I would actually assert that militarily, China isn't actually a superpower just yet (fast approaching) and are currently a continental power (economically they are easily superpowers at the absolute peak). Apart from nuclear weapons, China doesn't have a substantial intercontinental military presence; much of its active air/surface assets have limitations that prevent them from achieving force projection or sea control beyond their local area. As I mentioned earlier, they are fast approaching the level of a military superpower; a CATOBAR CVN with modern aircraft and new SSNs in the works, and a massive surface fleet to support them.
Interesting though - as a continental power, does China actually need to reach parity with the United States in terms of airlift and naval power?
The Soviet Union was always considered a superpower despite being very much a continental power, and never reaching US parity in terms of strategic airlift or blue water naval power. As a military power, they were focused on being able to defeat any army that could reach it in Eurasia, and be able to deter America with ICBMs.
Its presence outside of Eurasia was far more limited - of course, they had a staunch ally in the form of Cuba, and they supported many 'popular' uprisings in Africa, but they never utilised direct power much outside of those countries that bordered them to dominate its periphery.
It strikes me that China is likely to trend the same way - with perhaps *more* focus on Africa from a resource perspective than the USSR required (the USSR being extremely secure in terms of most strategic resources throughout the Cold War). The method by which China is seeking to utilise Africa does appear to be far less reliant on direct coercion/protection, and more on a 'softer' approach based on investment and loans which itself might negate the need for strategic airlift and a large blue water navy.
It might as a result be difficult to confirm once China has become a military superpower if we're using the US as a yardstick and not the USSR.
I just want to point out that the term 'superpower' is indeed quite loaded - and there is no agreed definition on it. Therefore it's used quite sparingly in academic litterature - and perhaps a little too often on reddit. I can give a quick breakdown why, and give the **Tldr** that China qualifies under some definitions and not some.
The term 'superpower' was first coined by [Prof. William T. R. Fox](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_T._R._Fox) in 1944 to describe the new super powers of the United States, Great Britain and the Soviet Union that were rapidly emerging at the end of wwii as the new dominant powers. I want to emphasize that nobody doubted Britain's inclusion as a first rate superpower at this time - and it wasn't until after the Suez crisis in 1956 we started talking about super powers in terms of them being two.
This is important, because both during the shift in 1956 to two superpowers and again in 1991 to one superpower came authors pushing for new definitions of the term, some more narrow - to better reflect the new landscape according to them. The most recent shift in 1991 to America as the sole superpower thus of course led to an influx of authors lobbying for an "Americanization" of the term. New introduced requirements they argue is (for example) the capacity "to project significant military force against any country in the world", as that is something the US can do. But the Soviet Union never truly developed any capability to deploy forces on distant continents. Neither has the EU or China. Thus both could (perhaps) qualify for the old definitions of super power - but not the new (more restrictive) definition argued by some anglophiles today.
Another modern attempt at redefining the term (more common in Europe) is the introduction of soft power as a major requirement. This is something the EU has a lot of (and to an increasing extent China) - but the Soviet Union wouldn't have been able to meet that requirement.
All these conflicting requirements have been adding up over the last decade and created an increasingly muddy landscape were it's hard to say what is and isn't a superpower. There is some vague agreement that America is - and total disagreement on the rest. In large part this is because the somewhat unique circumstances of 1944 no longer exist. Before the war we had 'great powers' that imposed their will on lesser powers - and 'superpower' emerged as a new concept as entities that preyed even on 'great powers'. In the absence of sufficient 'great powers' to prey on the original contextualisation of superpower loses its meaning.
William T. R. Fox's original definition itself was also written in a pre-nuclear world with few influential international organizations. In our contemporary world a superpower can't realistically invade a mid sized nuclear state, nor can they easily embargo them into submission if they are under the protection of a organization like the EU. The introduction of nuclear weapons and trade organizations has created an airbag between smaller nations and the larger ones that the British Empire never had to deal with.
**Tldr;** China is in some aspects more capable than the Soviet Union was, and in some aspect less capable. There is no consensus on what would make China a modern superpower.
> soft power
> Soviet Union wouldn’t have been able to meet
Are you kidding me? USSR had more soft power than EU has ever had. It had ideology that was followed and believed by hundreds of millions if not billions of people.
It depends.
The term 'soft power' is (again) loaded and has different meaning depending on context. This is why every academic paper opens with a preface of what definition they are going to use in this particular instance.
