|
《中國軍力及戰備一瞥》讀後
|
瀏覽584 ｜回應2｜推薦1 |
|
|
|
蘭德公司報告作者希斯博士推理的過程和結論都如竹籃盛水 – 到處都是洞(見本欄下一篇)。例如：
1) 北韓軍隊在烏克蘭的表現，足以駁斥他對政工幹部的評價；
2) 「統一台灣」正是典型的克勞塞維茲對「戰爭」所下定義(開欄文第2.1節) ；
3) 他對中國官方缺乏「戰爭文宣」的評論則是「西方思考邏輯」造成的盲點：
a) 中國老百姓飽受戰爭和內鬥之苦，歌頌「戰爭」只會引起人民對政府的反感；
b) 西方國家名義上是「民主社會」，出兵需要有「正當性」；中國社會則是「一個命令，一個動作」；
c) 網民歌頌「戰爭」和宣揚「統一正當性」，一方面從側面達到希斯博士要求的效果，一方面免除了上述老百姓所產生對政府的反感；
4) 「軍隊現代化」當然有鞏固領導中心的功能；如果希斯博士認為這是習總建軍唯一的目的，他平常大概總是用菜刀切牛油。
總之，我對希斯博士這篇報告結論的評語如下：
到處是洞，小題大做。
不過，希斯博士並不是菜鳥，蘭德也不是皮包公司。川普剛剛上任，放話南征北討之際，這篇報告出爐應該有它「項莊舞劍」的作用。
本文於 修改第 3 次
|
|
中國軍火企業之迎頭趕上 ---- Nectar Gan等
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
相關新聞請見此欄(2025/05/11)和此欄(2025/05/09)。
China has spent billions developing military tech. Conflict between India and Pakistan could be its first major test
Nectar Gan, Simone McCarthy and Brad Lendon, CNN, 05/09/25
The escalating conflict between India and Pakistan could be offering the world a first real glimpse into how advanced Chinese military technology performs against proven Western hardware – and Chinese defense stocks are already surging.
Shares of China’s AVIC Chengdu Aircraft rose 40% this week, as Pakistan claimed it used AVIC-produced J-10C fighter jets to shoot down Indian combat aircraft – including the advanced French-made Rafale – during an aerial battle on Wednesday.
India has not responded to Pakistan’s claims or acknowledged any aircraft losses. When asked about the involvement of Chinese-made jets, a spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry said on Thursday he was not familiar with the situation.
Still, as Pakistan’s primary arms supplier, China is likely watching intently to find out how its weapon systems have and potentially will perform in real combat.
A rising military superpower, China hasn’t fought a major war in more than four decades. But under leader Xi Jinping, it has raced to modernize its armed forces, pouring resources into developing sophisticated weaponry and cutting-edge technologies.
It has also extended that modernization drive to Pakistan, long hailed by Beijing as its “ironclad brother.”
Over the past five years, China has supplied 81% of Pakistan’s imported weapons, according to data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).
Those exports include advanced fighter jets, missiles, radars and air-defense systems that experts say would play a pivotal role in any military conflict between Pakistan and India. Some Pakistan-made weapons have also been co-developed with Chinese firms or built with Chinese technology and expertise.
“This makes any engagement between India and Pakistan a de facto test environment for Chinese military exports,” said Sajjan Gohel, international security director at the Asia-Pacific Foundation, a think tank based in London.
Chinese and Pakistani militaries have also engaged in increasingly sophisticated joint air, sea and land exercises, including combat simulations and even crew-swapping drills.
“Beijing’s long-standing support for Islamabad – through hardware, training, and now increasingly AI-enabled targeting – has quietly shifted the tactical balance,” said Craig Singleton, a senior fellow at the US-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
“This isn’t just a bilateral clash anymore; it’s a glimpse of how Chinese defense exports are reshaping regional deterrence.”
