China's military giving USA sleepless nights
-
Test Obama's resolve? I guess they got the answer man! Its a "Done Deal!"
The resolve of the United States to provide military assistance to countries it considers friendly and allies is always there. The question is merely the level of military assistance.
If you look at every request that goes through the congress with regards to arms sales there is red line that the sale cannot cross; that it does not introduce a new capability to the region. That speaks volumes of what the United States is concerned about. Balance of power.
When it comes to China and Taiwan, I think this is probably the best way forward. By raising Taiwanese capabilities to defend itself, it ensures that China will not easily consider reunification by force. By typical balance of power theories, China will not easily consider the military option, and the US won't be drawn into a conflict with China over Taiwan. In other words, by selling these missiles, US is preventing a fight from breaking out over the Formosa Straits.
China's military budget has increased annually since it has gained economic prominence. Taiwan cannot even hope to keep up by its own capability. Which means that China's capabilities may rapidly surpass Taiwanese capabilities to defend itself if the US does not intervene. Without a sufficient level of deterrence, Chinese hawks would be more aggressive in seeking a forceful reunification whenever a screw loose in the head pro-independence Taiwanese President steps into office.
Finally, in my opinion, the world should recognize Taiwan's independence if a referendum decisively indicates so. The UN has no grounds to reject a Taiwanese plea for independence that has been formalized by a national referendum. China has no grounds to claim Taiwanese territory when it has not exercised sovereignty over that island. However, if the Taiwanese feel that its in their best interest to reunite with China, then their wishes should also be respected; even by the United States.
-
i don't think independent is a good idea....but hindsight the KMT is properly the other legitimate political entity that could possibilily replace PRC government.
I doubt it would happen but at some point the PRC will need some type of political reformed to move the cross strait unification.
-
Originally posted by Arapahoe:
i don't think independent is a good idea....but hindsight the KMT is properly the other legitimate political entity that could possibilily replace PRC government.
I doubt it would happen but at some point the PRC will need some type of political reformed to move the cross strait unification.
I have discussed this topic with my chinese friends on this subject before.I don't think it's far fetched to consider the possiblity that reunification may actually give the pro democracy factions something for them to work with.
Complete replacement of the PRC government i think would probably require a great deal of violence and bloodshed. I don't think it's possible for such a transition to occur peacefully.
But i do think it might be possible for more democractic values to be integrated into the CCCP if reunification occurs peacefully.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
I have discussed this topic with my chinese friends on this subject before.I don't think it's far fetched to consider the possiblity that reunification may actually give the pro democracy factions something for them to work with.
Complete replacement of the PRC government i think would probably require a great deal of violence and bloodshed. I don't think it's possible for such a transition to occur peacefully.
But i do think it might be possible for more democractic values to be integrated into the CCCP if reunification occurs peacefully.
I am wondering how the CCCP is to continue to govern such a huge land that cut across different social and ethnic without given greater autonomy to the provinces to have some sort of federation representative. It is not just about Taiwan...it is also about the north eastern border, mongolia and other alliance such as N.K, Myanmar, there are different ethnicity ties across the border etc....what interest me is that with their long shared history, we see the last few decade they are applying the technique of ethinic intergration by migrating ethnic Han which met with resistance from both local ethnicity and religion.
Perharps they are not so united after all. And that the shared history perharps is only unified by 2 great events transformation from Imperal emperor to Nationalist and WW11 while before that it was purly functional as a federation states.
Prosperity had brought about the demand for greater voice. sometime the more power you consolidate the more resistance you received.
I also wonder if the PLA would rised to grap power from the CCCP leaders. If they see that the party leaders is loosing its command.
It maybe Communism in China is only part of a Transformation process that is still evolving. Rather than the end...would probably spell nightmare for its current leadership.
-
M'sian fighter jets will be overhead in less than half a minute???
before they come already gana spotted and intercepted
our early warning all buy for fun? our SAM all fake? our fighters for air show only?
-
CCCP = ex-Soviet Union
CCP = chinese communist party
PLA would not grab power from the CCP cos the CCP is already controlled by the PLA.
Hu is the chairman of the CMC which is the ultimate authority for the PLA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Military_Commission_(People%27s_Republic_of_China)
The dual role I think has existed since Mao. The structure makes it difficult for any single person to gain control of a majority of the military apparatus (with the exception of the Chairman). There might be individual rebellion but in theory, no majority unless there is colloboration which makes little sense as this would have to involve the military CMC.
-
Originally posted by As romanista2001:
you guys think my above comments is nonsense............??
when USSR was still around, FORD was operating the world's largest truck factory in USSR for a long time...............
Communism was a creation of Zionist bankers....the same bankers that bankrolled Marx (a jew).............the same bankers that own the Federal Reserve............
the US gave USSR nuclear technology...........
That's all typical online nonsense wah.
-
rockhampton is a town known where south korean,taiwanese,american,china and sporean secret agents wave secret wars and spying activity on one another.
the south koreans got interested when they found out sporean army was there on training along with the us army and ....before u know it...they were all there.
-
China is a rising power, first economy, then military.
A china which try to enter the world is better than a china that is closed. A china that wants to be heard is better than a china who does give a shit.
China has shown in the past that it would build nuclear weapon while many of its people suffer in hunger. India is no difference. A China which feels it can rely on conventional forces to protect its sovereignty is better than a china which always threaten to use nuclear weapon as deterrent.
The fact remains, China is becoming more powerful. A balance of power in the region cannot be achieved by weakening China!! Its need to protect its sea lanes for secured oil supplies, among other things, is becoming more legitimate. Its determination and means to protect its sovereignty with forces is now stronger. It will not allow history in the early 1900's, where china was torn apart by western powers, to repeat itself. Not only is the government like that, the people are also like that. This is something the american should recognized.
While singapore is still looking for a Singaporean identity, for years, people in China already consider themselves Chinese, despite their ancestry ethnicity of Hans, Manchurian, Mongolian..... If americans are considered racist if they segregating the white, the black, the asian, the Hispanic, why should they look at chinese in different ethnicities? double standard, what else.
The brits bought the lease of HK for 150 years with opinium and china honored it, why should china want to use force on taiwan for reunification?? who can ensure the safety of taiwan, with over 1 million taiwanese working in mainland china and their families in taiwan? Everybody knows that trouble between china and Taiwan is bad for the region. It is just how far will Taiwan allow themselves to be used as a leverage for their own benefit. It is a joke to think that with a few more squadrons of jets and helicopters, taiwan can build any deterrent against China.
China opened up its economy, political liberalization is a matter of time. It is up to the Chinese themselves to decide the pace for such liberalization, and what system they deem suitable. It is not the business of outsiders.
Think about it, if your friend is getting better and stronger, would you be afraid? I guess no. Any sleepless night will be out of jealousy, any fear will be out of ignorance. Its about time the American learn to make friends, CCCP is long gone.
-
Originally posted by Arapahoe:
I am wondering how the CCCP is to continue to govern such a huge land that cut across different social and ethnic without given greater autonomy to the provinces to have some sort of federation representative. It is not just about Taiwan...it is also about the north eastern border, mongolia and other alliance such as N.K, Myanmar, there are different ethnicity ties across the border etc....
what interest me is that with their long shared history, we see the last few decade they are applying the technique of ethinic intergration by migrating ethnic Han which met with resistance from both local ethnicity and religion.
Perharps they are not so united after all. And that the shared history perharps is only unified by 2 great events transformation from Imperal emperor to Nationalist and WW11 while before that it was purly functional as a federation states.