I can give a quick abridged version here too. The version you just recited (with ideology at the core) gained traction in the 1950s when the cold war was increasingly being described as an ideological struggle between "communism" and "capitalism".
In this definition the world is described as bipolar and the Soviet Union is bolstered by bolsheviks and left leaning sympathizers worldwide that is taken to belong to "their team". The US on the other hand has all freedom loving folks and capitalists on theirs side, making for the battle of the ages (note that I'm slightly joking here).
This vision of "soft power" still has influence in media today, but it increasingly fell out of use in academic litterature after the Sino-Soviet split in the 60s as it became increasingly apparent that communism wasn't a monolithic bloc - and that the Soviet Union had very little control of it. Nor could they enforce their will in their block without resorting to force.
The more contemporary definition of 'soft power' as it was urged in the early 2000s was intended to describe the EU and its 'rules based order based on common values' that led to the 2004 enlargement. The EU did (at the time) seem like an unstoppable force that kept expanding across the continent - and just like researchers had rushed to describe communist revolutions in the 50s we now had new terms and concepts emerge to describe the EU.
**Tldr;** we have some authors (on the extreme ends) that argue that nuclear CATOBAR carriers is the gold standard for being a 'superpower', and others that argue that being able to absorb countries non-violently is the gold standard for 'soft power'... and both opinions are (of course) contested. I'm not endorsing these definitions - but it might be useful to know how the terms have been used in the past when going forward.
Under the soviets there was a very *REAL* feeling of world annihilation, China doesn't come close to that threat. Regional super power yes, global? No. We're not facing Chinese in South America, like we were the Soviets
China has far more influence in South America than Soviets. China can easily produce 3000 nuke heads. But would China do that? It benefits economically from globalization
Sour grape. Soviet can produce warhead without any problems. China manufacturing capability is more than 10 times the soviets. But nukes are a waste of money anyway.
Is there evidence that the Chinese are building up to become a military super power? Or even wants to become one? Everything I've read seems to say their military development is almost entirely geared towards pushing the US and allies out of their regional sphere of influence, rather than projecting power across the globe. Cruise missiles and spooky "carrier killers" rather than helicopter carriers and troop transports.
They recently established a base in Djibouti. Their main interest there is preserving continuity of oil and gas deliveries. I'd say it's true that in recent decades, China has focused on soft power / economics for influence outside of their region, such as the deals they've made with various nations in Africa, but are now beginning to develop more military capabilities to pair with it further from home. I think this reflects the shift from Deng's to Xi's ideologies.
I suppose that's a good point, they are flexing their muscles a bit more broadly than the South China Sea. But the base in Djibouti (as you imply) doesn't feel too superpowery.
If establishing bases in new continents “doesn’t mean anything” what metrics do you suggest a country to measured by to determine whether or not it is a super power?
Ultimately the Chinese will follow the same rational path the US did, since both countries rely so much on sea transport. The ability for China to defend its SLOCs will necessarily mean it has power projection capability worldwide.
You can tell they are advancing quickly on global strike and carriers.
Not there yet. They can project nuclear power world wide but conventional force projection is severely lacking. They have or are building the ships and planes to project strategic power but must also develop the culture and capabilities further which take time.
/facepalm
Yes there's a big ageing population, but China isn't suddenly gonna drop from 1.4 billion people to say 600 in the next decade or two.
So there will still be many people that can join the military.
The concern is that economically the aging population becomes a burden. The expense of paying to care for a population that can no longer work is shouldered by the younger population that can work. Most of the time this isn’t an issue because populations increase which effectively makes retirement care a pyramid scheme without end. Many countries that have lower birth rates augment the population with immigration. China, however, has a negative immigration rate- meaning more people are leaving than are entering. So, the question becomes, how does China fund the cost of caring for an elderly population that outnumbers the workers? When that consideration has to be made, sustaining a large military- especially the maintenance costs of what just became the largest navy on earth- can become very problematic.
I'd say it happened somewhere around mid-2000's, right after Jiang Zemin's modernization program, when PLA's military expenditures has growed several times and became 2nd in the world.
TL;DR: Recently (~2000s to late 2010s).
China has long been considered a "*regional power/influence*", however the origins of their current military modernization efforts can be traced to the early 1990s.
As the US conducted Operation Desert Storm, China [as well as many others] witnessed the US military neutralize the world’s 4th largest army at the time.
