Chinese army versus Russian. China versus Russia: Victory will not be ours

The Chinese army intends to use the experience of reforming the Russian Armed Forces to confront the United States. At the same time, as Chinese military analysts note, their country does not yet possess the necessary military technologies and, in order to achieve parity with the United States, will be forced to buy weapons from Russia.
Until recently, the concept of Chinese foreign policy was based on the principle that all problems of international politics must be resolved exclusively through diplomatic and political means. In 2013, at the next session of the National People's Congress (NPC), it was proclaimed that China had achieved significant economic power, and in order to protect its gains it was necessary to be able to militarily confront the United States. Moreover, it is obvious to everyone that no one will voluntarily give up economic primacy. And, as it turned out, Russia’s experience in terms of military development can be extremely useful to China.

An interesting article by professors from the National Defense University of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China with the telling title “Russia is again creating a large and sharp sword” appeared in the Chinese magazine “Universe of Weapons.” As can be concluded from the article, all activities of our army are under the close attention of Chinese specialists. The published material provides a detailed analysis of military reform in Russia and the current state of our army. And, I must admit, the Chinese side’s view of the state of affairs in Russia may be of interest to us as well.

The reform of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation by Chinese specialists is conditionally divided into two periods: from the beginning of the war in South Ossetia until the end of Anatoly Serdyukov’s tenure as Defense Minister, and from the appointment of Sergei Shoigu as head of the Ministry of Defense to the present.

According to Zhang Ming, a professor at the Shijiazhuang Command Institute of the Chinese Army (PLA), the impetus for the start of large-scale reform was the five-day military conflict with Georgia. Then the complexity of troop control and poor coordination at the upper levels of combat control became obvious. According to Chinese experts, the goal of the reforms of the Russian armed forces was to create a competent army structure, ensure high maneuverability of troops and operational command in order to ultimately be able to respond to any external challenges.

Chen Xuehui, a researcher at the Research Institute of Foreign Armed Forces of the Academy of Military Sciences of the People's Republic of China, identified two main directions of the first stage of military reform. The first is the optimization of the troop command and control structure. What is noted here, first of all, is the reduction in the number of military districts to four. The second direction involved a change old structure"division - regiment" to the formula "brigade - battalion".

It must be said that in both directions of the first stage of reform of the Russian army, Chinese experts find both positive and negative aspects. On the one hand, reducing the number of military districts and creating joint commands made it possible to increase the efficiency of troop command and control. More successful interaction between different branches of the Armed Forces has become possible. The separation of the functions of the Ministry of Defense and the General Staff is also called correct. But at the same time, it is noted that in a situation of constantly changing military threats, the district division itself does not meet the challenges of the time. According to Chinese analysts, management at the headquarters level of the North Caucasus District during the conflict with Georgia was unable to establish interaction between the three branches of the military, which led to unjustified losses. Experts note that this situation demonstrated the unreasonableness and inability of the management system to conduct large-scale joint operations. The correct decision is the creation under the General Staff supreme body operational control - the Unified Strategic Command (USC), which resolved the long-standing problem of discrepancies between the commands of the military branches regarding joint operations. At the same time, it is noted that an effective system for transmitting information to units was not created in time. It was also necessary to refine the theory of operations of the ground forces, navy and aviation.

Chinese experts also have ambivalent assessments of the transition to the new “brigade-battalion” structure. During the war in South Ossetia, formations such as divisions turned out to be immobile. The four-level system (district - army - division - regiment) was changed to a three-level system (district - army - brigade). As a result, several armies were disbanded.

However, the reform caused discontent among many officers. As Professor Zhang Ming notes, the leadership of the Russian Ministry of Defense did not have the theoretical developments of reforms, and unsuccessfully tried to blindly copy the American system. This led to a loss of personnel, unnecessary and significant financial costs, and, as a result, to a delay in the reform itself. Chinese experts believe that the desire for "brigade" and modularization of weapons is a dangerous copy of the American approach to ensuring the combat readiness of the army. Zhang Ming suggests that the leadership of the Russian Defense Ministry should have developed original approaches to creating an optimal army structure, which was done only after the change of defense minister.

The initiative of Anatoly Serdyukov to reduce the number of officers and reduce the number of educational institutions from 160 to 60 was especially criticized by Chinese experts for the first stage of reforms. military personnel. At the same time, the problem of the lack of professional sergeants remained outside the brackets of the initiators of the reform.

As a result, the situation had to be corrected and the shortage of 70 thousand officers had to be made up. Only many commanders who were transferred to the reserve were not eager to return. According to Chinese experts, the only adequate measure was a significant increase in the salaries of military personnel.

On the whole, analysts from China consider the simplification of the command and control system and an increase in the level of reliability of military equipment to be the main results of the first stage of the military reform. In particular, 20% of the units on constant combat readiness were 100% equipped with equipment. As Chinese experts write, these units will be able to use “ants against elephant” tactics in the event of Western aggression. At the same time, difficult climatic conditions and vast spaces will not allow any state to achieve a military victory over Russia.

Chinese experts assess the second and main stage of the reform, which began after the appointment of Sergei Shoigu as Russian Minister of Defense, as more successful and efficient.