Prosperity had brought about the demand for greater voice. sometime the more power you consolidate the more resistance you received.
I also wonder if the PLA would rised to grap power from the CCCP leaders. If they see that the party leaders is loosing its command.
It maybe Communism in China is only part of a Transformation process that is still evolving. Rather than the end...would probably spell nightmare for its current leadership.
Well given China's history, barring any serious crisis (energy crisis and GW for one) i'd say the first century should be fairly prosperous, maybe plateauing out on the 2nd century. After that it's anyone's guess how it's going to turn out.
This isn't some African country we're talking about here, even the PLA would know instability ultimately benefits no one And i think the CCCP leaders of all people would understand the dangers of allowing one person to hold enough power to upset the balance they're enjoying now.
Communism in China is dead, any youth in China would laugh in your face if you even say that China is a communist country now.
-
Nah. Basically China's getting screwed and they're only starting to realise it. US is buying Chinese products through debt. Then printing money to pay off the debt. And when the chinese don't want to lend, they print more money to pay off debt that is bought by the US govt which is used to fund extra spending on chinese products and the military. Either way, thank you very much China.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
Well given China's history, barring any serious crisis (energy crisis and GW for one) i'd say the first century should be fairly prosperous, maybe plateauing out on the 2nd century. After that it's anyone's guess how it's going to turn out.
This isn't some African country we're talking about here, even the PLA would know instability ultimately benefits no one And i think the CCCP leaders of all people would understand the dangers of allowing one person to hold enough power to upset the balance they're enjoying now.
Communism in China is dead, any youth in China would laugh in your face if you even say that China is a communist country now.
'Communism' as a political ideology or as an economic model is surely dead.
However, its present form in China remains a convenient vehicle for the existing political party or personalities to have a strong grip on the political system that the current leadership had inherited from the historical past.
It allows the present leadership to have the unasailable position of being challenged to its political legitimacy - by any other person or domestic political entity - by virtue of its historical form.
With economic progress that develop China into a more vibrant country, it will result in diverse centers of intellectual creativity, and which will subject this single dominant political force to the real world environment of diversity.
The single dominant role cannot possibly sync with the vibrancy of intellectual diversity.
Unless the Communist Party - as a political vehicle - can morph with the events of the day, it will only create a situation for change to be forced by external forces.
The same applies in Singapore, when internal changes do not reflect nor meet the standards and expectations of external realities.
-
You should read the recent book titled "Information Warfare" (Wiley-ISTE. Nov. 2009), published by the French researcher Daniel Ventre. This book introduces the several concepts of national security and national defense with a focus on the USA and China. Military doctrines are compared and you might find some answers to the questions raised in this forum.
-
US pay china with the paper money they print so thank you china?
Expect China to goondu dont know how to use the US paper money to buy things from US?
US borrow $$ need to pay interest boh? the more they borrow the more they have to pay right? Pay to who? More debt more interest means the american got to work harder to produce more for the creditor....so who in the end have to pay more? is it China?
The only way the US can have NETT gain is to default or be a gangster country dont pay back... play dirty... can the US govt afford to take on the world ? first they have to ans to the american....
-
Some people here are obviously PRC and don't make sense at all.
-
Be nice. Its CNY and gong xi fa cai in the year of the gold tiger.
Can US govt print 11 trillion $ to pay the debt? Sure, they can. Will they? Why not?
What US$11 trillion is owed today will not buy what $11 trillion is worth today. The minute $ is printed, it will lead to a inflationary cycle eg what's happening to gold today.
An interesting consideration is the fixed exchange rate. As US$ devalues, it could place severe currency pressures on the fixed exchange rate. The PRC govt is only just starting to learn the impact and it will be interesting to see what measures they take to mitigate this.
-
Weasel, technically the US Govt cannot print 11 trillion dollars to "pay" the debt.
The US Federal Reserve exists independently from the US Govt and the government can only sell the Feds Bonds or T bills in for them to print more money. A purpose for a separated central bank is so that the government cant anyhow print money as they like.
Even in 2008's situation, the Feds had to accept govt bonds before they print IIRC.
Take away from all this, US Govt != US Federal Reserve. The Feds are independent, not government owned.
-
Yup, but if no one buys bonds (or sells them), then the only way out is to print money to buy them which is exactly what's happening.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/printing-money-a-failure/story-e6frg6zo-1225689858523
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2520309.htm
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122973431525523215.html
As to the Fed, its part of the gahmen. That's why the website is also federalreserve.gov. The board, which runs the fed, is a government agency. In fact, Temasek is probably less govt as the board is technically ex-govt (unlike the fed board which appointed by the Prez, vetted by the Congress) although owned by the MOF. It is however supposed to be independent but only within the framework of the govt.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pdf/pf_1.pdf
"The Federal Reserve System is considered to be an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive branch of government. The System is, however, subject to oversight by the U.S. Congress. The Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government; therefore, the description of the System as "independent within the government" is more accurate."
-
Getting crowded in the South China Seas..........
It was 6 Kilo and now SU30MK2.....I was just wondering is this another 12 from the previous 9 or just total of 12......
MOSCOW (AFP) - – Russia will supply Vietnam with 12 SU-30MK2 fighter jets and aviation equipment worth a total of about one billion dollars, a military-diplomatic source told the Interfax news agency on Wednesday.
"Last week, a contract was signed to supply Vietnam with 12 more SU-30MK2 fighter planes. The planes will be supplied in 2011 and 2012," the source was quoted as saying.
"The contract also calls for the supply of various aviation arms, equipment and parts," the source said, putting the overall value of the deal at one billion dollars (727 million euros).
Vietnam is a major customer of Russia's Sukhoi fighter jets. It previously signed a contract in early 2009 to buy eight SU-30MK2 planes, the source said.
-
Why China’s Naval Rise Could Help the World
David Axe
February 12th 2010
Foreign observers of China's growing naval prowess might be worried by what they’ve seen in recent years. Around a hundred new warships have come off the country's slipways since 2001, while another dozen are under construction. Chinese ships are, on average, getting bigger and more powerful as well as more numerous as Beijing builds what is shaping up to be the world's biggest submarine fleet, as well as new types of anti-ship missiles and the nation's first aircraft carriers. One older Russian carrier is being refurbished and US analysts expect the first fully home-built Chinese carrier to enter service by 2015, with the possibility of more to follow.
All this is a far cry from the People's Liberation Army Navy’s status even a decade ago as a coastal weakling, and has come at a time when the US Navy has actually shrunk by around 10 percent, as several new ship classes arrived late and over-budget. As a result of China's rise and its own budgetary problems, ‘the United States will inevitably have to face...a progressive loss of maritime supremacy in the South China Sea and its environs,’ Andrew Davies, an analyst with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, told The Diplomat.
But observers say a shifting balance of power doesn’t have to mean high tensions, let alone open warfare. Much of what China does in the maritime realm amounts to an elaborate, and expensive, form of diplomatic theatre. Carriers, especially, are more for show than for practical military use, analysts say. Where the People’s Republic of China is building real naval capabilities, most are actually best suited for cooperating, rather than competing, with other world powers.
Indeed, there are signs that China intends to be a full partner in a loose, emerging alliance of developed world navies aiming to suppress piracy and seaborne terrorism and to provide rapid relief in the wake of coastal natural disasters.
