“Beijing continues its ambitious military modernization of its armed forces at an alarming rate. It would be naive to think that efforts to develop advanced cyberspace vehicles and hypersonic technologies are aimed only at regional application,” said Glen Vanherk of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee.
According to the American military leader, China “continues to develop the strategic weapons and infrastructure necessary to project its military power over much greater distances.”
It should be noted that the ability to project military power into any region of the world is the main feature of today’s military superpower. And judging by the debate in the US Senate Armed Services Committee, Washington is very worried that in the historically foreseeable future, the PRC will not only finally catch up with the US in combat and operational capabilities, but will also be the future. in the future.
To begin with, let’s clarify what a military superpower’s passport looks like. This isn’t just the “longer range guns” debated in the US Senate. Here the question should be asked in a much broader way.
How previously wrote “socialbites.ca”First, a military superpower must have a population of at least 300 million people. For example, the number of world-class shipbuilding industry personnel is several hundred thousand skilled workers and engineering personnel. The number of aviation industry is more or less the same. If you add family members here, you’ve already got several million people. But these are just two branches of the country’s economic complex. If we list all the other industries that can produce all kinds of competitive military products (as well as civilian ones), the figure will eventually come out – 300 million people.
Second, a military superpower must have nuclear weapons. Without it, it cannot be considered a superpower.
Thirdly, such a state should have a developed orbital constellation of spacecraft (all kinds of exploration – research, detailed, radio and radio engineering, communications, weather, etc.), as well as its own global positioning system (without navigation and its use). high-precision weapons and more are impossible).
Fourth, if a state declares itself as a military superpower, it must have worldwide interests accordingly. To protect these interests, a superpower must have a strong navy (at least carrier-based attack formations and operational-grade amphibious assault forces), strategic (including refueling) and military transport aviation capable of projecting worldwide military power.
Let’s take a closer look at some purely military indicators of a military “superpower”. And in this context, we certainly don’t care about China as much as our own abilities.
Let’s start with military transport aviation (MTA), because it is this aviation that largely provides the projection of military power in different parts of the world.
How previously wrote “socialbites.ca”, currently, the VTA VKS of the RF Armed Forces (according to data from open sources) has the following types of aircraft: light An-26 (more than 110 units), medium An-12 (56 units), heavy Il- 76 (about 120 units) ), heavy An-124 “Ruslan” (5 units) with an intercontinental flight range, heavy turboprop An-22 (combat ready from 3 units). The main problem with the VTA is that most of these aircraft were manufactured in the Soviet Union and had to be replaced.
For example, in the US Air Force Air Force there are 131 heavy military transport aircraft with intercontinental flight range Lockheed C-5 Galaxy, and in terms of performance it is comparable to the Russian An-124 (C-5A – 81, C-5B – 50 ). And the Boeing C-17 Globemaster III aircraft, which partially corresponds to our Il-76 (in fact, the Globemaster significantly surpasses domestic aircraft in many performance characteristics), 220 units. The difference is obvious even with the naked eye.
As for strategic aviation (long-range in the Russian Aerospace Forces), currently, according to open data, the combat composition of the Russian DA includes 17 Tu-160 aircraft, 60 Tu-95MS aircraft and about 60 Tu-22M3 aircraft. . At the same time, it should be noted that open data on the number of strategic and long-range bombers in Long-Range Aviation are very contradictory. And how many of these aircraft are ready for service and fully ready for combat use is far from clear. For example, according to other sources, today in the combat power of the DA there are only 58 usable vehicles – 30 Tu-95MS units, 16 Tu-160 units, 12 Tu-22M3 units.
For example, in the combat composition of the strategic aviation of the US Air Force there are 21 Northrop B-2 Spirit strategic bombers, Boeing B-52 Stratofortress – 58, Rockwell B-1 Lancer – about 100. Again, the difference is far in our favour. The promising B-21 Raider strategic bomber, built with the most advanced technologies, is already ready for the first flight in the United States (launched at the end of 2022).
The difference in the capabilities of strategic aviation in the Air Force of the US Air Force and the Russian Aerospace Forces is especially noticeable on the example of tanker aircraft (that is, they largely determine the combat capability of heavy bombers). We have about 20 such machines (type Il-78) in the US Air Force – more than 470 units (KS-135 – 379, KS-10 – 50, KS-46 – about 50). Here, any comparison is blasphemous.
The US Navy, and especially its amphibious assault forces, Sealift Command, makes no sense to compare it with the domestic Navy. Here the difference in performance is simply prohibitive.
Evaluation of the orbital constellations of the spacecraft of both countries will also not be satisfactory. The US satellite constellation is about 1,400 spacecraft (excluding 2,400 Starlink satellites). By the way, China is in second place – more than 350. Russia today has an orbital constellation – about 150 satellites for various purposes.
According to numerous indications, although we are still far from being a military superpower, the ranking of such indicators alone is more than a clear indication of which direction the Russian Federation is moving in terms of building its military power. .
You can say that for now. If the minimum requirements listed above are not met, then a state claiming to be a world military superpower should at best be considered a regional power.
Today, there is only one true world-class military superpower – the United States. China is starting to approach some indicators. But Beijing has a lot of work to do in the field of strategic aviation, the construction of aircraft carriers and the introduction of the necessary number of military transport aircraft at intercontinental range. The third possible future candidate is India. But New Delhi has more business than Beijing.
As for the American concerns about China’s growing capabilities, voiced in the US Senate Armed Services Committee by the head of the US Northern Command, General Glen Vanherk, they are largely correct. The strength of the PLA (Chinese People’s Liberation Army) is increasing rapidly every year.
Let’s just explain this with the example of the navy. How previously wrote “socialbites.ca”The operating speed of the current Chinese shipbuilding assembly line is unmatched in peacetime. The rates of new units entering the PLA Navy are so high that it is difficult to determine the number of Chinese ships currently in service at any given time.
In just a quarter of a century, the Chinese fleet has transformed, at best, from a coastal squalor with the quality level of the 1960s, second only to the American fleet, and so far only a powerful modern oceanic fleet (by the way, in terms of the number of ships of the PLA Navy already lags behind) The US Navy is second only to the number of aircraft carriers and cruisers). So Washington really has something to think about.
The opinion of the author may not coincide with the opinion of the editors.
Author biography:
Mikhail Mikhailovich Khodarenok is a military observer of socialbites.ca, a retired colonel.
Graduated from the Minsk Higher Engineering Anti-aircraft Missile School (1976),
Air Defense Military Command Academy (1986).
Commander of the S-75 anti-aircraft missile battalion (1980–1983).
Deputy commander of an anti-aircraft missile regiment (1986–1988).
Senior officer of the Main Staff of the Air Defense Forces (1988–1992).
Chief of the General Staff Main Operations Directorate (1992–2000).
Graduate of the Military Academy of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces (1998).
Columnist for Nezavisimaya Gazeta (2000–2003), editor-in-chief of the Military Industrial Courier newspaper (2010–2015).