Experts Li Shuyin and Fang Ming note that it was under Shoigu that the system of sudden checks of the combat readiness of units was returned. At the same time, important steps were taken to return to the army the traditions of educating and training professional soldiers, which were laid down by the generals of the tsarist army, whose experience in turn was used by the Soviet military command.

An important positive development is the creation in 2013 of the National Defense Management Center (NDC), which foreign correspondents call the “military government.” In peacetime, the center monitors military threats, and in wartime, Chinese analysts believe, it will be able to lead the entire country.

From a military point of view, Chinese experts assess the actions of the Russian military in Crimea and Syria positively. The rapid movement of about 100 thousand military personnel to the Ukrainian border in 2014, the rapid deployment of S-400 air defense systems in Syria, the effective use of Caliber missiles, the use of Tu-160 strategic bombers and the build-up of the air force with SU-34 fighter-bombers to destroy ISIS infrastructure. All this, according to analysts, indicates that last years The Russian leadership has done a lot to strengthen the country's defense capability and increase the combat readiness of the army.

It is especially noted that the reform of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation is moving in the right direction. Professor Ma Jianguang tried to calculate how the combat power of our army will increase in the near future. According to his estimates, this year the first S-500 complex will enter service with the troops, during the next year the aviation will receive the first of the latest T-50 fighters, and by 2020 the Russian Navy will have an additional six nuclear and nine diesel submarines. Work is underway to develop the Sarmat heavy inter-ballistic missile and the future PAK TA transport aircraft, which suggests that the Russian Armed Forces are working towards preparing for the “armed conflicts of tomorrow.” At the same time, military warehouses are being modernized. Modernization of 190 of the 580 existing warehouses will increase their capacity from 45 to 400 thousand tons. In Naro-Fominsk, a production and transport and logistics center is expected to be commissioned this year, and a total of 24 of them will open in the coming years.

Chinese experts are especially monitoring the process of deploying Russian units and their weapons. According to experts from the Celestial Empire, in the next three years Russia will spend about 7 billion rubles on military infrastructure Kuril Islands. Due to the fact that Japan and the United States are building up their forces in the Pacific Ocean, the importance of deploying modern RS-24 ICBMs, P-700 Granit missiles, and Mi-28N helicopters in the Far East is emphasized.

It is interesting that the article by Chinese professors also notes the shortcomings of Chinese weapons compared to Russian models. It is recognized that China does not yet have a reliable and powerful engine to create its own fifth-generation fighter. The solution to the problem is seen in the purchase of a 4++ generation Su-35 from Russia. Among the PRC’s own developments, so far only the copy of the Su-33 created with the help of Ukrainian aviators, called “Jian-16” in China. At the same time, Chinese experts complain that Russian aircraft for the PRC are much more expensive than for the Russian army (up to 85 million dollars versus 45 for the Russian Aerospace Forces) and even than the latest T-50 will cost India.

China is also forced to buy S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems from us, since Chinese engineers admit their inability to create a complex that allows them to track and destroy up to 36 targets simultaneously.

Also interesting is the assessment given by Chinese experts to the socio-economic aspect of military reform. Experts noted the increase in the salary of officers, and the fact that the average salary of an officer in Russia today is higher than the average income of civilians. During the reforms, the leadership of the Ministry of Defense managed to reduce the number of officers without housing from 46,600 people in 2013 to 6,200 in 2015. In addition, the salaries of military research institute employees, military doctors, and teaching staff have also increased in the army. Separately, Chinese analysts noted the fact that the leadership of the Russian Defense Ministry and the military-industrial complex managed to stop the processes of “wasting” military scientific potential, developed plans for the development of the military-industrial complex and created a unified production management system, which is especially important in the context of the economic crisis.

According to Chinese military experts, the weapons Russia has and the established command and control system today make it possible to be confident that Russia will be able to give a worthy response in a clash with other powers in the format of the so-called “wars of the future.” Therefore, Russian experience is extremely useful for the Middle Kingdom, Chinese experts conclude.

A description of the Chinese armed forces (PLA - People's Liberation Army of China) should be devoted to several articles, it is so large and complex. Here we will talk about some general points regarding Russia’s relations with the PRC, the development of China in general and the PLA in particular.

Post-Soviet Russia and modern China are not allies and never have been. This is Beijing’s official position (“relations between China and Russia are not relations of a military alliance and are not directed against third countries”) and the actual state of affairs. The fact that Russia and China, as a rule, vote the same in the UN Security Council is determined by the coincidence of positions, and not by allied relations.

On some fundamental issues, the positions of Moscow and Beijing differ radically. The most striking example is the consequences of the August 2008 war in the Caucasus. Beijing not only did not recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, but also supported Georgia in a thinly veiled form.

Military cooperation has been completely emasculated and has taken on an openly ritualistic character. The scale of Russian-Chinese exercises is becoming smaller every year (this is compensated by the official lie that the scale, on the contrary, is growing, although nothing prevents us from checking open data), their scenarios are becoming more and more formally far-fetched. At the same time, both Moscow and Beijing benefit from being considered allies in the West. Therefore, both sides in full agreement tell external audiences about “strategic partnership” and “unprecedented good relations”, although in practical terms there is nothing behind these statements.