That shift – brought into sharp focus by rising tensions between India and Pakistan following a tourist massacre in Kashmir – underscores a broader geopolitical realignment in the region, where China has emerged as a major challenge to American influence.
India and Pakistan have gone to war over Kashmir three times since their independence from Britain in 1947. During the height of the Cold War, the Soviet Union backed India, while the United States and China supported Pakistan. Now, a new era of great-power rivalry looms over the long-running conflict between the nuclear-armed South Asian neighbors.
Despite its traditional policy of nonalignment, India has drawn ever closer to the US, as successive American administrations courted the rising South Asian giant as a strategic counterweight to China. India has ramped up arms purchases from America and its allies, including France and Israel, while steadily reducing its reliance on Russian weaponry.
Meanwhile, Pakistan has deepened ties with China, becoming its “all-weather strategic partner” and a key participant in Xi’s signature global infrastructure project, the Belt and Road Initiative. According to SIPRI’s data, the US and China each supplied about one-third of Pakistan’s imported weapons in the late 2000s. But Pakistan has stopped buying American arms in recent years and increasingly filled its arsenal with Chinese weapons.
Siemon Wezeman, a senior researcher in the SIPRI Arms Transfers Program, noted that while China has been an important arms supplier to Pakistan since the mid-1960s, its current dominance largely comes from stepping into a vacuum left by the US.
More than a decade ago, the US accused Pakistan of not doing enough to fight “terrorists” – including Taliban fighters – that it said were operating from or being supplied in Pakistan. Wezeman said that added to Washington’s existing frustrations over Islamabad’s nuclear program and lack of democracy.
“(The US) finally found India as an alternative partner in the region. As a result, (it) more or less cut Pakistan off from US arms,” he added. “China’s arms supply on the other hand significantly increased – one can say that China used the opportunity to show itself as the only real friend and ally of Pakistan.”
China has expressed regret over India’s military strikes against Pakistan and has called for calm and restraint. Before the latest escalation, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi expressed support for Pakistan in a phone call with his counterpart, calling China Pakistan’s “ironclad friend.”
Military showdown
With Pakistan armed largely by China and India sourcing more than half of its weapons from the US and its allies, any conflict between the two neighbors could effectively be a showdown between Chinese and Western military technologies.
After weeks of rising hostilities following the killing of 26 mostly Indian tourists at the hands of militants at a scenic mountain spot in Indian-administered Kashmir, India launched missile strikes early on Wednesday morning, targeting what it said was “terrorist infrastructure” in both Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.
Many analysts believe the missiles and other munitions were fired by India’s French-made Rafale and Russian-made Su-30 fighter jets.
Pakistan, meanwhile, touted a great victory by its air force, claiming that five Indian fighter jets – three Rafales, a MiG-29 and a Su-30 fighter – were shot down by its J-10C fighters during an hour-long battle it claimed was fought by 125 aircraft at ranges over 160 kilometers (100 miles).
“(It) is now being characterized as the most intense air-to-air combat engagement between two nuclear-armed nations,” said Salman Ali Bettani, an international relations scholar at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad. “The engagement represented a milestone in the operational use of advanced Chinese-origin systems.”
India has not acknowledged any aircraft losses, and Pakistan has yet to provide evidence to support its claims. But a French Defense Ministry source said at least one of India’s newest and most-advanced warplanes – a French-made Rafale fighter jet – was lost in the battle.
“If … confirmed, it indicates that the weapon systems at Pakistan’s disposal are, at the minimum, contemporary or current compared to what Western Europe (especially France) offers,” said Bilal Khan, founder of Toronto-based defense analysis firm Quwa Group Inc.
Despite the absence of official confirmation and hard proof, Chinese nationalists and military enthusiasts have taken to social media to celebrate what they see as a triumph for Chinese-made weapon systems.
Shares of China’s state-owned AVIC Chengdu Aircraft, the maker of Pakistan’s J-10C fighter jets, closed 17% higher on the Shenzhen exchange on Wednesday, even before Pakistan’s foreign minister claimed the jets had been used to shoot down India’s planes. Shares in the company rose an additional 20% on Thursday.
