isn't 4d chess behind ROCAFs current dismal state and overall profound unseriousness at adopting porcupine concept that's causing Pentagon consternation. But yes, not needing to find out is best.
- dingaling 4y ago
  Chinese forces were soundly outfought by Vietnam in the 1979 border conflict, which led to many reappointments and changes of philosophy within the Chinese military. It can be seen as the inflection point where China realised that churning out vast numbers of obsolete Soviet designs had to yield to quality and training.