China is much more aggressive than the United States in “squeezing” Russia out of the post-Soviet space. Washington's actions are accompanied by a lot of noise, but in the end they turn out to be nothing. In particular, no one can now say what practical benefits (economic, political, military) the United States received from the “color revolutions” in Ukraine and Georgia. In fact, none. Beijing, in its characteristic style, is “rolling” onto the former USSR like a steamroller that cannot be stopped.

Russia is now trying its best to block Chinese activities within the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), but it is too late. This structure has turned not into “anti-NATO”, as Moscow wanted, but into a very effective tool for the economic takeover of Central Asia by China. Beijing's energy and transport projects in all five countries of the region will lead to an almost complete loss of Russian influence. And now China is very actively and, most likely, no less successfully, buying up European countries of the former USSR - Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova.

In this regard, Beijing expresses extreme dissatisfaction with all Russian integration projects in the post-Soviet space. Senior officials of the PRC refrain from speaking on this matter. Lower-level officials, as well as scientists and experts, openly declare that the development of even the EurAsEC, the CSTO, and even more so the Customs Union, which is transforming into the Eurasian Union, contradicts the interests of China.

Moscow's statements that the surrender of the islands on the Amur River opposite Khabarovsk in 2004 finally closed the issue of the border with China, unfortunately, have no basis. China is apparently the only country on Earth that has territorial claims to all its neighbors without exception. All these claims have a solid scientific basis, and in terms of propaganda they have literally been elevated to a cult. At different points in time, the intensity of claims against each of the neighbors increases or decreases depending on the political and economic situation, but the claims themselves are never canceled. The biggest claims are made specifically against Russia. The thesis that the current Russian-Chinese border was established according to “unfair and unequal treaties” is downright reinforced concrete in China. The Russian “mini-surrender” of 2004 did not affect this thesis in any way.

Beijing is experiencing acute internal problems, which are based on the country's overpopulation. Lack of resources and arable land, catastrophic environmental situation, unemployment, aging population, “shortage of brides” are tied into a knot that is extremely difficult to untangle. The situation is such that solving one problem aggravates one or more others. The rapid economic growth of the PRC solves some problems, but gives rise to others. The same applies to the “one family, one child” policy. Only external expansion can untangle the knot of problems; this is an objective fact.

Western estimates of the size of China's nuclear arsenal (200-250 charges) are so absurd that there is no point in commenting on them. The minimum minimum is 3.5 thousand charges, in reality there are apparently many times more. No less, and often more absurd, are the explanations for why China is massively building cities in which no one lives, and underground shelters in current cities (both for millions of people). There is only one logical explanation for both – preparation for a nuclear war. But this explanation is so unpleasant and inconvenient for everyone that it is forbidden to say or write it.

In Russia, many are sincerely convinced that the old Soviet joke about how a new fighter plane crashed during testing in China, killing 3 pilots and 15 stokers, is still relevant. Alas, it has nothing to do with life. Likewise, the actively imposed myth that new equipment in China is produced in “small batches” and is far behind its foreign counterparts in quality has nothing to do with it.

In fact, over the past 15 years, the PLA has been undergoing rearmament, the likes of which are difficult to find in modern history. This is facilitated by the presence of a powerful military-industrial complex. It includes 24 nuclear industry enterprises, 12 final assembly enterprises of the rocket and space industry, nine final assembly aircraft factories, 14 factories for the production of armored vehicles (three tanks), 20 enterprises for the assembly of artillery equipment, more than 200 enterprises of the ammunition industry, 23 large shipyards for 736 repair and construction sites. The total number of enterprises is several thousand.

Over the years of reforms, the Chinese military-industrial complex has reached a qualitatively new level of development. It is capable of producing a significant amount of military equipment, taking first place in the world in the production of equipment and weapons of all classes. Today in China, more than 300 combat aircraft and helicopters are produced per year (about 150 of each), no less number of tanks, up to 30 submarines and surface combat ships and boats. In the production of almost all classes and types of equipment, China today surpasses all NATO countries combined, and in some (in particular, tanks) - all countries of the world combined. In this regard, the myth about the production of weapons in the PRC in “small batches” looks like an extremely unfortunate joke. If today the term “arms race” is applied to any country in the world, it is China. Old equipment is replaced with new ones on a one-to-one basis, and not one to four or one to ten, as in the West and Russia. Nevertheless, the myth of “small parties” is maintained with surprising tenacity. In particular, in many reference books, data on the number of Chinese equipment for some reason froze in 2005-2007, although it was in subsequent years that the pace of its production became especially high.

The quality gap is also a thing of the past. More precisely, it has ceased to be fundamental. Back in the late 90s, the PLA tank fleet, consisting of various “variations on the theme” of the T-55, really could not compete with either the Russian or the American. The quality gap between Chinese cars was so great that quantity played almost no role. Now the newest Chinese tanks Toure 96 and Toure 99 may be slightly inferior to the Abrams M1A2SEP, Leopard-2A6 or T-90S, but they are definitely no worse than the M1A1, Leopard-2A4 or T-72. This was confirmed in last year’s battles between Sudan and South Sudan, in which Sudanese Toure 96s knocked out several South Sudanese T-72s without losses on their part. Now the outcome of battles between Chinese tanks and Russian and Western ones will be determined not by quality, but by the tactical situation, the training of the crews and, very importantly, quantity. And it is in this that China has no equal. A slight lag in quality is now easily compensated by superiority in quantity. The situation is similar in aviation and in all other classes of technology.