China's rush to build amphibious ships and to deploy vessels to Somali waters both support this theory, while even the carriers could potentially be part of Beijing's plan for a peaceful naval rise, inasmuch as they help boost the PLAN's reputation and facilitate a leadership role alongside the United States in future naval alliance.
‘There's much more reason to be positive’ says Eric Wertheim, an independent US naval analyst and author of the authoritative Combat Fleets of the World. ‘I do think China wants to fit into the “global commons.” We just have to be careful make sure they see we are trying to treat them as equals.’
What's the PLAN for?
It's not easy assessing the Chinese navy. Many state functions in Beijing are closely held secrets and none more so than the grand strategy and planned force structure of the Chinese military. Such secrecy means there’s a significant element of guesswork among analysts hoping to understand what China’s leaders actually intend their navy to do.But for every analyst, Taiwan is the starting point. The Chinese navy is ‘still being modernized to deal with possible US intervention in a Taiwan scenario, in which Beijing uses the PLA against the island,’ says Bernard Cole, a professor at the US Naval War College. ‘But PLAN planners are clearly looking at “post-Taiwan” scenarios, as well.’ These might include disputes with Japan over East China Sea resources and defending shipping lanes to the Middle East.
Some analysts, though, say China’s military is still incapable of mounting an invasion of Taiwan. History suggests a successful beach assault against a well-armed, concentrated enemy like the Taiwanese army would require around 60,000 assault troops. But even after a decade of rushed production, the PLAN has enough sealift ships to haul only 15,000 troops in a single wave--and that's assuming no losses to Taiwanese and American ships, planes and subs.For this reason, Beijing is unlikely to attack Taiwan, but remains committed to the appearance of an imminent danger--what Robert Farley, a professor of political science at the University of Kentucky, calls the ‘credible threat to seize Taiwan.’
‘If the Taiwanese don't believe that Chinese military intervention is at least possible,’ Farley says, ‘then they might become unpredictable.’
This ‘Taiwan theatre’ helps explain the PLAN's coming carriers. ‘If we were in a war, I don't think China's carriers would last very long,’ Wertheim says. After all, the United States and its closest European and Asian allies already possess no fewer than 20 aircraft carriers capable of launching fixed-wing strike aircraft--not to mention a combined submarine fleet approaching 100 vessels, compared to China's roughly 60.
China will never be able outgun rival navies with its flattops, but it doesn't have to. ‘I don't think one or two carriers are going to change the military dynamics so much,’ Wertheim says, but the visually impressive vessels ‘will change perceptions.’
Can we all get along?
Aside from Taiwan and the question of its ‘show carriers,’ China is focusing most of its efforts on developing defensive forces, as well as forces optimized for cooperating with its current rivals, rather than simply blasting them out of the water.Defensive ‘anti-access’ systems--in China's case, anti-ship missiles and submarines--make perfect sense for any powerful country. ‘Nations that aspire to regional hegemony have big navies; it's just what they do,’ Farley says.
China has long aspired to be a regional and even global power, but as recently as the mid-1990s was incapable of even protecting its own coastline. In many ways, the most surprising thing about China's naval development is how late and ultimately modest it has been, considering China now has the world's second-biggest economy. ‘I try to think of it from their shoes,’ Wertheim says. ‘I don't think they're acting unreasonably in building a bigger fleet.’
The Chinese ‘have this huge impact on the world economy,’ he says. ‘They have a tremendous amount of economic sea lanes to defend. It's really, really important to remember that in some ways it would be irresponsible for them as a country not to have some sort of build-up.’
And this build-up has the potential for far-reaching--even global--benefits if it can work alongside the United States. ‘The simple presence of naval power reduces the anarchy and lawlessness that otherwise might prevail on the high seas,’ Farley says.
In 2008, China mobilized three warships to join the now 40-strong international fleet patrolling the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean to protect commercial ships from increasingly aggressive and more numerous Somali pirates. While most nations’ vessels sailed singly inside static ‘patrol boxes,’ the Chinese adopted a World II-style convoy system -- that is, sailing alongside merchant ships -- that has actually proved the most effective way of intercepting pirates, according to naval experts and shipping officials.
On the basis of this experience, late last year the PLAN asked to take a turn leading the international naval committee that coordinates the counter-pirate operations. The European Union backed China's request, and in January the so-called ‘Shared Awareness and Deconfliction’ body, also known as ‘SHADE,’ approved the move. Beijing must now sign off on the PLAN playing this larger role. Leadership in SHADE would actually require the PLAN boost its contributions to the counter-piracy fleet with additional vessels.
In addition, the PLAN had reportedly also volunteered to support the US-led naval force that patrols the sea lanes between Somalia and Yemen, aiming to intercept illegal arms shipments between Islamic terrorist groups in Africa and the Middle East. Until this year, the Japanese navy had provided a naval oiler to refuel the US task force, but in 2007 Tokyo considered suspending the assistance. At that point, the PLAN reportedly made an unofficial offer to make one of its oilers available, though according to the Japanese newspaper The Daily Yomiuri, US officials turned down the offer.
Still learning
China is one of the few countries that has naval forces to spare, thanks to the recent surge in ship construction. The UK had to divert a frigate from its traditional Falklands patrol to add to its own counter-piracy efforts, while even the US Navy, the world's biggest, suffers ship shortages. In January, an amphibious ship bound for training off the West African coast had to defer its deployment in order to join a US hospital ship and aircraft carrier rushing medical and engineering assistance to earthquake-ravaged Haiti.Yet for all its deep capacity, the PLAN still doesn’t have the broad range of skills of the US Navy and other, more experienced maritime forces--especially for humanitarian missions. ‘Their military is not very flexible right now,’ Wertheim says. ‘When they watch the kind of stuff the US does in responding to Haiti and other events, [they] really stand in awe...I think China watches us to try to mimic us.’
That mimicry has had a powerful shaping effect on the Chinese navy. In October 2008, the PLAN accepted its first purpose-built hospital ship, code-named ‘Ship 866’ and fitted with ‘comprehensive functions and facilities equivalent to level-three class-A hospitals,’ according to the People's Daily. Ship 866 joined the Chinese fleet just three months after the acceptance of the first of six large amphibious assault ships, themselves fitted with high-tech surgical bays.
Bob Work, a former naval analyst now serving as undersecretary of the US Navy, said Ship 866 has its roots in an event with parallels to the Haiti disaster: the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami that killed as many as 225,000 people in 11 countries.
In the aftermath of that disaster, many countries rushed aid to affected countries by way of amphibious ships and hospital ships, just as they did in Haiti six years later. The US Navy was the biggest naval contributor. China was virtually alone among major powers in having no ships capable of helping out, Work has stated. ‘The tsunami embarrassed them. The Chinese respond to embarrassments in very focused ways.’ In this case by rushing humanitarian-optimized ships into production.
With its new, American-style humanitarian fleet in service, the Chinese now needed expertise in operating it. In April 2009, a Chinese team visited the US hospital ship Comfort while that vessel was delivering medical aid in Colombia. ‘They’re...interested in how we do our business,’ explained Comfort's captain, James Ware.
‘It's not necessarily true that an increase in Chinese maritime capability harms the United States,’ Farley says. Indeed, the PLAN's rise could even benefit not just the United States, but the whole world. But forging an era of naval cooperation will mean the United States and its allies accepting the shared leadership role that Beijing so clearly craves--and granting the PLAN the degree of respect it deserves. That would require changes some might find hard to accept.