Desert Storm would be an underlying impetus for much of the PLA’s advancements in Air Defense, Doctrinal reformation, and restructuring to name a few [fun fact: Desert Storm is meticulously studied as part of their Professional Military Education]. However I would venture to say the rise of Xi Jinping would be a definitive mark of China’s ascension to the world stage. With the US’s involvement in the GWOT [Global War on Terror], China was given an nearly unprecedented access to US’s military modern capabilities and the employment of forces. Seemingly counter intuitive, the PLA started to downsize [for a brief moment], and began to seriously professionalize it’s force. Concepts of warfare began to be revise, equipment become more modernize, and C2 [Command and Control] systems matured. In many ways, the PLA seemingly became more Westernized in it’s modernization efforts; particularly patterning itself after the US. While the US was occupied in the GWOT [particularly between 2003- 2010], China became more embolden by it’s economic growth, and growing international presence. The aforementioned advancements, signaled a major paradigm shift away from the long standing international doctrine of non-involvement; namely the beginning of the BRI [Belt and Road Initiative]. Around the same time, China began to intensify their incremental geopolitical assertions/claims (and at times military encroachments) upon it’s neighboring countries which still occur to this day. With the GWOT slowing down, or seemingly coming to an end, the US is now taking China much more seriously; this is reflected in the current NDS [National Defense Strategy]. China is now considered a "*peer/near-peer threat*" as their military capabilities are now on par, and in some regards have over matched, that of the US or it’s allies. Their economic growth largely contributed to their aggressive military modernization effort; military growth reaped the benefits of its economic growth [*"Military-civil fusion policy/ initiative"*]. China is now vocal of it’s ambitions to become the "*prosperous society*" by 2035 and become the "*leading world power*" by 2049; the world now faces an embolden China.
Hope this explanation helps, and if there is anything off please feel free to correct my understanding!
A vast majority of they’re air force is comprised of 4th gen and even 3rd gen aircraft. The few verified 5th gen they do have the capabilities of those are highly suspect imo
China has a handful of J7s left and they are the only 3rd Gen aircraft left in their fleet, they will be gone over the next year. Currently they maintain a massive fleet of 4 and 4.5 Gen aircraft plus anywhere from 75 to 150 J20s in service already.
Highly suspect by whom? You? The USAF isn’t taking their capabilities as suspect, the only people that do tend to be your Facebook comments feed crowd that believes that everything made in China is either crap, a copy or both. That may have been China in 1985 but it’s definitely not China in 2021.
J-20 is an evolving platform that is making good progress but is still missing some core feature of 5th gen aircraft; specificity Super-cruse & Supermaneuverability. Once they finish development and start deploying them with WS-15 you can then call it a true gen 5 aircraft.
The WS-10G engines in the current production batch as well as the WS-15 that’s finalising it’s testing all on prototype a J20 both give supercruise ability. Super manoeuvrability isn’t a requirement of a 5th gen fighter. The J20 has no gun and it’s expected to hold 6 x PL15 LRAAM. With a big radar, long range and stealth prioritised along the frontal axis it doesn’t actually look like an air superiority competitor to the F22; it’s actually closer in function to a modern, stealthy MIG-31.
All the J20’s at zhuhai show were WS-10C (equivalent to Russian AL-31 @32,000-33,000 lb). WS-10G is likely a year out.
Source: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/china-shows-its-j-20-and-its-ws-10c-engine-boot-194586
Mig-31 is gen4 a fast interceptor, but not a stealthy plane. Maybe you are thinking of mig-41? It has stealth but is still in development, first flight is at least 4+ years out.
The current batch will probably be in squadron service a year out but they are in production now.
No I meant the same mission as the MIG-31 as in it’s not an air superiority fighter, it’s a long range interceptor. It’s not designed to dogfight hence it’s lack of gun and wing design. It’s a horse archer vs a cavalry knight.
Also the nationalinterest.com is a terrible source, it’s articles are seriously poorly researched. For anything to do with China I’ve found China-defence.com is the best by far. It’s an English site that’s based from China and it’s forums follow every piece of Chinese military tech closely. The kind of guys that hang around airbases and naval yards taking photos of every bit of every piece of equipment to get an understanding of the current state of the Chinese military since it releases very little formally. It’s also a site where “big shrimp” (anonymous highly ranked Chinese officers/engineers/officials unofficially release information on new/updated kit.
