兰德-俄罗斯和中国的国防采办（英）-2021_46页_1mb

Summary of Defense Acquisition in Russia and China

Core Content

This report provides an analysis of the research, development, and acquisition (RDA) processes of Russia and China, comparing them with the United States. It was prepared for the United States Army and explores how both countries approach defense acquisition according to doctrine and in practice, identifies their strengths and limitations, and evaluates their future prospects in the context of great-power competition.

Main Points

Russia's Approach to Defense Acquisitions

• Doctrinal Framework: Russia retains a five-stage RDA process similar to the Soviet era: scientific research projects, preliminary design, system development, system adoption, and serial production. This is guided by the State Armament Program (SAP), which outlines research focus areas and procurement plans.
• Practical Implementation: Despite retaining the nominal structure of the Soviet model, the Russian RDA process has evolved significantly. The SAP serves as a long-term strategic document, while the annual State Defense Order (SDO) is the primary funding mechanism for R&D and procurement.
• Strengths: Russia excels in certain areas, particularly in the development of new weapon systems such as the T-14 Armata tank and the 3M22 Tsirkon hypersonic cruise missile. It maintains a large arms export market, which accounts for nearly 40% of its manufactured goods exports.
• Limitations: Russia struggles with technological limitations, such as high-end chips and aircraft engines, and faces challenges in production capacity, outdated manufacturing facilities, and a stagnant R&D workforce. The reliance on arms exports has also led to a misalignment between domestic needs and export-oriented production. Additionally, corruption and the influence of individuals over strategic decisions hinder the effectiveness of the system.

China's Approach to Defense Acquisitions

• Doctrinal Framework: China's RDA process is also structured, with a focus on national strategic goals. The government emphasizes the development of indigenous capabilities through initiatives like the Military-Civil Fusion (MCF) strategy.
• Practical Implementation: China has made strides in building its own R&D capacity, particularly through the acquisition of foreign technology and joint ventures. It has also increased national R&D spending significantly, at a compound annual growth rate of almost 15% since 2010.
• Strengths: China has developed a robust RDA system with a growing number of research institutions and a strong state-owned enterprise (SOE) sector. It has made notable progress in areas such as ballistic missiles, and its investment in AI and autonomous weapons is increasing.
• Limitations: China's reliance on intellectual property theft has kept its weapon systems several years behind the cutting edge. Despite this, it is working to improve its R&D capabilities and is investing in both foreign technology acquisition and domestic innovation. However, it still faces challenges in spurring domestic innovation and managing institutional inefficiencies.

Key Information

Funding and Procurement

• The SAP is the long-term strategic document for Russia, updated every five years, while the SDO is the annual funding mechanism for R&D and procurement.
• China's MCF strategy encourages collaboration between the military and civilian sectors, enhancing the transfer of technology and knowledge.
• R&D spending in China has grown rapidly, with the state-owned enterprises (SOEs) playing a central role in defense innovation.

Comparative Analysis

• Russia has a large arms export market but struggles with domestic production capacity and high costs.
• China is investing heavily in R&D and is on a path to reduce its reliance on foreign technology, although it still faces challenges in certain high-tech areas.
• Both countries have iterative RDA processes with similar stages, but their execution and outcomes differ due to institutional, economic, and political factors.

Future Prospects

• The report suggests that China is more likely to become a long-term pacing threat due to its growing RDA capabilities and more structured approach.
• Russia faces significant internal and external challenges, including economic stagnation and geopolitical sanctions, which limit its ability to modernize its military effectively.

Conclusion

The report concludes that while Russia and China have both made progress in modernizing their military capabilities, their respective RDA systems are not without flaws. Russia's reliance on arms exports and the influence of individuals over strategic decisions are major drawbacks. China, on the other hand, is investing in R&D and building a more sustainable defense industrial base. However, both countries still face significant challenges in achieving full technological independence and maintaining the efficiency of their acquisition systems.

Figures Overview

• Figure 2.1: Outlines the first steps in Russia's defense R&D process.
• Figure 2.2: Shows Russia's position in the global arms export market from 2007 to 2017.
• Figure 2.3: Depicts Russia's share of global arms exports by category.
• Figure 2.4: Compares the productivity of top Russian and U.S. defense contractors.
• Figure 2.5: Highlights differences in engineering salaries between the U.S. and Russia.
• Figure 2.6: Illustrates the growth of Russia's population and R&D workforce.
• Figure 3.1: Compares defense-related revenues of the top global defense firms.
• Figure 3.2: Shows the productivity of top U.S. and Chinese defense contractors.
• Figure 3.3: Displays the Corruption Perception Index for the U.S., China, and Russia.
• Figure 3.4: Illustrates China's R&D expenditure growth from 2010 to 2016.
• Figure 3.5: Depicts the number of R&D institutions and personnel in China over time.
• Figure 3.6: Shows the percentage of Chinese nationals returning home after studying abroad.
• Figure 3.7: Compares U.S. and Chinese technology salaries.
• Figure 3.8: Highlights joint ventures and cooperation enterprises in China.
• Figure 3.9: Depicts China's acquisitions of foreign technology.

References

• The report references the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) for arms export data.
• It also notes the U.S. National Security Strategy (2017) and National Defense Strategy (2018), which identify China and Russia as revisionist powers in a new era of strategic competition.

Authors and Contributors

• The report was authored by Mark Ashby, Caolionn O'Connell, Edward Geist, Jair Aguirre, Christian Curriden, and Jonathan Fujiwara.
• It was sponsored by the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology).
• Bruce D. Jette and Eminy Harrison are acknowledged for their contributions.

Key Takeaways

• Both Russia and China have structured RDA processes, but their execution and outcomes differ significantly.
• Russia's arms export focus and individual influence are major factors in its acquisition process.
• China is rapidly building organic R&D capabilities but still relies on foreign technology and intellectual property theft.
• The report underscores the importance of institutional efficiency and funding mechanisms in determining the success of defense acquisition programs.