For one, the US Navy would have to give up what it perceives as its right to go anywhere, anytime; Davies says this would mean the Americans would probably have to cease collecting intelligence in international waters bordering the Chinese naval base on Hainan Island. Last year, Chinese trawlers harassed a US spy ship operating in the area, resulting in a brief increase in tensions.
But it is also important to note that what didn’t happen in that instance is as important as what did. Even when a US Navy destroyer and a Chinese patrol ship steamed into the disputed zone, no one opened fire. ‘Armed confrontation is possible, but it's hardly inevitable,’ Farley says. ‘There are identifiable flash points which could start a militarized dispute between the US and the PRC, but it's easy to envision a future in which none of these points are sparked.’
‘A lot of countries have strong navies and are friendly with the US,’ Davies notes. China could, and should, be one of them.
http://www.the-diplomat.com/001f1281_r.aspx?artid=392
David Axe is a US-based defence analyst and author of the 'War is Boring' blog
-
While China may not set out to build a large navy to confront the US Navy, China's continuous modernisation and expansion of her key military forces are all geared to neutralise any potent threat that she sees from the USA - so as to enhance the negotiation efforts to have Taiwan return to the Mainland.
USA is the most belligerent country on this globe; and through repeated weapons sales to Taiwan, the USA has persistently thwart the prospects of any successful negotiation with Taiwan for her eventual return to Mainland China.
China's PLAN will be built up to the same size as its modernised Air Force and Army, in which they will return to the old strategy of overwhelming numbers to saturate the capacity of the opposing forces to cope.
This time around - in the event of any outbreak of confrontation, and unlike the suicidal human wave of poorly equipped PLA foot soldiers as in the past - it will be wave after wave of modern military equipped PLA forces in the air, land and sea against any military adversary.
With a booming economy that boosts her national reserves and allow her to construct a larger military force equipped with new technologies gained from the many foreign investments that bring new methods and skills - China is able to incorporate such civilian technologies for military use through intelligent adaptation.
At present, even though the new and modern PLAN aircrafts may not be on par with the likes of the USAF F-22 Raptors or JSF-35, it perhaps can be equal to the Euro Typhoon or the F-16 Falcons.
If ever deployed, the entire fleet of 200 USAF F-22 Raptors will probably be overwhelmed by China's PLAF fleet of 1000 plus of J series fighter aircrafts - with ‘China’s J-10 Fighter’ reputed to be equal to the F-16 Falcons.
China is now reported to be developing a ‘Future Fighter J-XX’ - which is their next generation stealth aircraft that resemble the F-22 Raptor.
China’s 5th Generation Fighter
With an enlarged fleet of PLAN vessels that include superbly armed cruisers and destroyers, and now extending air power on the sea with new built aircraft carriers - this will bring a stalemate if there should be a confrontation with the USA.
No US aircraft carriers will dare come close to the Chinese Mainland to support Taiwan, as the huge number of surface to surface missiles, and cruise missiles will surely overwhelm any anti-missile defense that the US Navy may install to protect the fleet of US Navy and US Marine ships that operate on stand-by in the Pacific Ocean.
In a stalemate environment, the potential of getting Taiwan to return to the Mainland China can perhaps have a better chance of success when the Taiwanese awake to the futile idea of armed resistance without US military support.
Sun-Tzu's Art of War is being implemented - build up sufficient force to shape the expected battle, without the need of using it.
Review videos of
‘New 2009 - Chinese People’s Liberation Army’
‘New 2009 - Chinese People’s Liberation Army Part 2’
‘China’s Air Force – Advanced Air Warfare 2009’
‘New 2009 – Chinese People’s Liberation Navy Part 1’
-
Originally posted by Gaosung:
M'sian fighter jets will be overhead in less than half a minute???
before they come already gana spotted and intercepted
our early warning all buy for fun? our SAM all fake? our fighters for air show only?
what ? they gonna shoot down M'sian planes in their airspace ?
M'sia is way wya too close and S'pore way way too small and surrounded on 3 sides..........no time and space...........
that's why SAF - army and air force is created for pre-emptive offensive actions against M'sia not defensive..................that's why they train in wide open spaces and not urban areas.
-
wah compare typhoon to F16?
thought typhoon should be better?
-
Here is an article from 2008 that surely must be the one that is causing deep concern to the USA - and to a lesser extent to the Europeans - which is caught by the typical Western ambivalent greed to be involved with China's economic developments, and concerned with the offering of dual use technologies that will strengthen China's political-military hand.
China’s Military Employment of American Dual-Use Technologies
by Richard Fisher, Jr.
Published on August 1st, 2008
ARTICLESOn June 5, 1989 President George H.W. Bush announced the United States suspension of sales of items on the U.S. munitions list, or an arms embargo, in response to the June 3-4 Tiananmen Massacre in Beijing, China. In 1990 this policy was codified by the U.S. Congress.[1] But almost from its inception successive American presidents have made exceptions to this law, primarily by issuing wavers to allow the purchase of Chinese satellite launch services. In addition, by the mid-1990s the U.S. Commerce Department has allowed a growing trade in so-called "dual-use" items that may have a military use but are not weapons in and of themselves.
In a 2005 exchange regarding U.S. exports of dual use technologies to China, former Department of Defense official Lawrence Korb (then with the Center for American Progress) told Peter Lichtenbaum, then Acting Undersecretary for Industry and Security of the Department of Commerce, that "…the United States exports equipment and technology to China that actively contributes to Beijing's ability to wage war." Korb noted that U.S. exports were not "…being used in a manner consistent with our national security and nonproliferation interests."[2]
Lichtenbaum disagreed, noting, "The United States maintains an arms embargo on China. Because dual-use items (such as computers) have important commercial uses, we do not have an embargo on exports of dual-use items to China. However, we have a general policy of denying export license applications for dual-use items to Chinese military end-users."[3] Nevertheless, it is clear that the State and Commerce Departments have used this distinction to allow an increasing traffic in American made or designed products to China which do have a specific military use. Despite Mr. Lichtenbaum’s assurance, these items are going directly into the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) inventory, or are easily accessible by the PLA from Chinese "civilian" entities.
Open source information shows that the PLA and China’s People’s Armed Police (PAP) are benefitting from many American made or designed products. Some, like the AM General Humvee vehicle, were explicitly designed for military use. Others, like jet airliners, utility helicopters, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and Segway personal transports may not have been originally designed for military or police use, but are thus used in the West, and now in China. In the case of airliners, it is proving the case that both the United States and Europe have sold China a considerable potential military capability. As such, one can conclude that the State Department and the Commerce Department are not doing their job and ensuring that these dual use items do not end up increasing China’s military capabilities.
PAP Segway Squad: As part of sanctioned exports of US police technology, the People’s Armed Police now uses the innovative American Segway transporter. Source: Chinese Internet
From 2005 to the present, both the Bush Administration and the U.S. Congress have expressed their opposition to Europe relaxing its 1989 arms embargo. In 2008 the European Parliament and the U.S. Congress have affirmed their support for Europe’s embargo. However, Europe also has its problem in allowing a greater traffic in dual-use technology that is increasing Chinese military capabilities. This is especially true in the case of helicopter and transport aircraft technologies. Despite the 1989 EU arms embargo Eurocopter has sustained a technology relationship with Chinese helicopter companies, and is now co-developing the EC-175/Z-15 advanced utility helicopter with China. Furthermore, in its rush to secure a greater share of the Chinese airliner market from rival Boeing, Airbus has transferred an airline "kit" assembly line to Tianjin that can only help China advance its own program to build a large airliner by 2020, one that will likely be produced in multiple military variants.