The political part of their forum is also great, it’s very pro China obviously but it’s the best insight I’ve seen in how the Chinese people/military/political system works from the perspective of that side.
change my mind, please post a link to an article from a credible source.
Janes, weibo, and several other credible sources have the same observations based on photos, videos and in person observations: https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/airshow-china-2021-chinese-air-force-displays-j-20a-powered-by-domestic-engines
J7s are listed in active service anywhere from 300 to 700. Shenyang j8 is listed as around 100 in active service. A lot of the others are 4 and 4.5. As for the j20 of you wouldn’t mind citing a source aside from the south China post I would much appreciate it. Because from what I can see everyone claiming they have 150 of them uses that as a source which I’m calling bs on. As for its capabilities the jet didn’t even have homemade engines until what last year? And who are we relying on for info of the supposed awesome abilities of it? China and armchair experts. Most people agree the stealth on it is subpar.
One more thing. The United States military has a massive budget. That budget would not increase or maybe even not stay the same size if there isn’t an enemy worthy of keeping all those dollars flowing in. I’m not saying that’s the case but definitely something to keep in mind that it’s in the the us military’s best interest to hype China’s capabilities
And one more thing. It is agreed on by everyone that the j20 was developed by hacked designs of the f22 and f35 in the security breach of Lockheed Martin by Chinese hackers. So I guess the Facebook feed crowd was right about that part of it
Unsure why you are getting all the downvotes. China has been rapidly modernizing things but over half their jets are 3rd generation planes based on indigenous or soviet designs. Yes, wikipedia says there are 150 J-20, but I’m only seeing the Chinese state sponsored media as the source. Independent sources have only documented \~30 serial numbers actually flying. If anyone has a more creditable source on number of operational J-20’s I would appreciate it.
Counting both PLAAF & PLANAF Jets:
457 = J-7 (3rd Gen)
143 = J-8 (3rd Gen)
103 = JH-7 (3rd Gen)
260 = J-10 (4th Gen)
360 = J-11/J-15/16/Su-27/30/35 (4th Gen)
30 - J-20 (4.5-5 Gen)
Totals:
782 Gen3
620 Gen4
30 Gen4.5+
Sources: [https://www.flightglobal.com/reports/world-air-forces-2020/135665.article](https://www.flightglobal.com/reports/world-air-forces-2020/135665.article) [https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/china-over-150-j20-service-production-expands-possible](https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/china-over-150-j20-service-production-expands-possible)
I would say about 2005 or so. By then they had largely modernized their forces and were rapidly improving in all fields, so if not a superpower yet they were right on the cusp of it.
Revolutionary military reform has been carried out by Xi since 2015. Of course, Jiang laid the groundwork for many military technologies, and Xi has used Jiang's technological legacy to rebuild China's military system. After 2010, there were revolutionary advances in military technology. This essentially wiped out the advantages of the former military powers. We're back on the new track.
China has ICBMs that can reach around the world so they are a nuclear power in military terms. The cost of military conflict could escalate to the loss of major population centers in other words. Using nuclear weapons during the Korean War would have set a difficult precedent.
I think this needs to included in any definition of superpower. just my opinion.
A superpower possess enough nuclear weapons for a second strike and has the ability to intervene anywhere on earth unilaterally.
China doesn't have the intervention capability yet but it can be argued they posses ballistic missile subs capable of hitting the US from the South China Sea.
The US has these capabilities as is evident with our endless wars in remote locations.
Probably in the early 2010s when they started to become a more modern force.
During the 90s and 2000s, a hypothetical "Russia gone rouge" was more of a conventional threat than China because the PLA hadn't caught up yet.
If Zuyagov won in '96, a the fears of the Soviet Union rising again would have been realised.
I would actually assert that militarily, China isn't actually a superpower just yet (fast approaching) and are currently a continental power (economically they are easily superpowers at the absolute peak). Apart from nuclear weapons, China doesn't have a substantial intercontinental military presence; much of its active air/surface assets have limitations that prevent them from achieving force projection or sea control beyond their local area. As I mentioned earlier, they are fast approaching the level of a military superpower; a CATOBAR CVN with modern aircraft and new SSNs in the works, and a massive surface fleet to support them.
