It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What makes a world-class military?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 01:44 PM
Now, for me to justify why a Navy has to be good you need to look at the roles a Navy has to play and the types of ships it uses to do this:
Beach invasion, support, ability to launch air attacks during coastal invasions, protection or destruction or cargo ships, ability to control the sea and espionage.
Amphibs, Battleships, Carriers, Cruisers, Destroyers and Submarines.
(If I missed any out, let me know.) - Brief read over that, although I think it’s a very bias document.

Beach Invasion, at the present moment China’s lagging behind in its ability to invade on a beach without a decent Amphibious landing craft such as the LCAC of America (designed by Textron Marine and Land System) or the Russian Zubr. But, with the fact Russia are willing to sell the Zubr ( as they did to Greece) and the fact China’s pumping money into Hovercraft and the situation with Taiwan, this will be overcome shortly. (I’ve seen a document saying they’ve ordered some already from Russia, but can’t find it again.)

Support and the ability to protect other ‘valuable’ crafts, from either Air, Sea or Missile attacks. Now, at the moment China’s slightly lagging behind in this area. But, they’ve got plans to buy more Russian ships and increase their own fleet of Battleships and Carriers - although, at present their air force is somewhat lacking. (But, I see this changing within 5 to 10years.)

They have also purchased at least 1 Russian Aircraft Carrier and have been having talks with France and Russia about them building several carriers for the PLAN. This would greatly increase their ability to attack using their air force while at sea, although at the moment this is only a slight problem.

Now, where I think they hold a lot of strength is with their submarine fleet. Although, they’re not yet the leading designers of submarines the new Type 093 and Type 094, are pushing this advancement forward. With it claimed to be as quiet as leading American submarines and from what I’ve heard and seen, able to carry ‘shipwrecker missiles’ and within time able to conduct tapping of underwater phone lines, etc, like the new Jimmy Carter submarine. These newer submarines, will also make it possible to force dominance over shipping lanes and make it awkward for an attack to be launched upon China - which is their primary role. (If you believe the PLA.)

But, the reason I think China has a good Navy is not because of the ships they have or their Air Force, but is the way in which they conduct research, outsource, import and then advance and also the fact they seem to meet the deadlines they set, unlike a lot of other Countries. For example, they will buy a Russian ship, say one of the outdated 1980’s line, go through the good and bad points, buy another more modern one and do the same again - then outsource somewhere like Russia to build it for them, then once they have it fix any problems they find with the ships and set it to sail.

This process can greatly advance the ships the Chinese get, as they use both outside and internal technology - a lot of which we don’t know much about. So, personally I see their Navy as good because they are working to advancing it when America, Russia, etc are cutting budgets to their Navy. This coupled with China’s new found military spending (although not much at present, but it’s growing.) will help them boost their Navy which they see as central to their armed forces. - some links worth reading.

posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 01:11 PM
A thesis that describes what I think is needed would go as.
"A military capable of of producing weapons within 1 generation of the best out there, also capable of winning a war against and equal opponent(1) and capable of turning said country into a friendly one."

This would mean that you have to have both good tech, numbers and will power, but also the logistics and diplomacy to support it. The diplomatic aspect of war is often overlooked to the detriment of said person. There were thousands of Ukranians who wanted to fight Stalin in WWII, but were mostly disregarded and soon found that Hitler was as bad if not worse. On the other hand we won the war in Afganistan quickly because we managed to get the Northern Allience on side. This is also a reference to your post-war clean up abilities where your priorities are to get things into a sort of working order, make all occupied territories friendly and finnally get out. This seems to be the growing weakness of the U.S. who have repetedly failed to bring the people on side after the war is done, at best they manage to install a friendly goverment, which only delays and worsens their feelings towards the U.S. Now other countries have not been nearly as prolific in their own adventures and as such don't really compare in this catagory.

One important thing that I forgot to mention, one dosen't have to be strong, just capable in naval power if they have the geographical position to support it. This means having all essential resources in sufficient amounts within their soverign borders and are capable of taking conquering as much landmass as they currently control(with equal value) before running into water. This makes Russia and obvious contender, while the U.S., China and E.U. needs to import important resources, namely oil. For China this is enough to knock them off the list, if they were to go to war they simply wouldn't be able to support it without alliences to resource producing nations who are on their borders, namely Russia.

With this I would rate the following as world class militaries.
1. U.S.
2. E.U.
3. Russia
Now China in particular lags behind in technology and only barely meets the qualifications for this catagory because bought equipment dosen't count, only what they are able to produce themselves. Russia lags behind in its ability to support its troops, mainly due to their economic conditions. Honorable mentions ought to go toChina, India and Israel for their militaries which are as capable as a world-class one, but with key compenents being bought abroad.

(1)- if they win an important battle can they take advantage of it, afford to go on, support their troops logistically)

[edit on 3-3-2005 by Amur Tiger]

posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 01:27 PM

Actually, China's not as dependent on oil imports as you'd expect. IT also has a large source of coal and other natural resources, compaired to a lot of other nations.

AS for the list of Superpowers, I'd say China rests safely on it - in my view. It has a lot of loyalty, within its people. More so then people expect. and if you read that, it'd seem that America even imports oil from China.

posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 02:29 PM
I think good training, and a military that does not always get in to a certain routine and learns how to do amazing things just not the regular things a system was meant for. Also good technology helps also.

posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 07:47 AM
Training has to come into any Armed Forces. You can have all the soldiers, planes, helicopters, etc, but if they can't understand the basics they just become 'cannon fodder'.

posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 04:03 PM

Actually, China's not as dependent on oil imports as you'd expect. IT also has a large source of coal and other natural resources, compaired to a lot of other nations.

If I remeber correctly a good chunk of that is in the South China sea which it would have difficulty protecting, oil rigs have got to be the most vulnerable thing out there. Coal can't run tanks either so.......
I may be wrong about the oil but I know that it imports a lot of concrete, steel and the like. It's one of the things holding the American economy down, high natural reasource prices due to high demand from China.

posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 04:06 PM
That's why China's pushing its submarine fleet - to protect that oil.

Also, it might not power tanks, etc, but coal, other natural resources can be used in power stations, etc, instead of oil.

Soon China will be changing to a lot more 'natural methods' of 'power production', such as solar, wind and water. They have the space to be able to power the nation without coal, oil, etc. This will in turn lower their dependence on oil. As well as the major transport reforms, making it better to use public instead of private. Again, lowering need for oil.

10 years, they'll need a hell of a lot more then they do now.

Edit: Japan 18%, Taiwan 11.9%, South Korea 10.4%, US 8.2%, Germany 5.9% (2003)

8.2% isn't much. I'm sure Russia and Europe would be willing to fill this void, if China tried to import from another region.

[edit on 6-3-2005 by Odium]

posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 08:28 PM

Hmm, what's a "world class army"?. The poor Viet Cong defeated a rich super power. The poor mujaheddin defeated the USSR, another superpower. So no, the amount of money (or level of technology) is not the single determinant to become "world class".

From the ancient times (e.g. Alexander, Hannibal, Sun Tzu etc.) great generals and strategists already knew that morale (i.e. the will to fight) makes men and armies great (world class) and that, the will to fight, is the basic: everything else comes afther that. So, in essential, every enemy who has the will to fight can become a world class opponent - see the insurgents in Iraq? It is the task of a commander to break the morale (will to fight) of the enemy.

With regard to your second question, I believe many countries can defeat the USA given certain parameters of the theatre.

Edit: oh lol I just read the reply from rapier28, he already have said what I am saying.


[edit on 6-3-2005 by Blobber]

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in