Not A Toy: American All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) maker Polaris has shifted much of its production to China, which makes it easy for the PLA to use Polaris ATVs as do U.S. Army Special Forces units (bottom), photographed in May 2008. Source: Chinese Internet and RD Fisher
However, it is critical that before Washington considers taking any complaints to Brussels, that it review how American dual-use exports to China are being used to improve PLA and PAP capabilities. What follows is a list of U.S. dual-use technologies that are benefiting China’s military.
AM General Humvee Light Truck
While the ubiquitous M998 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV, or Humvee) is now being quickly supplanted by thousands of more heavily armored Mine Resistant Armor Protected (MRAP) vehicles in U.S. service, tens of thousands of this AM General design have entered the U.S. armed forces and about 45 other countries since the early 1980s. Designed as the successor to the iconic Willy’s Jeep of World War II fame, the 1.5 ton Humvee can carry a much greater array of modern weapons and equipment and has been produced in over twenty variants for the U.S. services alone, from utility transport, to ambulance, anti-tank, anti-aircraft, electronic warfare and weather station missions. The Humvee became a critical system to fulfill new U.S. Army doctrines of the 1980s that stressed greater mobility and firepower, and thousands were successfully used during the 1990-1991 and 1993 wars against Iraq.
Dong Feng Motors and Shenyang Humvees: A Dong Feng Motors production line for Humvees and a Shenyang Aircraft Corporation copy of the Humvee, with SAMs, seen at the 2004 Zhuhai Airshow. Source: Chinese Internet and RD Fisher
While the PLA was reportedly very impressed with the Humvee’s performance during the first Gulf War, its introduction to this vehicle predated that war. In 1988 AM General was reported to have displayed the Humvee at a military exhibition in Beijing.[4] Other Chinese sources have noted that the U.S. Government may have given China a small number in the late 1980s as part of early anti-narcotics cooperation. However, at the 2000 Zhuhai Airshow this analyst noted that a picture of a Humvee-like vehicle appeared in a brochure of the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation. And then at the 2004 Zhuhai show, an actual Shenyang copy was put on display, armed with the TY-90 anti-aircraft missile of Luoyang Optoelectric Technology Company. But by this time it was apparent that a second copy was also being produced by the Dong Feng Motors Company, called the EQ2050 "Meng Shi." This version was marketed at the 2005 IDEX show in Abu Dhabi armed with a turret equipped with FN-6 short-range surface-to-air missiles (SAMs)[5] that almost copied the Boeing FIM-92A Avenger still in use by the U.S. Army.
China’s Avenger: A Boeing FIM-92A Avenger Humvee-mouted SAM carrier, seen in May 2008, and a Chinese facsimile, seen on a Dong Feng copy of the Humvee, in model form from the 2007 IDEX show. Source: RD Fisher
Despite repeated inquiries from 2005 onward, this analyst could not get a response from AM General officials regarding the reasons why two Chinese companies would be producing Humvee vehicles. This changed in early 2008 when on AM General official, on condition of anonymity, explained that the State and Commerce Departments sanctioned the sale and co-production of the civilian H-1 version of the Humvee for the Chinese market in the 1997 time frame. This led to a partnership with Dong Feng Motors. It is less clear that there was a formal relationship with the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation. However, the official noted that AM General sells parts to both companies. This official also acknowledged that the PLA and the Chinese government are the main customers for these co-produced Humvees. So far it appears that Dong Feng may produce 1,500 copies but that has not happened yet. However, neither company has rights to sell versions to the civilian market. AM General had also received in 2007 a reconfirmation from the Commerce Department of its authorization to sell Humvees to the Chinese market.
Dong Feng “Humvees” In Tibet: A line of Dong Feng Motors trucks outside a Tibetian monestary, which includes versions of the Humvee. Source: Chinese Internet
Currently Dong Feng Motors appears to be the most active producer of Chinese-made Humvee versions. Dong Feng made Humvees apparently use a slightly more powerful diesel engine. One Chinese article suggested that if Dong Feng were to enlist other companies, it could produce up to 100,000 a year for wartime production.[6] So far Chinese-made Humvees have been purchased by Chinese Police departments, the PLA Marines, various PLA Army units to very likely include Airborne and Special Forces units. Dong Feng markets a version armed with a roof-mounted 23mm cannon and another Special Forces version armed with a automatic grenade launcher and a squad machine gun. Another version of the Humvee forms the carrier for 81mm automatic mortar[7] and a twin-23mm anti-aircraft gun, and are being used by a novel PLA "Mechanized" Special Forces unit. The Poly Technologies arms trading firm markets the "FB-6A Missile Launching Vehicle," which is armed with eight FB-6A man-portable air defense system (MANPADS) anti-aircraft missiles.[8] This vehicle is a virtual copy of the Boeing Avenger system. Inasmuch as Taiwan makes extensive use of several version of the Humvee, and has purchased 72 Boeing Avengers for Army air defense, the PLA’s growing inventory of Humvee copies presents many opportunities for surprise and deception operations against Taiwanese forces.
PLA Special Forces Humvee Variants: This variant Humvee chasis now carries a 81mm automatic mortar or a twin 23mm anti-aircraft cannon, as part of an effort to create a “Mechanized” or more heavily armed helicopter-portable Special Forces Unit. Dong Feng also makes a Special Forces variant (bottom) Source: Chinese Internet
Despite the capability that has been transferred to the PLA and the growing threat this presents to U.S. friends like Taiwan, AM General faces tough competition in the China military vehicle market from European automakers. The Italian IVECO designed NJ2046 produced by Chinese partner NAVECO is used by the PLA in several versions, including one for Airborne Forces. The PAP uses one IVECO van version as a mobile lethal-injection prisoner execution platform. Germany’s Mercedes Benz has several truck versions in production in China, and the PAP uses an armored Mercedes G-Class vehicle with an anti-sniper detection device.
Helicopters
As it has at various times during the Bush Administration there has been the suggestion that the U.S. relent on Tiananmen related sanctions and permit the sale of spare parts for the 24 Sikorsky S-70 Blackhawk helicopters sold to the PLA in the 1980s.[9] Most recently China requested these spare parts for humanitarian concerns related to the S-70’s role in relief operations responding to the devastating May 12, 2008 Sichuan earthquake. However, this idea has been repeatedly rejected, in large part due to the S-70s overt military role; this helicopter is regularly seen in PLA exercises carrying artillery and Special Forces vehicles. It will almost certainly be employed in any future operations against Taiwan—which also operates the S-70 and is seeking more.
PLA S-70s: The PLA’s Sikorsky S-70 Blackhawk contributed to relief efforts following the May 12 earthquake, and it could in the future carry Special Forces vehicles to help attack Taiwan. Source: Chinese Internet
However, in part due to pressure from the U.S. helicopter industry the Commerce and State Departments have relented in permitting sales of U.S. helicopters to "civilian" Chinese entities. In 2001 United Technologies subsidiary Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation sold S-76 transport helicopters to the Chinese Ministry of Communications, and in 2005 sold S-92 helicopters to China Easter General Aviation to support offshore oil drilling operations. In 2007 Sikorsky entered into a partnership with Chinese helicopter maker Change Aircraft Industries Corporation to co-produce S-76 airframes to support Sikorsky production.[10] In 1998 Sikorsky entered into a partnership with China’s AVIC-2 consortium to co-develop the larger S-92 helicopter, and it manufactures the tail of that helicopter. In 2003 Sikorsky established its Chinese partner "Shanghai Sikorsky," and in 2008 AVIC-2, though its subsidiary Change, became a shareholder of Shanghai Sikorsky.[11] Change also co-produces the Sikorsky-Schweitzer S-300, a lightweight training helicopter, which also formed the basis for U.S. Navy’s Northrop Grumman MQ-8B Fire Scout unmanned helicopter.