We are very fond of retelling American publications that China is now developing its naval forces (Navy) as a priority. This is another myth. It’s just that the Americans obviously won’t fight China on land, which is why they pay attention to the fleet. In fact, China is developing everything as a priority. Its Navy is focused primarily on the war with the United States and Japan. Air Force - to war with anyone. And the ground forces are going to war with us. For example, on the latest Chinese BMP WZ-502G, the turret and front of the hull can withstand a hit from a 30-mm armor-piercing projectile from a distance of 1 kilometer, and the sides of the hull can withstand a hit from 14.5-mm ammunition from 200 meters. By an interesting coincidence, 30 millimeters is the caliber of the 2A42 cannon, which is the main armament of the Russian BMP-2. The American Bradley infantry fighting vehicle is equipped with a 25-mm M242 cannon. And 14.5 millimeters is generally a unique caliber. Only one machine gun in the world has it - our KPVT, the main weapon of all domestic armored personnel carriers. The maximum caliber of Western machine guns is 12.7 millimeters. This fact seems insignificant, but in fact it is significant.

All of these facts—China’s objective vital need for external expansion, territorial claims to everyone, an unprecedented arms race coupled with preparations for a nuclear war—can continue to be ignored. Only then don’t be surprised.

Now regarding the very widespread thesis in Russia that we need to be friends with China against the West. Firstly, China is not going to be friends with us in principle. Secondly, all Chinese problems, the solution to which is external expansion, arose within this country and have nothing to do with the West. Accordingly, contrasting relations with the West and with China is completely meaningless. That is, the nature of our relations with the West does not in any way affect the Chinese reality described above.

Regarding the equally widespread thesis that the West wants to pit us against China and “hide behind” Russia from it: we can say that, most likely, the situation is the opposite: the West sees China as a deterrent in relation to Russia. Just purely geographically and historical reasons They fear Russia incomparably more than China. In addition, China is now perceived as a reliable supplier of useful consumer goods, and Russia as an aggressive oil and gas blackmailer. Russia is demonized by the West much more than China. In particular, Russian military capabilities and intentions are constantly overestimated, while Chinese ones are underestimated. This should convince its own public opinion that Russia poses a threat, but not China. Since the West is categorically not ready to fight with Russia (not only to attack, but even to defend), it really wants to restrain us with China. And he will not disappoint expectations.

The question is not if China will attack Russia, but when. The author, deputy director of the Institute of Political and Military Analysis, believes: if large-scale military aggression in the “classical” form is ever committed against Russia, then with a 95% probability (if not 99.99%) the aggressor will be China

Alexander Khramchikhin

The HQ-7B anti-aircraft missile system is an unlicensed copy of the French Crotal air defense system.

120 mm self-propelled howitzer PLL-05. The main solutions were copied from the Russian 120 mm Nona-S installation

YJ-62A anti-ship missiles with a firing range of 280 km are a bogeyman for the US Pacific Fleet

Long-range MLRS PHL-03. Find five differences from the Smerch MLRS

DF-31A intercontinental ballistic missile. According to the CIA, it is capable of destroying a moving aircraft carrier at a distance of up to 12,000 km with the first hit. Not a single Russian missile is capable of this.

The ZBD-05 amphibious infantry fighting vehicle, designed for the Marine Corps, is a headache for Taiwan

Anti-aircraft missile and artillery complex PGZ-04A. The artillery unit was copied from the Italian SIDAM-25; the missile unit was based on the Soviet Igla-1 MANPADS.

But neither the United States nor Russia have this (we shortened them) - the DF-21C medium-range ballistic missile. In relation to Russia, these missiles are strategic - from Chinese territory they are capable of reaching almost all vital Russian facilities

The colossal overpopulation of this country, coupled with its rapid economic growth, creates a complex set of problems, a very brief description of which would require a large separate article. Moreover, the interconnection of these problems is such that solving some aggravates others. China is objectively unviable within its current borders. He must become much larger if he does not want to become much smaller. He cannot do without external expansion to seize resources and territories, this is the reality. You can close your eyes to her, but she won’t get away from it. In addition, there is no need to imagine that the main direction of China’s expansion will be Southeast Asia. There is quite a small territory and resources there, but there is a lot of local population. The opposite situation - a lot of territory, gigantic resources, very little population - exists in Kazakhstan and the Asian part of Russia. And this is where China's expansion will go. Moreover, the trans-Ural territories of the Russian Federation are considered to be theirs in China. Another long article could be devoted to a brief description of the relevant Chinese historical concepts. Only a person who has absolutely no idea what China and the Chinese are can consider that the border problem between the Russian Federation and the PRC has been resolved.

Of course, a peaceful form of expansion (economic and demographic) is preferable for China. But a military one is by no means excluded. It is extremely significant that in recent years the Chinese army has been conducting exercises that simply cannot be interpreted otherwise than as preparation for aggression against Russia, and the scale of the exercises (spatial scope and number of troops involved) is constantly growing.