The J-10C is the latest version of China’s single-engine, multirole J-10 fighter, which entered service with the Chinese air force in the early 2000s. Featuring better weapon systems and avionics, the J-10C is classified as a 4.5-generation fighter – in the same tier as the Rafale but a rung below 5th-generation stealth jets, like China’s J-20 or the US F-35.
China delivered the first batch of the J-10CE – the export version – to Pakistan in 2022, state broadcaster CCTV reported at the time. It’s now the most advanced fighter jet in Pakistan’s arsenal, alongside the JF-17 Block III, a 4.5-generation lightweight fighter co-developed by Pakistan and China.
The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) also operates a larger fleet of American-built F-16s, one of which was used to shoot down a Soviet-designed Indian fighter jet during a flare-up in 2019.
But the PAF’s F-16s are still stuck in an early-2000s configuration – far behind the upgraded versions currently offered by the US – while the Chinese-made J-10CEs and JF-17 Block IIIs feature contemporary technologies such as active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars, Khan said.
“So, the F-16s are still a major piece to any PAF-led reprisal, but not the central or indispensable one,” he said.
Senior Col. (ret) Zhou Bo, senior fellow at Tsinghua University’s Center for International Security and Strategy in Beijing, said if Chinese-made J-10Cs were indeed used to shoot down the French-made Rafales, it would be “a tremendous boost of confidence in Chinese weapon systems.”
Zhou said it would “really raise people’s eyebrows” particularly given China has not fought a war for more than four decades. “It will potentially be a huge boost for Chinese arm sales in the international market,” he said.
‘A powerful advertisement’
The United States remains the world’s largest arms exporter, accounting for 43% of global weapons exports between 2020 and 2024, according to data from SIPRI. That’s more than four times the share of France, which ranks second, followed by Russia.
China ranks fourth, with nearly two-thirds of its arms exports going to a single country: Pakistan.
Khan, the defense analyst in Toronto, agreed the downing, if confirmed, would go a long way in promoting China’s defense industry, noting there would likely be interest from “powers in the Middle East and North Africa” who typically can’t access “the most cutting-edge Western technology.”
“With Russia set back as a result of its invasion of Ukraine, I’m sure the Chinese have begun pushing hard at Moscow’s traditional markets – e.g., Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, and Sudan – to secure big-ticket sales,” he said.
Experts in Pakistan and China say the J-10Cs deployed by the Pakistan Air Force are likely to have been paired with the PL-15, China’s most advanced air-to-air missile – which has a reported beyond-visual-range of 200-300 kilometers (120-190 miles). The known export version has a reduced range of 145 kilometers (90 miles).
Last week, amid spiraling tensions, the Pakistan Air Force released a three-minute video showcasing its warplanes. It featured the JF-17 Block III armed with PL-15 missiles, describing them as “PAF’s potent punch”.
“From China’s perspective, this is essentially a powerful advertisement,” Antony Wong Dong, a Macau-based military observer, said of the Pakistan claims.
“It will shock even countries like the United States — just how strong is its opponent, really? This is a question that all countries potentially looking to buy fighter jets, as well as China’s regional rivals, will need to seriously reconsider: how should they face this new reality?”
But some experts have expressed caution. India’s losses, if confirmed, could stem more from poor tactics and planning by the Indian Air Force than from the perceived advancements in Chinese weapons.
“If reports of India losing multiple jets holds up, it would raise serious questions about the IAF’s readiness, not just its platforms. The Rafales are modern, but warfighting is about integration, coordination, and survivability — not just headline acquisitions,” said Singleton, the analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
What’s also not known is what intelligence India had on the PL-15.
If, for instance, it believed Pakistan only possessed the shorter-range export version, Indian aircraft might have lingered in vulnerable areas.
Rules of engagement may also have prevented Indian pilots from firing first, or firing back against Pakistani aircraft, according to Fabian Hoffman, a defense policy research fellow at the University of Oslo.