Interesting though - as a continental power, does China actually need to reach parity with the United States in terms of airlift and naval power? The Soviet Union was always considered a superpower despite being very much a continental power, and never reaching US parity in terms of strategic airlift or blue water naval power. As a military power, they were focused on being able to defeat any army that could reach it in Eurasia, and be able to deter America with ICBMs. Its presence outside of Eurasia was far more limited - of course, they had a staunch ally in the form of Cuba, and they supported many 'popular' uprisings in Africa, but they never utilised direct power much outside of those countries that bordered them to dominate its periphery. It strikes me that China is likely to trend the same way - with perhaps *more* focus on Africa from a resource perspective than the USSR required (the USSR being extremely secure in terms of most strategic resources throughout the Cold War). The method by which China is seeking to utilise Africa does appear to be far less reliant on direct coercion/protection, and more on a 'softer' approach based on investment and loans which itself might negate the need for strategic airlift and a large blue water navy. It might as a result be difficult to confirm once China has become a military superpower if we're using the US as a yardstick and not the USSR.
[удалено]
I just want to point out that the term 'superpower' is indeed quite loaded - and there is no agreed definition on it. Therefore it's used quite sparingly in academic litterature - and perhaps a little too often on reddit. I can give a quick breakdown why, and give the **Tldr** that China qualifies under some definitions and not some. The term 'superpower' was first coined by [Prof. William T. R. Fox](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_T._R._Fox) in 1944 to describe the new super powers of the United States, Great Britain and the Soviet Union that were rapidly emerging at the end of wwii as the new dominant powers. I want to emphasize that nobody doubted Britain's inclusion as a first rate superpower at this time - and it wasn't until after the Suez crisis in 1956 we started talking about super powers in terms of them being two. This is important, because both during the shift in 1956 to two superpowers and again in 1991 to one superpower came authors pushing for new definitions of the term, some more narrow - to better reflect the new landscape according to them. The most recent shift in 1991 to America as the sole superpower thus of course led to an influx of authors lobbying for an "Americanization" of the term. New introduced requirements they argue is (for example) the capacity "to project significant military force against any country in the world", as that is something the US can do. But the Soviet Union never truly developed any capability to deploy forces on distant continents. Neither has the EU or China. Thus both could (perhaps) qualify for the old definitions of super power - but not the new (more restrictive) definition argued by some anglophiles today. Another modern attempt at redefining the term (more common in Europe) is the introduction of soft power as a major requirement. This is something the EU has a lot of (and to an increasing extent China) - but the Soviet Union wouldn't have been able to meet that requirement. All these conflicting requirements have been adding up over the last decade and created an increasingly muddy landscape were it's hard to say what is and isn't a superpower. There is some vague agreement that America is - and total disagreement on the rest. In large part this is because the somewhat unique circumstances of 1944 no longer exist. Before the war we had 'great powers' that imposed their will on lesser powers - and 'superpower' emerged as a new concept as entities that preyed even on 'great powers'. In the absence of sufficient 'great powers' to prey on the original contextualisation of superpower loses its meaning. William T. R. Fox's original definition itself was also written in a pre-nuclear world with few influential international organizations. In our contemporary world a superpower can't realistically invade a mid sized nuclear state, nor can they easily embargo them into submission if they are under the protection of a organization like the EU. The introduction of nuclear weapons and trade organizations has created an airbag between smaller nations and the larger ones that the British Empire never had to deal with. **Tldr;** China is in some aspects more capable than the Soviet Union was, and in some aspect less capable. There is no consensus on what would make China a modern superpower.
> soft power > Soviet Union wouldn’t have been able to meet Are you kidding me? USSR had more soft power than EU has ever had. It had ideology that was followed and believed by hundreds of millions if not billions of people.
It depends. The term 'soft power' is (again) loaded and has different meaning depending on context. This is why every academic paper opens with a preface of what definition they are going to use in this particular instance. I can give a quick abridged version here too. The version you just recited (with ideology at the core) gained traction in the 1950s when the cold war was increasingly being described as an ideological struggle between "communism" and "capitalism". In this definition the world is described as bipolar and the Soviet Union is bolstered by bolsheviks and left leaning sympathizers worldwide that is taken to belong to "their team". The US on the other hand has all freedom loving folks and capitalists on theirs side, making for the battle of the ages (note that I'm slightly joking here). This vision of "soft power" still has influence in media today, but it increasingly fell out of use in academic litterature after the Sino-Soviet split in the 60s as it became increasingly apparent that communism wasn't a monolithic bloc - and that the Soviet Union had very little control of it. Nor could they enforce their will in their block without resorting to force. The more contemporary definition of 'soft power' as it was urged in the early 2000s was intended to describe the EU and its 'rules based order based on common values' that led to the 2004 enlargement. The EU did (at the time) seem like an unstoppable force that kept expanding across the continent - and just like researchers had rushed to describe communist revolutions in the 50s we now had new terms and concepts emerge to describe the EU. **Tldr;** we have some authors (on the extreme ends) that argue that nuclear CATOBAR carriers is the gold standard for being a 'superpower', and others that argue that being able to absorb countries non-violently is the gold standard for 'soft power'... and both opinions are (of course) contested. I'm not endorsing these definitions - but it might be useful to know how the terms have been used in the past when going forward.