At the same time, apparently, we still do not realize that we have long lost not only quantitative, but also qualitative superiority over China in military equipment. In Soviet times, we had both; this, as the “micro-war” for Damansky showed, compensated for China’s enormous superiority in manpower.

Karl stole corals from Clara

China lived for a very long time on what the USSR gave it in the 1950s and early 1960s. However, after the warming of relations with the West, he gained access to some samples of American and European equipment, and from the late 1980s he began to acquire the latest equipment in the USSR and then in Russia, thanks to this he “jumped” a generation in many classes. Moreover, China has always had an exceptional ability to steal technology. In the 1980s, Chinese intelligence even managed to obtain drawings from the United States of the latest W-88 warhead from the Trident-2 ballistic missile for submarines. And China steals conventional equipment in huge quantities.

For example, nothing is known about the fact that Russia sold the Smerch multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS) to the PRC, or even more so a license for their production. Nevertheless, first the Chinese army acquired the A-100 MLRS, very similar to the Smerch, and then the PHL-03 - its complete copy. The Toure 88 (PLZ-05) self-propelled artillery mount is very reminiscent of our Msta, which we again did not sell in China. We never sold China a license to produce the S-300 anti-aircraft missile system, which did not stop the Chinese from copying it under the name HQ-9. However, from the French, for example, the Crotal anti-aircraft missile system, the Exocet anti-ship missile, the M68 naval artillery mount, etc. were successfully stolen.

Synthesizing foreign technologies and adding something of their own, the Chinese military-industrial complex begins to create quite original models: the Toure 95 (PGZ-04) anti-aircraft missile and gun system, PLL-05 and PTL-02 self-propelled guns, ZBD-05 infantry fighting vehicles, etc.

Made in China

In general, as already mentioned, in almost all classes of conventional weapons, Russia’s qualitative superiority is a thing of the past. In some areas, China has even surpassed us - for example, in drones and small arms. The Chinese are gradually replacing Kalashnikovs with the latest automatic rifles, created according to the “bullpup” design based on both the same AK and Western rifles (FA MAS, L85).

Moreover, although some experts believe that China is technologically dependent on the Russian Federation as its main arms supplier (and therefore cannot attack us), this is a pure myth.

China acquired from Russia only those weapons that were intended for operations against Taiwan and the United States (while Beijing was seriously planning an operation to seize the island). It is obvious that a naval war between the PRC and the Russian Federation is practically impossible; neither side has a need for it. The war will be on the ground.

In this regard, it should be noted that the PRC did not acquire any equipment from Russia for its ground forces, since it is precisely this that will be used against Russia in the event of war.

Even in the area of ​​the Air Force, China has gotten rid of its dependence on the Russian Federation. He bought a limited number of Su-27 fighters from Russia - 76 in total, of which 40 were Su-27UB. From such a unique ratio of combat and combat training vehicles, it is quite obvious that Russian-made Su-27s were purchased for training flight personnel. Then, as is known, China abandoned licensed production of the Su-27 from Russian components, building only 105 of the planned 200 aircraft. At the same time, it copied this fighter and began its unlicensed production under the name J-11B with its own engines, weapons and avionics. Moreover, if in the 1960s China’s copying of Soviet designs was their deliberate primitivization, then the J-11B, judging by the available data, is practically no worse than the Su-27.

It may be noted that in Lately China's military-technical cooperation with Russia is being curtailed. This can be partly explained by the fact that the rapidly deteriorating Russian military-industrial complex is no longer able to offer China the weapons and equipment that it needs. Another explanation is that Beijing is seriously considering the possibility of conducting military operations against the Russian Armed Forces in the foreseeable future.

Since the J-11B is approximately equal in its tactical and technical characteristics to the Su-27, and the J-10, created on the basis of the Israeli Lavi, but using Russian and its own technologies, is quite comparable to the MiG-29, we do not have any qualitative superiority in the air . And quantitative superiority will obviously be on China’s side, especially considering the almost complete collapse of the Russian air defense system (primarily in the Far East). Regarding the Su-30, it will be generally overwhelming: China has more than 120 of them, we have 4. The main disadvantage of Chinese aviation is the lack of normal attack aircraft and attack helicopters, but this will not be a big problem for them, because on land the situation for Russia is even worse .

Mass effect

The best Chinese tanks - Toure 96 and Toure 99 (aka Toure 98G) - are practically no worse than our best tanks - T-72B, T-80U, T-90. Actually, they are all “close relatives”, so their performance characteristics are very close. At the same time, the leadership of the Russian Defense Ministry has already announced the actual liquidation of our tank forces. There should be 2000 tanks left for the whole of Russia. China already has about the same number of modern tanks. There are also much more numerous (at least 6000) old tanks (from Tour 59 to Tour 80), created on the basis of the T-54. They are quite effective in the fight against infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, as well as for creating a “mass effect.” It is likely that these are the vehicles that the PLA command will use for the first strike. They will still inflict some losses on us, and most importantly, they will distract our anti-tank weapons, after which the depleted and weakened defense will be attacked using modern equipment. By the way, in the air a similar “mass effect” can be created by old fighters of the J-7 and J-8 types.