In such cases, Indian misjudgments may have made the Pakistani weaponry look more effective, Hoffman wrote on his Missile Matters blog.
Experts also note that India’s strikes successfully hit multiple targets in Pakistan – suggesting its missiles penetrated Pakistani air defenses, which are armed with Chinese surface-to-air missiles, including the long-range HQ-9B.
“If Chinese-origin radar or missile systems failed to detect or deter Indian strikes, that’s (also) bad optics for Beijing’s arms export credibility,” said Gohel, the defense expert in London.
For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at CNN.com
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
中國軍力及戰備一瞥 ---- Brad Lendon
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
Is China’s military really built for war? New report questions Beijing’s arms buildup
Analysis Brad Lendon, CNN, 02/17/25
China is not ready for war, according to a contentious report from a US think tank, which claims the main motivation for the ruling Communist Party’s expansive push for military modernization is to retain its grip on power – not fight an overseas foe.
Beijing has pursued a head-turning military buildup under Chinese leader Xi Jinping, during which the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) – previously not even one of the strongest in Asia – has started to rival, or in some categories surpass, the US military in analysts’ estimations.
Simulations by US defense experts have repeatedly shown the US – widely regarded as the world’s strongest military – having a tough time matching the PLA in a fight close to China’s shores, especially over the democratic island of Taiwan, which is claimed by Beijing.
But a report released last month by the Washington-based RAND Corp. said that despite the impressive buildup, political considerations – importantly the Communist Party’s desire for control over both military personnel and Chinese society – could hamper the PLA in battle, especially against a peer adversary such as the US.
“The PLA remains fundamentally focused on upholding Chinese Communist Party (CCP) rule rather than preparing for war,” wrote Timothy Heath, a longtime China expert with RAND, in the report, titled “The Chinese military’s doubtful combat readiness.”
“China’s military modernization gains are designed first and foremost to bolster the appeal and credibility of CCP rule,” making war unlikely, Heath added.
One example Heath cited of political considerations butting up against military objectives is the PLA spending up to 40% of training time on political topics.
“The trade-off in time that could be spent mastering the essential skills for combat operations further raises questions as to how well prepared the PLA might be for modern war,” Heath said.
Heath noted too that PLA units are led not only by commanding officers, but also by political commissars who focus on party loyalty rather than combat effectiveness.
“A divided command system … reduces the ability of commanders to respond flexibly and rapidly to emerging situations,” he wrote.
A conventional war between the US and China is a “remote possibility,” and Pentagon planners should focus on a wider variety of Chinese threats than missiles and bombs, he added.
But other experts scoffed at his conclusions, saying that Xi had made his top military goal clear: bringing Taiwan under Beijing’s control, by force if necessary.
The PLA’s buildup points to China being ready to do that, domestic control concerns notwithstanding, the experts added.
“There are much easier, cheaper, lower-risk ways to maximize party security than the bespoke warfighting capabilities Xi concertedly pursues,” said Andrew Erickson, professor of strategy at the US Naval War College.
John Culver, a former US intelligence officer for East Asia, also cast doubt on the report.
“War isn’t Plan A, but it is Plan B if events require and the material capacity of the PLA and China for such an event is strong and getter stronger,” he wrote on X.
Weapons and will
China has achieved rapid and indisputable military progress since Xi introduced sweeping reforms a decade ago.
Beijing’s intense shipbuilding program of recent years has yielded the world’s largest navy/maritime fighting force, which can operate farther than ever from China’s shores – including from the country’s first overseas military base in Djibouti.
Meanwhile, China has made advances in stealth aircraft and hypersonic weapons – and turned vast areas of its inland deserts into fields of missile silos.
But Heath questioned whether Beijing’s new arsenal would be effective in war.
“History has shown repeatedly that militaries sometimes fail to effectively use their advanced armaments in battle,” his report read, citing the war in Ukraine as the latest conflict where a better-armed military has failed to prevail.