Sikorsky S-92 Superhawk: Shown being delivered to a branch of China Eastern Airways, the S-92 is one of the most modern and capable helicopters in the world. Source: Chinese Internet
Another United Technologies subsidiary, the Pratt Whitney Canada aircraft engine maker, sold ten of its PT6C-67C helicopter turboshaft engines in 2000-2001 to assist the Chinese Medium Helicopter program of the Chinese Helicopter Research and Development Institute (CHRDI),[12] the chief designer of China’s helicopters. In 2007 Pratt and Whitney Canada claimed they thought they were assisting the "civilian" version of this program,[13] which had been thought to include the 5.5 ton WZ-10 dedicated attack helicopter, and a 6 ton utility helicopter based on the same drive train. The later has yet to materialize, while several prototypes of the Z-10 military attack helicopter are now flying powered by PT6C-67C engines. The Z-10 is about the same size and configuration as the Eurocopter Tiger, one of the world’s most modern and capable attack helicopters. Full production of the Z-10 powered by Pratt Whitney engines would give the PLA an unprecedented level of "aerial artillery" to support amphibious invasion and subsequent operations against Taiwan.
PLA Z-10 and United Technologies PT6C-67: A Pratt Whitney Canada turboshaft engine (top) powers the current prototypes of the PLA’s new sophisticated attack helicopter, which is comparable to the Eurocopter Tiger and as capable at Taiwan’s Bell AH-1 Cobra attack helicopters. Meanwhile, China is blackmailing U.S. helicopter makers selling to Taiwan. Source: Chinese Internet and RD Fisher
Bell Helicopter Canada, a subsidiary of the American Textron Company, sold its Bell-427 light helicopter in China after 2000, and in 2003 entered into a partnership with Hafei Aviation Industries to manufacture airframes for the Bell-430 helicopter.[14]
However, on a corporate or company level there is a thin-to-no distinction between selling to a "civilian" and a "military" entity in China. All of China’s helicopter companies perform either research and development or manufacturing for the PLA. While one might quibble that Sikorsky S-76 and Bell-430 airframes or S-300 helicopters are relatively low-tech, it is likely that China’s intelligence services have targeted these companies to ensure that Chinese companies benefit from data gathered in China, or via cyber espionage operations that could benefit from an understanding of corporate data bases. In addition, all U.S. helicopters sold to "civilian" Chinese entities are theoretically subject to emergency military mobilization. This was demonstrated in the response to the May 12 Sichuan earthquake when a S-76 helicopter sold to a "civilian" operator was used along with Russian Mil Mi-17s and European Eurocopter AS-332 helicopters sold to other Chinese "civil" operators.[15] These helicopters are equally likely to be used to support potential Chinese military operations against Taiwan, Japan and India.
Civil Helicopter Lineup: This lineup of Chinese civilian helicopters aiding earthquake relief efforts includes a Sikorsky S-76, an indication that the Chinese government could mobilize these helicopters for military missions against Taiwan as well. Source: Chinese Internet
As is the case with autos, American helicopter companies believe they must compete with Russian and European firms which gain political favor by selling helicopters and technology to the PLA. The PLA has purchased about 240 Russian Mil Mi-17I/V5 medium utility helicopters and has just entered a kit-based co-production agreement anticipated to add an additional 160 to its inventory over five years.[16] While Russia may hope to safeguard its technology,[17] it is apparent that Europe views the transfer of its helicopter technology as key to securing future helicopter market share. Eurocopter helped CHRDI design the drive train for the Z-10 attack helicopter.[18] Since 2004 Eurocopter and China’s AVIC-2 have proceeded with a co-development and co-production project to create a new 8-ton utility helicopters, called the EC-175 in Europe and the Z-15 in China. Its first flight is expected in 2009 and it is expected to be certified in 2011. A Eurocopter official told this analyst that they do not expect the Chinese military to use the EC-175.[19] But Eurocopter’s record is not encouraging; Eurocopter’s SA321, SA365, AS350 and HC-120, all co-produced in China, serve in the PLA, as the Z-8, Z-9, Z-11 and HC-120.
PLAAF Boeing B-737-300 Electronic Platform
At the November 2004 Zhuhai Airshow this analyst noticed a peculiar feature in a video presented by the Xian Aircraft Corporation. In a section of the video that showed newly built H-6 bombers outside the Xian factory, there was a Boeing B-737 jet transport with what appeared to be new fairings atop the fuselage. When the author asked Asian military contacts about this oddity there was a surprising report: China had converted two Boeing 737 airliners to serve as electronic control and monitoring platforms to support testing for new long range Land Attack Cruise Missiles. Subsequent Internet-source pictures of the aircraft revealed that new fairings has been placed on top of and on the bottom of the fuselage. Such a configuration could support a command and control or the suggested cruise missile test monitoring mission. A more recent Internet-source photo shows the aircraft to be part of a special PLA Air Force squadron equipped with other electronic and radar test aircraft.
PLAAF’s “Pirate” Boeing 737: A Xian Aircraft Co. video from 2004 offered the first indication that China had altered a Boeing 737 for military missions (top) and subsequent internet photos show this PLAAF aircraft has new fairings ontop and below the fuselage. Source: RD Fisher and Chinese Internet
In early 2005 officials in the State and Commerce Departments told Bill Gertz of the Washington Times that this PLA use of an American-made aircraft was under investigation. A State Department official reported to Gertz, "…commercial jets are permitted for export to China without a license, but that converting a civilian aircraft into a military jet is not allowed under U.S. export rules." This official then stated, "It is unquestionably true that these jets could not have been sold to the Chinese military without a presidential waiver, which is very unlikely," Gertz also reported that if China had violated U.S. export rules, "penalties could range from fines to the imposition of economic sanctions on China that would bar purchases of U.S. aircraft worth hundreds of millions of dollars."[20] However, three and half years later, there has been no action by the State Department or the Commerce Department reacting to this flagrant Chinese military employment of a controlled American technology. Instead, Boeing continues to sell its B-737 airliners to Chinese airlines, which now operate over 200. In March 2008 the Pentagon reported that China could have as many as 250 new Land Attack Cruise Missiles targeting Taiwan.[21] In early 2007 Taiwan’s Ministry of Defense reported that only 100 such PLA cruise missiles were deployed.[22]
PLA’s Boeing 737s In Regiment: This Chinese Internet photo from 2008 shows two modified Boeing 737s in a PLAAF regiment dedicated to radar and electronic warfare testing aircraft.
PLA Use of American Cargo Airliners for Military Operations
A more ominous use of American made airliners is the PLA’s regular incorporation of civilian airliners into military troop and cargo transport missions. It has long been known that the PLA uses China’s fleet of civilian airliners as a "reserve" air transport resource. These airliners have been used to perform troop rotations and are occasionally used in troop transport exercises. Following the May 12 Sichuan earthquake the PLA again used Boeing and Airbus airliners with China Southern and China Eastern airlines to make emergency shipments of personnel and material. These supplemented the use of PLAAF Ilyushin Il-76 and Xian Y-8 transports for the same missions. But then in mid-June, perhaps capitalizing on the need to hone emergency airlift mobilization, the PLA conducted another exercise in which PLAAF Il-76 and both Airbus and Boeing airliners were mobilized to move PLA Airborne troops.