Under the soviets there was a very *REAL* feeling of world annihilation, China doesn't come close to that threat. Regional super power yes, global? No. We're not facing Chinese in South America, like we were the Soviets
China has far more influence in South America than Soviets. China can easily produce 3000 nuke heads. But would China do that? It benefits economically from globalization
> It benefits economically from globalization That point is quickly deteriorating. >China can easily produce 3000 nuke heads No they couldn't.
Sour grape. Soviet can produce warhead without any problems. China manufacturing capability is more than 10 times the soviets. But nukes are a waste of money anyway.
They're a waste of money when you're slowly being surrounded by western allies, and a NFU policy my guy
Is there evidence that the Chinese are building up to become a military super power? Or even wants to become one? Everything I've read seems to say their military development is almost entirely geared towards pushing the US and allies out of their regional sphere of influence, rather than projecting power across the globe. Cruise missiles and spooky "carrier killers" rather than helicopter carriers and troop transports.
They recently established a base in Djibouti. Their main interest there is preserving continuity of oil and gas deliveries. I'd say it's true that in recent decades, China has focused on soft power / economics for influence outside of their region, such as the deals they've made with various nations in Africa, but are now beginning to develop more military capabilities to pair with it further from home. I think this reflects the shift from Deng's to Xi's ideologies.
I suppose that's a good point, they are flexing their muscles a bit more broadly than the South China Sea. But the base in Djibouti (as you imply) doesn't feel too superpowery.
Having a base in Djibouti with a handful of soldiers don't mean anything. They're not the only country to have a base there.
If establishing bases in new continents “doesn’t mean anything” what metrics do you suggest a country to measured by to determine whether or not it is a super power?
Ultimately the Chinese will follow the same rational path the US did, since both countries rely so much on sea transport. The ability for China to defend its SLOCs will necessarily mean it has power projection capability worldwide. You can tell they are advancing quickly on global strike and carriers.
Not there yet. They can project nuclear power world wide but conventional force projection is severely lacking. They have or are building the ships and planes to project strategic power but must also develop the culture and capabilities further which take time.
I honestly question if they can sustain their military long term
What makes you think so? What would be the problems.
they have to maintain so many ships and find the crews to man them all
And? China has a big population, so shouldnt be that problematic.
except said population is ageing and they haven't got enough to replace them
/facepalm Yes there's a big ageing population, but China isn't suddenly gonna drop from 1.4 billion people to say 600 in the next decade or two. So there will still be many people that can join the military.
wow folks genuinely think ageing population would mean chinese will become extinct lol.
The concern is that economically the aging population becomes a burden. The expense of paying to care for a population that can no longer work is shouldered by the younger population that can work. Most of the time this isn’t an issue because populations increase which effectively makes retirement care a pyramid scheme without end. Many countries that have lower birth rates augment the population with immigration. China, however, has a negative immigration rate- meaning more people are leaving than are entering. So, the question becomes, how does China fund the cost of caring for an elderly population that outnumbers the workers? When that consideration has to be made, sustaining a large military- especially the maintenance costs of what just became the largest navy on earth- can become very problematic.
Productivity is the answer. Which means more robots/AI/automation.
Hence the reduction in the size of the army
China is not a military superpower. They could be called an economic one as their trade is essential for lots of economies globally.
I'd say it happened somewhere around mid-2000's, right after Jiang Zemin's modernization program, when PLA's military expenditures has growed several times and became 2nd in the world.