That is, in terms of modern weapons, the Russian Armed Forces and the Chinese Army are now approximately equal (qualitative and quantitative), which is confidently (and not very slowly) turning into an advantage for the Chinese Army. Moreover, the latter has a huge “canopy” of old, but still quite “good” samples, which are perfect as “consumable” material for wearing out the defense of Russian troops. Due to the presence of such a unique problem in China as the “shortage of brides,” the loss of several hundred thousand young males for the Chinese leadership seems to be not only a problem, but a blessing. And the “disposal” of several thousand units of obsolete armored vehicles in battle is certainly not a problem.

Already, only two of the seven military districts of the Chinese army - Beijing and Shenyang, adjacent to the border with Russia - are stronger than all the Russian Armed Forces (from Kaliningrad to Kamchatka). And in the potential theater of military operations (Transbaikalia and the Far East), the forces of the parties are simply incomparable, China is superior to us not even several times, but tens of times. At the same time, the transfer of troops from the west in the event of a real war will be practically impossible, since Chinese saboteurs are guaranteed to cut the Trans-Siberian Railway in many places along its entire length, and we have no other communications with the east (by air you can transport people, but not heavy equipment) .

Our tanks are not fast

At the same time, in terms of combat training, especially in units and formations equipped with the most modern equipment, the Chinese army has long surpassed us. Thus, in the 38th Army of the Beijing Military District, the artillery is fully automated; it is still inferior in accuracy to the American one, but has already surpassed the Russian one. The rate of advance of the 38th Army reaches 1000 km per week (150 km per day).

Accordingly, we have no chance in a conventional war. Unfortunately, nuclear weapons do not guarantee salvation, because China also has them. Yes, we still have superiority in strategic nuclear forces, but they are rapidly declining. At the same time, we do not have medium-range ballistic missiles, while China does have them, which almost eliminates their gap in intercontinental ballistic missiles (which is also shrinking). The ratio of tactical nuclear weapons is unknown, but we must understand that we will have to use them on our own territory. As for the exchange of strikes of strategic nuclear forces, the Chinese potential is more than enough to destroy the main cities of European Russia, which they do not need (there are many people and few resources). There are very strong suspicions that, understanding this, the Kremlin will not agree to use nuclear weapons. Therefore, nuclear deterrence against China is as much a myth as its technological dependence on us. Learn Chinese.

There is a fairly persistent horror story among many people that China poses a threat to Russia in the military sphere. And it necessarily implies that China’s victory is a foregone conclusion, and Russia has no chance. Is it so? Let's find out.

Let us note right away that in this article we will consider a hypothetical MILITARY conflict between the Russian Federation and the PRC; little time will be devoted to the economic and political consequences of such a war.

What troops do we have in the Far East? There are 4 armies there, with a total strength of 10 brigades (4.5 thousand soldiers each), and among the combined arms formations there are 2 artillery, 1 rocket-artillery and 2 missile brigades. Is it a lot or a little?

Before the military reform in 2008, the Far East was guarded by approximately 9 reduced-strength divisions, no more than 3 thousand people each. As we see, to this day, the Eastern Military District has been strengthened quantitatively and qualitatively. In addition, 12 military equipment storage and repair bases (SMRVT) are concentrated here. So, in case of danger, you can deploy several more reserve brigades as quickly as possible (2 weeks).

The Chinese population of 2.7 million is not as significant as it seems. Of these, only 1.5 million serve in the PLA, of which only 850 thousand are ground forces. The rest are militia, which we’ll talk about later. There are two Chinese military districts serving on the Russian-Chinese border - Shenyang and Beijing. Each of them has 3 armies. Shenyang Military District (16th, 39th and 40th armies) has a mechanized division, 3 tank, 5 mechanized, 6 motorized infantry and 3 artillery brigades. The Beijing Military District (38th, 27th and 65th armies) has 1 tank and 3 mechanized divisions, 2 tank, 3 mechanized, 3 motorized infantry and 3 artillery divisions. In total we get - 1 tank, 4 mechanized divisions, 5 tank, 8 mechanized, 9 motorized infantry and 6 artillery brigades. The Chinese mechanized division consists of 11-13 thousand people and has 3 tank and 3 mechanized regiments. It turns out that one Chinese division is approximately equal to 3 Russian brigades. As a result, Chinese forces have a numerical superiority of 3-4 times. However, it does not mean quality. The Chinese army has an important feature - all forces are divided into the so-called “quick reaction forces” and territorial defense forces. First, this is the army in the usual sense. They have the best training, equipment and weapons. But there are very few such forces in China. They are used for attack. The bulk of the PRC army consists of defense forces (the so-called “People's Armed Militia of China”) - they are used ONLY for the defense of the entrusted area of ​​territory, and are not suitable for a complete attack. Why? Because such units receive training and weapons on a residual basis, the equipment is outdated, but most importantly, they are always not fully mechanized. In other words, even if you want to use them for an attack, it will be difficult to do so, because unlike the Russian Army, where all units have a 100% supply of vehicles, the “defense forces” have 50%, 40%, and even 10% provision of vehicles. means, and they simply will not be able to arrive on time on the battlefield. For reference, the US and USSR armies solved the problem of mechanization and motorization of their armies back in the 1950s and 1960s. Here is the plate of mechanization in the PLA. We are interested in the 16th, 27th and 38th, 39th, 40th and 65th armies. The percentage of mechanization is in the far right column

As you can see, even in armies theoretically directed against the Russian Federation, the level of equipment of armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles is not absolute.