However, there was a unique addition to this mid-June exercise: the use of at least one Boeing B-747F and one McDonnell Douglas MD-11F dedicated cargo transports. A cursory count of U.S. made cargo airliners used by Chinese airlines—which would now include Hong Kong’s airlines-- indicates that they have at least 31 Boeing 747F cargoliners of various models and 9 MD-11F models, for a current total of 40 cargoliners.[23] An Il-76 can carry about 48 metric tons while a Boeing B-747F-400 can carry about 55 metric tons. If one accepts current estimates that the PLAAF has about 20 Il-76 cargo transports, then the potential addition of U.S. made cargoliners could potentially treble the PLA’s air cargo lift capacity. But this is set to increase as Hong Kong’s Cathay Airlines has 16 Boeing B-747 cargoliners on order, and China Southern Airlines has six new Boeing B-777 cargoliners on order. Enlisting "civilian" cargoliners in potential operations against Taiwan would be very attractive to the PLA. These aircraft could concentrate on moving the wide variety of palletized cargo, from bullets to artillery rockets to beans, that would be needed to sustain light and medium weight tracked and wheeled armored forces that would be best moved by Il-76s. By using civilian cargoliners to build up weapons and supplies, PLA Airborne armored forces sent to capture a Taiwanese airport could quickly move from a defensive to an offensive mission.
PLA Cargoliners: A mid-June 2008 PLA mobilization exercise saw the first noted use of civilian Chinese Boeing B-747F and MD-11F cargoliners to help transport PLA Airborne troops and their equipment. Source: Chinese Internet
China’s Arms Embargo Of America ?
Despite the U.S. and European arms embargos of 1989 responding to the Tiananmen Massacre, an event for which the Chinese government refuses still to acknowledge responsibility or offer justice, China’s military is making flagrant and increasing military use of American and European dual use technologies. In the case of the PLA Air Force’s "pirate" Boeing B-737, the U.S. State Department and Commerce Department cannot even organize themselves to define and enforce American law. This aircraft has very likely made a major contribution to the development of the PLA’s now rapidly growing offensive cruise missile capabilities. Co-produced Humvees, Sikorsky and Bell helicopters, plus Boeing and McDonnell Douglas cargoliners all are available now to the PLA to undertake direct attack or deception operations against Taiwan.
But there is perhaps another lesson for American policy makers. Instead of quietly increasing its exploitation of this growing instance of American weakness, China’s leaders are instead pressing for their own "embargo," actually threatening American aircraft makers Boeing, Bell and Sikorsky that they cannot sell to the Chinese market if they sell new weapons to Taiwan. In mid-May Defense News reported:
"Over the past two years, China has threatened to stop buying commercial airliners from Boeing and civil helicopters from Bell Helicopter and Sikorsky if the companies continue to sell weapons and "advanced helicopter technologies" to Taiwan, sources said. Each of the companies stands to lose billions of dollars in potential orders, sources added… In 2006, China’s threats led Boeing to shutter its Taipei office and move the staff to Singapore, sources said."[24]
The fact of the matter is that China cannot yet make its own commercial/military high-capacity transport aircraft or even keep pace with helicopter technology without foreign assistance. This, however, could change dramatically in the next decade should Airbus and Eurocopter, either willingly or otherwise, give China the technology needed to make competitive aircraft that will form the basis for indigenous military versions. Yet the Chinese leadership believes that it is now strong enough to blackmail American aircraft corporations into forcing the American government into betraying a longstanding security interest in Asia: defending the democracy on Taiwan.
The regular and evidently intentional fudging of restrictions on dual use and other exports is most likely understood as manifesting the rarely-spoken but clear expectations that have set Washington’s expectations since the 1970s. These are first that whatever happens, China will sooner or later emerge as the supreme economic and military power in Asia. The second is that it is therefore essential for the United States to be friendly with that China, regardless.
Expert opinion is divided. Some believe China will indeed continue smoothly on her present course and that her neighbors will sooner or later acquiesce. The result will be a replication of the China-centered tributary system that, although it never existed in fact, was widely portrayed in traditional Chinese writings. Others see dangers ahead for China—not just popular unrest and the problem of keeping political control without elections or free speech, but also environmental degradation, waste of resources—and if China attempts to coerce her neighbors, the emergence of a powerful coalition to balance her.
For Washington to plump so firmly on one side of this debate, making little provision for internal problems in China or external adventures, is most unwise. For the moment, however, that seems to be the signal being sent to China by the White House.
Reading this, the Chinese see themselves as engaged in a classic test of will what they consider the declining power of the United States and its allies. Analyzing our policy choices, they see an increasing willingness to defer to their wishes rather than to consider the interests of Asia as a whole. Few things are more dangerous in international affairs than a state that expects to be able to step into a position of primacy, be it regional or global, more or less effortlessly—indeed with the hegemon-emeritus smoothing the way. That China would actually be able to assume such a position and that the United States would knowingly smooth the way are both most doubtful propositions. But if our actions, for example with respect to dual use technologies, have the effect of convincing China that we are packing up and leaving the field to them, and leading our allies to think that they will soon be on their own, the results are likely to be opposite to what Washington intends—and potentially conflictual.
For references click on the following:- http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.187/pub_detail.asp
Side notes:
- ‘China’s Hummer excel the Original Hummvee ?’
-
Originally posted by 38�Ž:
Why China’s Naval Rise Could Help the World
David Axe
February 12th 2010Foreign observers of China's growing naval prowess might be worried by what they’ve seen in recent years. Around a hundred new warships have come off the country's slipways since 2001, while another dozen are under construction. Chinese ships are, on average, getting bigger and more powerful as well as more numerous as Beijing builds what is shaping up to be the world's biggest submarine fleet, as well as new types of anti-ship missiles and the nation's first aircraft carriers. One older Russian carrier is being refurbished and US analysts expect the first fully home-built Chinese carrier to enter service by 2015, with the possibility of more to follow.
All this is a far cry from the People's Liberation Army Navy’s status even a decade ago as a coastal weakling, and has come at a time when the US Navy has actually shrunk by around 10 percent, as several new ship classes arrived late and over-budget. As a result of China's rise and its own budgetary problems, ‘the United States will inevitably have to face...a progressive loss of maritime supremacy in the South China Sea and its environs,’ Andrew Davies, an analyst with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, told The Diplomat.
But observers say a shifting balance of power doesn’t have to mean high tensions, let alone open warfare. Much of what China does in the maritime realm amounts to an elaborate, and expensive, form of diplomatic theatre. Carriers, especially, are more for show than for practical military use, analysts say. Where the People’s Republic of China is building real naval capabilities, most are actually best suited for cooperating, rather than competing, with other world powers.
Indeed, there are signs that China intends to be a full partner in a loose, emerging alliance of developed world navies aiming to suppress piracy and seaborne terrorism and to provide rapid relief in the wake of coastal natural disasters.
China's rush to build amphibious ships and to deploy vessels to Somali waters both support this theory, while even the carriers could potentially be part of Beijing's plan for a peaceful naval rise, inasmuch as they help boost the PLAN's reputation and facilitate a leadership role alongside the United States in future naval alliance.