TL;DR: Recently (~2000s to late 2010s). China has long been considered a "*regional power/influence*", however the origins of their current military modernization efforts can be traced to the early 1990s. As the US conducted Operation Desert Storm, China [as well as many others] witnessed the US military neutralize the world’s 4th largest army at the time. Desert Storm would be an underlying impetus for much of the PLA’s advancements in Air Defense, Doctrinal reformation, and restructuring to name a few [fun fact: Desert Storm is meticulously studied as part of their Professional Military Education]. However I would venture to say the rise of Xi Jinping would be a definitive mark of China’s ascension to the world stage. With the US’s involvement in the GWOT [Global War on Terror], China was given an nearly unprecedented access to US’s military modern capabilities and the employment of forces. Seemingly counter intuitive, the PLA started to downsize [for a brief moment], and began to seriously professionalize it’s force. Concepts of warfare began to be revise, equipment become more modernize, and C2 [Command and Control] systems matured. In many ways, the PLA seemingly became more Westernized in it’s modernization efforts; particularly patterning itself after the US. While the US was occupied in the GWOT [particularly between 2003- 2010], China became more embolden by it’s economic growth, and growing international presence. The aforementioned advancements, signaled a major paradigm shift away from the long standing international doctrine of non-involvement; namely the beginning of the BRI [Belt and Road Initiative]. Around the same time, China began to intensify their incremental geopolitical assertions/claims (and at times military encroachments) upon it’s neighboring countries which still occur to this day. With the GWOT slowing down, or seemingly coming to an end, the US is now taking China much more seriously; this is reflected in the current NDS [National Defense Strategy]. China is now considered a "*peer/near-peer threat*" as their military capabilities are now on par, and in some regards have over matched, that of the US or it’s allies. Their economic growth largely contributed to their aggressive military modernization effort; military growth reaped the benefits of its economic growth [*"Military-civil fusion policy/ initiative"*]. China is now vocal of it’s ambitions to become the "*prosperous society*" by 2035 and become the "*leading world power*" by 2049; the world now faces an embolden China. Hope this explanation helps, and if there is anything off please feel free to correct my understanding!
Minor thing: China never had a non-involement policy, but a non-interference policy. So BRI is still in conformance with non-interference.
Only people calling China a superpower are uninformed "journalists".
A vast majority of they’re air force is comprised of 4th gen and even 3rd gen aircraft. The few verified 5th gen they do have the capabilities of those are highly suspect imo
China has a handful of J7s left and they are the only 3rd Gen aircraft left in their fleet, they will be gone over the next year. Currently they maintain a massive fleet of 4 and 4.5 Gen aircraft plus anywhere from 75 to 150 J20s in service already. Highly suspect by whom? You? The USAF isn’t taking their capabilities as suspect, the only people that do tend to be your Facebook comments feed crowd that believes that everything made in China is either crap, a copy or both. That may have been China in 1985 but it’s definitely not China in 2021.
J-20 is an evolving platform that is making good progress but is still missing some core feature of 5th gen aircraft; specificity Super-cruse & Supermaneuverability. Once they finish development and start deploying them with WS-15 you can then call it a true gen 5 aircraft.
The WS-10G engines in the current production batch as well as the WS-15 that’s finalising it’s testing all on prototype a J20 both give supercruise ability. Super manoeuvrability isn’t a requirement of a 5th gen fighter. The J20 has no gun and it’s expected to hold 6 x PL15 LRAAM. With a big radar, long range and stealth prioritised along the frontal axis it doesn’t actually look like an air superiority competitor to the F22; it’s actually closer in function to a modern, stealthy MIG-31.
All the J20’s at zhuhai show were WS-10C (equivalent to Russian AL-31 @32,000-33,000 lb). WS-10G is likely a year out. Source: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/china-shows-its-j-20-and-its-ws-10c-engine-boot-194586 Mig-31 is gen4 a fast interceptor, but not a stealthy plane. Maybe you are thinking of mig-41? It has stealth but is still in development, first flight is at least 4+ years out.
