PLAN did only two sub ´patrols´ in 2006!

Interesting read, I expect that these types of report and spread for some external purpose, much like the CVN stalking incident, probably to increase the menace factor. I personally always view the spy P3 (refresh my memory, the one that was crashed into by a J-8-II in about 2000) as just such an exercise by US. Not preaching any sort of idiotic conspiracy theory, but the western press are on the whole pretty gullible and prefer sensationalism to objective analysis. So this news sounds like "PLAN is years behind" which translates as "we could still kick their arse"...sorry "ass" for the yanks. This sounds at odds with the Cvn stalking incident which yelled "PLAN is big threat" (even though the PLAN only did what everyone else does all the time). But this 'evil-dumb' spin has been used throughout modern history to build common views among the population - North Korea, Japan (pre-WW2), Russia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Serbia - all have this pattern of propganda.

Sept 11th took US's menace spotlight away from China for a few years, but now it's slowly returning.

India is conspicuous among future super-powers (China, Russia, India, maybe 'fredral' Europe) for avoiding this treatment thus far despite having many of the failings of China, though IMo to a much lesser degree (human rights, poverty gap, exploitation etc).

The PLAN performed quite well the last time it fought anyone.



I don't think the 2 "patrols" per year is very meaningful. It doesn't describe the volume of PLAN activities. However I can think of several reasons PLAN isn't more aggressive.

- it doesn't like to be observed during exercises. PLAN likes to keep a larger set of secrets, which requires staying away from prying eyes.

- the PLA generally keeps a high force level to training ratio, in other words it spends relatively more money keeping a large force than keeping them trained. No nation buys as much military for $35 billion per year. Training is kept low cost at peace time but sharply elevated when required. For example to prepare for 1979 invasion of Vietnam, troops were thrown into intensive live fire exercises for one month. Soldiers say they fired more heavy weapons that month than during their entire career. It's like athletics, your last month's training is more valuable than last year's.

So I would say at least part of it is a deliberate decision to balance resources. Chinese still have a mentality of "preparing to win the big war", rather than projecting power today. In fact China's diplomatic style is not compatible with power projection anyway.

I think you can't use that Hoang_Sa two day battle against a navy like the viatnamse one 30 years ago as an indication of how "well" the PLAN nowadays would do on a total different scale.

And if you're an athlete and put your training to "maximum" only one month before the competition, it's senseless. If your body is not well trained and accustomed to the strain, the last month of intense training will only exhaust you.
Similar with soldiers. It's nice to fire many weapons in a short time. But if it's more in one month then the entire year, I would think it's more a show of a generally inferior training standart wich is only tried to being brought up hastily.
Maybe it's good enough to make a difference in Tibet, Vietnam etc... but to be good in your task, you must be generally accustomed to it - even better dream of it regularly and do it while sleeping- one month is by far not enough to reach that level.

But then on the other hand I agree that PLAN probably tries to do as much training as possible unoberved, meaning in it's own "lakes".
The large force little training thing is a bad old habit. But it seems to reverse to a certain extand now, slowly but it does.

- it doesn't like to be observed during exercises. PLAN likes to keep a larger set of secrets, which requires staying away from prying eyes.

- the PLA generally keeps a high force level to training ratio, in other words it spends relatively more money keeping a large force than keeping them trained. No nation buys as much military for $35 billion per year. Training is kept low cost at peace time but sharply elevated when required.

Click to expand...

Sailors were meant for ships..and ships were meant for sea. Those ships sitting in port and doing excersises anchored off some island are doing a disservice to the crews. I've said it before..Those ships need to go to sea so those sailors can learn how to operate them when need be...Simulators and other training devices are just ok. Those ships should be at sea training.

the lack of frequent training in some areas of the armed forces is puzzling. For example, the PLA garrison in HK is seldom seen doing field training either. occasionally, they go off to firing range for a few days once a year. That's about it. Otherwise, I suppose they do a lot of barrack training. Back in the colonial days, the Gurkha did small-unit field-training every month and every year there were at least 2 major exercises in the field. In any ground war, it always comes down to small-unit engagements. Individual soldier's combat effectiveness is the decisive factor.

Sometimes, PLAAF (HK) joined the local flying units to conduct search and rescue exercises with other nations' naval services. The news said they could not even locate their assigned targets, let alone doing the rescue.

I understand garrison is only symbolic and may be under order to stay away from public. Therefore, the fighting efficiency suffers. But sometimes, you wonder how effective they will be if they are asked to do internal security and martime rescue by the local govt in the case of emergency.


I dont think a fighting force can be trained well in just a few months prior to hostility. Equipment need to be continuously field tested and famarilized. Field tactics need to be practised and improved. new members of the units need to be trained to work with other members... and so on.

Maybe the exception is the PLAAF. As told in this forum, I heard the pilots train quite long hours.