Critics of Heath’s report said it’s folly to see the same weaknesses in the PLA.
“Xi repeatedly engages in difficult military restructuring efforts that prioritize improvements in realistic warfighting capabilities and impose some of the most demanding requirements conceivable on China’s armed forces,” said Erickson of the US Naval War College.
He noted that China is building both numbers – the Pentagon estimates Beijing is growing its nuclear warhead arsenal by about 100 a year – and technology, “pushing global frontiers with ambitious hypersonic weapons megaprojects.”
The human factor
Few doubt that the PLA has made great strides in both the number and quality of weapons it can field. Take for example its warships, led by the Type 055 destroyer, classified by many analysts as the most powerful surface combatant in the world.
The PLA Navy launched its 10th Type 055 last year, with as many as six more expected in the coming years. Each requires a crew of about 300 sailors.
Collin Koh, research fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore, said building the high-tech warships may be easier than crewing them – because modern warships need young sailors to take on complex tasks, and that requires extensive training.
“The army could likely assimilate someone from the countryside … who might not get a lot of education … and train him up to be an infantryman. But if you want to train somebody who is able to man the controls in the combat information center in the warship, fire a missile and to maintain a missile, that requires a bit more,” Koh said.
Meanwhile, the PLA continues to struggle another personnel problem – corruption. A Pentagon report from December said a widespread anticorruption campaign within the senior levels of the Chinese military and government is impeding Xi’s defense buildup.
“I think they’ve identified it as something that really has posed great risks to the political reliability and ultimately the operational capability of the PLA,” a senior US defense official said in December.
Defining Chinese military readiness
When analysts talk about Chinese military readiness, focus quickly zooms in on Taiwan. US intelligence estimates say Xi has ordered the PLA to be ready to invade the island by 2027, if necessary.
But Heath argues that while the Chinese leader set that goal, he and other top party officials have not engaged in any concerted push to prepare the Chinese public for combat.
“Chinese leaders have made no speeches that glorify war, advocate for war, or otherwise characterize war as inevitable or desirable,” Heath wrote, noting that “China’s military has not even published a study on how it might occupy and control Taiwan.”
Others caution against judging Beijing’s intentions based on Western thinking. It’s unknown what Xi would consider a win in Taiwan, they say.
The amount of pain the PLA – and Chinese society as a whole – could sustain to take the island is known only in Beijing, they say.
“We have to consider the use of force by Beijing at a level that could be potentially calibrated to suit its political needs,” Koh said.
That force could be a blockade to strangle the island without shots being fired. It could be enough airstrikes to show Taipei and its supporters that China holds the upper hand in any cross-strait conflict. It could be a full-scale invasion and occupation.
Or it could be a continuation of Beijing’s relentless political pressure accompanied by the almost constant PLA presence around Taiwan, including dozens of warplanes and ships. It’s a policy that, to date, has served the Communist Party well, some analysts say.
So, why spend all that money on new weapons?
“China’s military modernization gains are not designed to conquer Taiwan through military attack. Instead, (they are) designed to help the PLA more effectively carry out its longstanding mission of upholding CCP rule,” Heath wrote.
Essentially, new warships and stealth fighter jets impress the public, and that makes controlling society easier, he said.
Drew Thompson, a senior research fellow at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore agreed with that point. “Politics being primary means propaganda is more important than the military outcome,” he said.
But Koh said the PLA’s gains under Xi cannot be brushed aside as merely sending a domestic message.
“Despite those known issues within China and the PLA, I don’t think any military planner in the region is going to just dismiss the PLA as a paper tiger,” he said.
And Thompson said the PLA is indeed a capable foe for Taiwan and for the US.
“China could start a war and fight it. Could they win? How do you define victory?” Thompson asked.
“Is it a zero sum or just a series of tradeoffs?”
For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at CNN.com
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
|
本城市首頁
看回應文章
等級：8