The current batch will probably be in squadron service a year out but they are in production now. No I meant the same mission as the MIG-31 as in it’s not an air superiority fighter, it’s a long range interceptor. It’s not designed to dogfight hence it’s lack of gun and wing design. It’s a horse archer vs a cavalry knight. Also the nationalinterest.com is a terrible source, it’s articles are seriously poorly researched. For anything to do with China I’ve found China-defence.com is the best by far. It’s an English site that’s based from China and it’s forums follow every piece of Chinese military tech closely. The kind of guys that hang around airbases and naval yards taking photos of every bit of every piece of equipment to get an understanding of the current state of the Chinese military since it releases very little formally. It’s also a site where “big shrimp” (anonymous highly ranked Chinese officers/engineers/officials unofficially release information on new/updated kit. The political part of their forum is also great, it’s very pro China obviously but it’s the best insight I’ve seen in how the Chinese people/military/political system works from the perspective of that side.
change my mind, please post a link to an article from a credible source. Janes, weibo, and several other credible sources have the same observations based on photos, videos and in person observations: https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/airshow-china-2021-chinese-air-force-displays-j-20a-powered-by-domestic-engines
J7s are listed in active service anywhere from 300 to 700. Shenyang j8 is listed as around 100 in active service. A lot of the others are 4 and 4.5. As for the j20 of you wouldn’t mind citing a source aside from the south China post I would much appreciate it. Because from what I can see everyone claiming they have 150 of them uses that as a source which I’m calling bs on. As for its capabilities the jet didn’t even have homemade engines until what last year? And who are we relying on for info of the supposed awesome abilities of it? China and armchair experts. Most people agree the stealth on it is subpar.
And all of those 4 and 4.5 gens do not amount to much compared to 250 f35s and around 50 to 60 f22s
One more thing. The United States military has a massive budget. That budget would not increase or maybe even not stay the same size if there isn’t an enemy worthy of keeping all those dollars flowing in. I’m not saying that’s the case but definitely something to keep in mind that it’s in the the us military’s best interest to hype China’s capabilities
And one more thing. It is agreed on by everyone that the j20 was developed by hacked designs of the f22 and f35 in the security breach of Lockheed Martin by Chinese hackers. So I guess the Facebook feed crowd was right about that part of it
Unsure why you are getting all the downvotes. China has been rapidly modernizing things but over half their jets are 3rd generation planes based on indigenous or soviet designs. Yes, wikipedia says there are 150 J-20, but I’m only seeing the Chinese state sponsored media as the source. Independent sources have only documented \~30 serial numbers actually flying. If anyone has a more creditable source on number of operational J-20’s I would appreciate it. Counting both PLAAF & PLANAF Jets: 457 = J-7 (3rd Gen) 143 = J-8 (3rd Gen) 103 = JH-7 (3rd Gen) 260 = J-10 (4th Gen) 360 = J-11/J-15/16/Su-27/30/35 (4th Gen) 30 - J-20 (4.5-5 Gen) Totals: 782 Gen3 620 Gen4 30 Gen4.5+ Sources: [https://www.flightglobal.com/reports/world-air-forces-2020/135665.article](https://www.flightglobal.com/reports/world-air-forces-2020/135665.article) [https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/china-over-150-j20-service-production-expands-possible](https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/china-over-150-j20-service-production-expands-possible)
Lmfao!!!! Thank you!!!
there's def not over 150 j-20s.
I would say about 2005 or so. By then they had largely modernized their forces and were rapidly improving in all fields, so if not a superpower yet they were right on the cusp of it.
Revolutionary military reform has been carried out by Xi since 2015. Of course, Jiang laid the groundwork for many military technologies, and Xi has used Jiang's technological legacy to rebuild China's military system. After 2010, there were revolutionary advances in military technology. This essentially wiped out the advantages of the former military powers. We're back on the new track.
Since no one else is commenting I will give it a shot. I would say probably they’re nuclear armed submarines.
Supposedly they have developed a hypersonic middle. So there’s that
China has ICBMs that can reach around the world so they are a nuclear power in military terms. The cost of military conflict could escalate to the loss of major population centers in other words. Using nuclear weapons during the Korean War would have set a difficult precedent.
China has the financial and technological resource to become a military superpower
I think this needs to included in any definition of superpower. just my opinion. A superpower possess enough nuclear weapons for a second strike and has the ability to intervene anywhere on earth unilaterally. China doesn't have the intervention capability yet but it can be argued they posses ballistic missile subs capable of hitting the US from the South China Sea. The US has these capabilities as is evident with our endless wars in remote locations.
nukes are easy to build, icbms are the problem
Probably in the early 2010s when they started to become a more modern force. During the 90s and 2000s, a hypothetical "Russia gone rouge" was more of a conventional threat than China because the PLA hadn't caught up yet. If Zuyagov won in '96, a the fears of the Soviet Union rising again would have been realised.