IN modern world incomplete mechanization of troops looks simply wild. In addition, due to more accurate artillery and aviation, as well as the increased speed of units of all troops, the army was even more significant before the war than in the era of World War II. In other words, one cannot rely on mobilization as an effective tool for waging war (here we are talking about the mobilization of 5-10 million people). In modern conditions, both Russia and China will be able to mobilize no more than 500 thousand people each. Why? Because since World War II, the strength of armored vehicles has increased. If it was possible to hit a tank in the Great Patriotic War with a grenade, today it is very difficult. The fight against armored vehicles in the modern world is carried out by grenade launchers and ATGM operators. A modern infantry squad is not a dozen machine gunners/riflemen, as it used to be. These are grenade launchers, an ATGM operator, a sniper, and an anti-aircraft gunner. In addition, creating equipment for a modern fighter takes much more time and resources.

Here is an example of how a British soldier's equipment changed over time. The pictures show samples of infantry equipment from 1645, 1854, 1916, 1944, 1982 and 2014 in chronological order.

Although the equipment of soldiers performing different tasks in battle is shown, it shows well how the soldier's equipment has evolved. What else can these pictures tell us? And the fact that it is many times more expensive (and many times longer) to produce modern equipment for 1 million people than in the era of World War II. This means that the role of mobilization is no longer so important - well, it is impossible today to produce equipment for several million soldiers per month, quarter or year. The situation is approximately the same with armored vehicles. A modern tank has many times more parts, and it is unrealistic to produce a tank battalion per day (as in World War II) with 2014 technologies . This means that there is no question of any mass production of tanks and there will be nothing to arm millions of conscripts with.

Why was all this information given? To show that the stories about the fact that the PRC can mobilize 10, 20, 50 and 100 million people are amazing tales. In many units of the main army of the PRC there is not complete mechanization - if China cannot provide transport for 2 million people (armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles - and by the way, not all of them are modern), then he will not be able to provide at least another 1 million conscripts. And what should we equip Chinese conscripts with? Light small arms may be enough, but they need to be given body armor, unloading systems, grenade launchers, ATGMs, etc. Without all this, the value of such conscripts is zero. In addition, conscripts, unlike the regular army, are not so psychologically stable and are more susceptible to panic. For example, during the war in South Ossetia, Georgia began mobilizing 100 thousand people, some of those mobilized went to the front. And it only got worse - these units not only could not defend their areas of the terrain, but also infected other allied formations with their panic. As a result, this resulted in a panicked flight of the main Georgian army.

It is worth understanding that the strength of the army directly depends on its supplies. And here the PLA has new problems. The Far East lacks infrastructure capable of supporting a million-strong Chinese army, thereby making it difficult to exploit numerical superiority. The lack of infrastructure coexists with impenetrable ancient forests. You can't drag armored vehicles through the forest. And if this succeeds, without supplies this formation will quickly lose its combat readiness. This means that despite the enormous distance Far East, the PLA won’t have many directions for attack, and all of them can be predicted in advance - there are no deserts here, so you can’t easily bypass a fortified point (in strategic terms, of course). However, Khabarovsk and Vladivostok are located near the border, and it will be extremely difficult to hold them.

The most powerful navy, ground forces and air force in the world. The armed forces of the United States, China and Russia appear throughout.

According to the magazine, the strongest navies are the USA, China, Russia, Great Britain and Japan. As the author of the article notes Kyle Mizokami, Russia takes third place because the basis of its current Navy is still made up of Soviet ships, and the construction of new ones and their adoption into service is proceeding rather slowly.

The list of the best ground forces includes the USA, China, India, Russia and the UK. The publication predictably considers the American ground forces with a strength of 535 thousand people to be the strongest. The Chinese People's Liberation Army infantry, in turn, boasts a strength of 1.6 million troops. The Indian Army, with 1.12 million troops, is sandwiched between traditional competitors Pakistan and China, and has to constantly prove its ability to defend long territorial borders. The ground forces of the Russian Armed Forces are currently receiving new modern weapons - they are quite well equipped and fully mechanized, and most importantly, they have solid combat experience. The strength of the Russian Army reaches 285 thousand people - half of the US Army, the article says. The author of the material also emphasizes that the Armata universal combat platform will soon enter service with the Russian army, which will be able to perform the functions of a tank, infantry fighting vehicle and artillery.

National Interest included only four countries in the ranking of the best air forces on the planet - the USA, Russia, China and Japan. At the same time, Mizokami included in the list not only the American Air Force, but also the Navy and Marine Corps. The US Air Force has 5.6 thousand aircraft, and the Navy has an aircraft fleet of 3.7 thousand aircraft.

As NI writes, Russia's Aerospace Forces include 1,500 combat aircraft and 400 military helicopters. Despite the fact that the aircraft fleet lacks the old MiG-29, Su-27 and MiG-31, Russian aviation has entered a period of sustainable modernization. One example is the Su-35, which combines the best qualities. In addition, the Russian military is currently working on the fifth-generation T-50 fighter and the new PAK-DA strategic bomber.

