What's new

China creates three new military units in push to modernise army

omega supremme

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
395
Reaction score
-1
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
BEIJING: China has created three new military units and will update equipment as well as modernising its command structure, state media said on Friday, as part of a major overhaul of the armed forces announced by President Xi Jinping in November.

Xi's push to reform the military coincides with China becoming more assertive in its territorial disputes in the East and South China Seas. China's navy is investing in submarines and aircraft carriers and its air force is developing stealth fighters.

At a ceremony on Thursday, Xi inaugurated a new general command unit for the army, a missile force and a strategic support force for People's Liberation Army (PLA), state news agency Xinhua said.

State television showed Xi handing over a large red flag to Li Zuocheng, the new head of the land command force.

Li was previously commander of the key Chengdu military region, which includes restless and strategically vital Tibet.

The missile force is taking over from the Second Artillery Corps to control the country's nuclear arsenal but keeping the same commander, Wei Fenghe.

Xinhua said Xi urged the new unit to “enhance nuclear deterrence and counter-strike capacity, medium-and long-range precision strike ability, as well as strategic check-and-balance capacity to build a strong and modern Rocket Force”.

His reforms include establishing a joint operational command structure by 2020 and rejigging existing military regions, as well as cutting troop numbers by 300,000, a surprise announcement he made in September.

In a separate report listing the powerful Central Military Commission's recommendations on the reform process, Xinhua said the troop cuts will focus on non-combat personnel.

Phasing out old equipment and developing new weaponry as well as reducing the number of models operated will be another big feature of the reforms, Xinhua said.

China has been moving rapidly to upgrade its military hardware, but integration of complex systems across a regionalised command structure has been a major challenge.

The troop cuts and broader reform programme have proven controversial, though, and the military's newspaper has published a series of commentaries warning of opposition to the reforms and concern about job losses.

Xi has also made rooting out deeply entrenched corruption in the military a top priority, and dozens of senior officers have been investigated and jailed.
 
If Xi really wants to modernize PLA, he needs to make a navy guy or airforce man for the very top post.
 
If Xi really wants to modernize PLA, he needs to make a navy guy or airforce man for the very top post.

If China wants to give its air and naval branches equal importance to army it should rename the navy from PLAN to PLN and PLAAF to PLAF. The air and naval branches will chief driver of China's military strength overseas, not the army.
 
If China wants to give its air and naval branches equal importance to army it should rename the navy from PLAN to PLN and PLAAF to PLAF. The air and naval branches will chief driver of China's military strength overseas, not the army.

It's only very recently that we have found the strategic breathing room to even consider power projection, and expeditionary capabilities. But it's important to plan for the future, now we are strong enough that no one will dare to invade us directly, so time to think about other things.

Some day in the future we will have the largest defense budget in the world, so we have to plan ahead for how to properly utilize it.
 
If China wants to give its air and naval branches equal importance to army it should rename the navy from PLAN to PLN and PLAAF to PLAF. The air and naval branches will chief driver of China's military strength overseas, not the army.

its a translation problem. In Chinese navy and air force is 海军 which means "sea force" and 空军 "air force". ”军“ has the definition "military", not "army" in the sense of ground forces. It is a root word. For example, "military affairs" is 军事 (literally: military affairs). The PLA ground forces are also not called the PLA, they are called the PLA ground forces "陆军”. but in English, 军 has been translated variously as "military", "force/armed forces" and "army", and the PLA was translated as such since the alternative translations don't sound as good.
 
its a translation problem. In Chinese navy and air force is 海军 which means "sea force" and 空军 "air force". ”军“ has the definition "military", not "army" in the sense of ground forces. It is a root word. For example, "military affairs" is 军事 (literally: military affairs). The PLA ground forces are also not called the PLA, they are called the PLA ground forces "陆军”. but in English, 军 has been translated variously as "military", "force/armed forces" and "army", and the PLA was translated as such since the alternative translations don't sound as good.
Get rid of this "People's Liberation" nonsense. It may have sounded catchy back then, but it is essentially silly today. That is like the US continues to call its Army 'Continental Army' when George Washington was commander.

Mainland China IS China. So call the ground forces 'Chinese Army'. Same for the Air Force and Navy. Allow each service to explore its role and mission according to its area of expertise. The PLA is not doing that now as ground forces commanders still dominate intellectual thoughts on military matters. Yes, winning the ground is still the key in wars, but allow each service to independently experiment with its capabilities on how to support the main goal -- win the ground.
 
Get rid of this "People's Liberation" nonsense. It may have sounded catchy back then, but it is essentially silly today. That is like the US continues to call its Army 'Continental Army' when George Washington was commander.

Mainland China IS China. So call the ground forces 'Chinese Army'. Same for the Air Force and Navy. Allow each service to explore its role and mission according to its area of expertise. The PLA is not doing that now as ground forces commanders still dominate intellectual thoughts on military matters. Yes, winning the ground is still the key in wars, but allow each service to independently experiment with its capabilities on how to support the main goal -- win the ground.
The word "liberation" has a historical reason. As long as Taiwan is still not unified with the mainland, this word stays.
 
The word "liberation" has a historical reason. As long as Taiwan is still not unified with the mainland, this word stays.
Liberation from what/whom ?

I am approaching 53 yrs old. I grew up in the time when the word 'liberation' was already overused and abused by Marxists/communists to portray themselves and their ideology as a viable alternative. It was silly then and even more so now.
 
Liberation from what/whom ?

I am approaching 53 yrs old. I grew up in the time when the word 'liberation' was already overused and abused by Marxists/communists to portray themselves and their ideology as a viable alternative. It was silly then and even more so now.
Back then, liberating people from oppressive and rogue faction in Nationalist party (I am trying to make literal translation. :)) Now, it is just historical. A reminder for all soldiers that there is still leftover work yet to be done.
 
Back then, liberating people from oppressive and rogue faction in Nationalist party (I am trying to make literal translation. :)) Now, it is just historical. A reminder for all soldiers that there is still leftover work yet to be done.
There comes a time when history became an intellectual shackle instead of a point of reference. But I have no problems if China want to hobble her military. :enjoy:
 
There comes a time when history became an intellectual shackle instead of a point of reference. But I have no problems if China want to hobble her military. :enjoy:
Well, military usually isn't about intellectual. Rationalism and liberalism aren't so encouraged in the military. It is a tool that is supposed to be loyal and effective. That is why I chose a regular college, instead of a military one. I grew up on a Chinese military base. Back then, if I wanted to go to a military college, I could get into any of the top ones. Therefore, "liberation" or not, it is just a name and serves a very important purpose, which is the unresolved issue with Taiwan.
 
Liberation from what/whom ?

I am approaching 53 yrs old. I grew up in the time when the word 'liberation' was already overused and abused by Marxists/communists to portray themselves and their ideology as a viable alternative. It was silly then and even more so now.
Hah , nowadays Marxists /communists use more moderate way like investment to liberate the Third World.
No one hates money
 
Get rid of this "People's Liberation" nonsense. It may have sounded catchy back then, but it is essentially silly today. That is like the US continues to call its Army 'Continental Army' when George Washington was commander.

Mainland China IS China. So call the ground forces 'Chinese Army'. Same for the Air Force and Navy. Allow each service to explore its role and mission according to its area of expertise. The PLA is not doing that now as ground forces commanders still dominate intellectual thoughts on military matters. Yes, winning the ground is still the key in wars, but allow each service to independently experiment with its capabilities on how to support the main goal -- win the ground.

I would have no problem with the US calling the US armed forces the "Continental Army" or "Union Army" to respect George Washington or Abraham Lincoln.
 
Back
Top Bottom