“The NI ranking of the world’s strongest fleets suggests that China has recently rapidly implemented programs to create and update its navy, which is currently assessed as a force capable of conducting operations far from its shores and resisting the United States,” says a military expert, head of the department Eurasian integration and development of the SCO Institute of CIS countries Vladimir Evseev. - Yes, indeed - new submarines and surface ships - destroyers and frigates, are being built in series. The Chinese submarine fleet is generally the largest in the world - it consists of more than 70 diesel and nuclear submarines.

However, the Russian Navy has superiority in submarines in terms of long-range anti-ship missiles and the sophistication of submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) ​​that can hit any part of the globe. By the way, according to this indicator, the American Trident-2 D5 SLBMs with a maximum firing range with a full load of 7800 km, which are equipped with British Vanguard-class SSBNs, are superior to Chinese missiles. In addition, the Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning (Soviet Varyag) can hardly be called a full-fledged combat unit - based on a combination of factors, it can effectively carry out missions only in coastal areas. But two Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers are still being built for the British Navy.

— Here, I would still put Russia in second place - in terms of combat and technical indicators, in terms of the possibility of information support. In my opinion, only the United States and Russia can fight in real time now. In addition, China lags behind Russia in precision weapons. Yes, the PLA Ground Forces are armed with missiles that can be equipped with both nuclear and conventional warheads, but the accuracy of domestic weapons systems is an order of magnitude higher.

The size of the army is an important indicator, but far from the main one; it is compensated by the use of tactical nuclear weapons (TNW), of which the Russian army has quite a lot. In addition, let us pay attention to the effectiveness of the combat use of forces and means, the ability to conduct fighting in different conditions, as well as the presence of combat experience. In this regard, for example, the Chinese and Indians are inferior to the British.

Regarding the BBC rating, I probably agree with the expert of the American publication. Still, the PLA Air Force, despite a huge leap forward, has problems with engine building, with transport aircraft, tankers, as well as with strategic aviation, because the Chinese “strategists” N-6 are a copy of the Soviet Tu-16. Japan's position in this "air" ranking is controversial: its air force is technically well equipped, but in terms of numbers it can hardly claim fourth place.

“Strategist” of the PLA Air Force Xian HY-6 (Photo: ru.wikipedia.org)

“Without taking into account nuclear weapons, the list of countries by naval strength is compiled correctly,” believes military historian Alexander Shirokorad. — But in general, in terms of the number of pennants, China has the largest fleet, which has a lot of small ships in service. As for the ground forces, Russia is in second place in terms of their numbers, firepower and tactical nuclear weapons.

But there is such a concept Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy as "spirit in the troops." According to this indicator, I would put the Japanese, Chinese and Israelis ahead, and only then the Russians (by the way, the largest army in the world - the Chinese - still mainly consists of contract soldiers, and with great competition for places). The morale of Americans, despite the huge number of conflicts in which the United States has been involved all these years, leaves much to be desired. They are accustomed to the fact that locals are fighting at the forefront, as was the case in Afghanistan, as well as to complete superiority over the enemy in the sky and on the ground - in artillery. Of course, the United States has motivated and strong special forces units, but this is not enough in a combined arms battle. True, the United States has a National Guard - an active reserve of the US Armed Forces, which is also involved in foreign operations.

“In my opinion, in the ranking of the Navy, the first place without question should be occupied by the United States, second by China, third by Japan, fourth by South Korea and fifth by Russia,” he believes Deputy Director of the Institute of Political and Military Analysis Alexander Khramchikhin. — I take into account the fleet as such; the naval component of the strategic nuclear forces is a separate story.

Formally, the Russian fleet can even be placed in second place, but due to the geographical location of the country, our Navy is scattered across several theaters of military operations (TVD), which are not connected to each other at all. It is theoretically possible for ships of small displacement to transit between European fleets along inland waterways, and then only theoretically. By the way, the Indian Navy can even compete with the South Korean fleet (the most powerful non-aircraft carrier surface ships are South Korean destroyers), but the UK is not even in the top ten here. The British Navy has not ruled the seas for a long time. Britain's military capabilities as a whole have declined significantly in recent years. But, in principle, this is a normal state that fits into the pan-European trend of general and complete disarmament.

“SP”: — In terms of ground forces, Great Britain’s fifth place in the NI ranking also looks strained, if you do not take individual special forces units...

“I think that today the British ground forces are not even among the thirty strongest. The United States is in first place here, Russia and China share second and third place, and India should be in fourth place. I would give fifth and sixth places to South Korea and the DPRK, and seventh to Israel. The ground forces of the North Atlantic Alliance are generally a mythical thing, in which only American and Turkish troops are real.

As for the Air Force, second or third place is again shared by the Russian Federation and China (the PLA Air Force is second in terms of the number of combat aircraft, but third in terms of quality), and fourth is India. It’s unclear what Japan has to do with this: the basis of its aircraft fleet is the F-15, and, probably, it can only be placed at the bottom of the top ten. India, despite some of its aircraft being outdated and being taken out of service, has a huge air force, which is probably larger in number than even the Russian Aerospace Forces.

F-15 fighters (Photo: Zuma/TASS)

I note that North and South Korea should be in the top ten for all types of armed forces. Of course, the DPRK has a rather specific fleet - “mosquito”, however, it cannot be called weak.