‘There's much more reason to be positive’ says Eric Wertheim, an independent US naval analyst and author of the authoritative Combat Fleets of the World. ‘I do think China wants to fit into the “global commons.” We just have to be careful make sure they see we are trying to treat them as equals.’
What's the PLAN for?
It's not easy assessing the Chinese navy. Many state functions in Beijing are closely held secrets and none more so than the grand strategy and planned force structure of the Chinese military. Such secrecy means there’s a significant element of guesswork among analysts hoping to understand what China’s leaders actually intend their navy to do.But for every analyst, Taiwan is the starting point. The Chinese navy is ‘still being modernized to deal with possible US intervention in a Taiwan scenario, in which Beijing uses the PLA against the island,’ says Bernard Cole, a professor at the US Naval War College. ‘But PLAN planners are clearly looking at “post-Taiwan” scenarios, as well.’ These might include disputes with Japan over East China Sea resources and defending shipping lanes to the Middle East.
Some analysts, though, say China’s military is still incapable of mounting an invasion of Taiwan. History suggests a successful beach assault against a well-armed, concentrated enemy like the Taiwanese army would require around 60,000 assault troops. But even after a decade of rushed production, the PLAN has enough sealift ships to haul only 15,000 troops in a single wave--and that's assuming no losses to Taiwanese and American ships, planes and subs.For this reason, Beijing is unlikely to attack Taiwan, but remains committed to the appearance of an imminent danger--what Robert Farley, a professor of political science at the University of Kentucky, calls the ‘credible threat to seize Taiwan.’
‘If the Taiwanese don't believe that Chinese military intervention is at least possible,’ Farley says, ‘then they might become unpredictable.’
This ‘Taiwan theatre’ helps explain the PLAN's coming carriers. ‘If we were in a war, I don't think China's carriers would last very long,’ Wertheim says. After all, the United States and its closest European and Asian allies already possess no fewer than 20 aircraft carriers capable of launching fixed-wing strike aircraft--not to mention a combined submarine fleet approaching 100 vessels, compared to China's roughly 60.
China will never be able outgun rival navies with its flattops, but it doesn't have to. ‘I don't think one or two carriers are going to change the military dynamics so much,’ Wertheim says, but the visually impressive vessels ‘will change perceptions.’
Can we all get along?
Aside from Taiwan and the question of its ‘show carriers,’ China is focusing most of its efforts on developing defensive forces, as well as forces optimized for cooperating with its current rivals, rather than simply blasting them out of the water.Defensive ‘anti-access’ systems--in China's case, anti-ship missiles and submarines--make perfect sense for any powerful country. ‘Nations that aspire to regional hegemony have big navies; it's just what they do,’ Farley says.
China has long aspired to be a regional and even global power, but as recently as the mid-1990s was incapable of even protecting its own coastline. In many ways, the most surprising thing about China's naval development is how late and ultimately modest it has been, considering China now has the world's second-biggest economy. ‘I try to think of it from their shoes,’ Wertheim says. ‘I don't think they're acting unreasonably in building a bigger fleet.’
The Chinese ‘have this huge impact on the world economy,’ he says. ‘They have a tremendous amount of economic sea lanes to defend. It's really, really important to remember that in some ways it would be irresponsible for them as a country not to have some sort of build-up.’
And this build-up has the potential for far-reaching--even global--benefits if it can work alongside the United States. ‘The simple presence of naval power reduces the anarchy and lawlessness that otherwise might prevail on the high seas,’ Farley says.
In 2008, China mobilized three warships to join the now 40-strong international fleet patrolling the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean to protect commercial ships from increasingly aggressive and more numerous Somali pirates. While most nations’ vessels sailed singly inside static ‘patrol boxes,’ the Chinese adopted a World II-style convoy system -- that is, sailing alongside merchant ships -- that has actually proved the most effective way of intercepting pirates, according to naval experts and shipping officials.
On the basis of this experience, late last year the PLAN asked to take a turn leading the international naval committee that coordinates the counter-pirate operations. The European Union backed China's request, and in January the so-called ‘Shared Awareness and Deconfliction’ body, also known as ‘SHADE,’ approved the move. Beijing must now sign off on the PLAN playing this larger role. Leadership in SHADE would actually require the PLAN boost its contributions to the counter-piracy fleet with additional vessels.
In addition, the PLAN had reportedly also volunteered to support the US-led naval force that patrols the sea lanes between Somalia and Yemen, aiming to intercept illegal arms shipments between Islamic terrorist groups in Africa and the Middle East. Until this year, the Japanese navy had provided a naval oiler to refuel the US task force, but in 2007 Tokyo considered suspending the assistance. At that point, the PLAN reportedly made an unofficial offer to make one of its oilers available, though according to the Japanese newspaper The Daily Yomiuri, US officials turned down the offer.
Still learning
China is one of the few countries that has naval forces to spare, thanks to the recent surge in ship construction. The UK had to divert a frigate from its traditional Falklands patrol to add to its own counter-piracy efforts, while even the US Navy, the world's biggest, suffers ship shortages. In January, an amphibious ship bound for training off the West African coast had to defer its deployment in order to join a US hospital ship and aircraft carrier rushing medical and engineering assistance to earthquake-ravaged Haiti.Yet for all its deep capacity, the PLAN still doesn’t have the broad range of skills of the US Navy and other, more experienced maritime forces--especially for humanitarian missions. ‘Their military is not very flexible right now,’ Wertheim says. ‘When they watch the kind of stuff the US does in responding to Haiti and other events, [they] really stand in awe...I think China watches us to try to mimic us.’
That mimicry has had a powerful shaping effect on the Chinese navy. In October 2008, the PLAN accepted its first purpose-built hospital ship, code-named ‘Ship 866’ and fitted with ‘comprehensive functions and facilities equivalent to level-three class-A hospitals,’ according to the People's Daily. Ship 866 joined the Chinese fleet just three months after the acceptance of the first of six large amphibious assault ships, themselves fitted with high-tech surgical bays.
Bob Work, a former naval analyst now serving as undersecretary of the US Navy, said Ship 866 has its roots in an event with parallels to the Haiti disaster: the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami that killed as many as 225,000 people in 11 countries.
In the aftermath of that disaster, many countries rushed aid to affected countries by way of amphibious ships and hospital ships, just as they did in Haiti six years later. The US Navy was the biggest naval contributor. China was virtually alone among major powers in having no ships capable of helping out, Work has stated. ‘The tsunami embarrassed them. The Chinese respond to embarrassments in very focused ways.’ In this case by rushing humanitarian-optimized ships into production.
With its new, American-style humanitarian fleet in service, the Chinese now needed expertise in operating it. In April 2009, a Chinese team visited the US hospital ship Comfort while that vessel was delivering medical aid in Colombia. ‘They’re...interested in how we do our business,’ explained Comfort's captain, James Ware.
‘It's not necessarily true that an increase in Chinese maritime capability harms the United States,’ Farley says. Indeed, the PLAN's rise could even benefit not just the United States, but the whole world. But forging an era of naval cooperation will mean the United States and its allies accepting the shared leadership role that Beijing so clearly craves--and granting the PLAN the degree of respect it deserves. That would require changes some might find hard to accept.
For one, the US Navy would have to give up what it perceives as its right to go anywhere, anytime; Davies says this would mean the Americans would probably have to cease collecting intelligence in international waters bordering the Chinese naval base on Hainan Island. Last year, Chinese trawlers harassed a US spy ship operating in the area, resulting in a brief increase in tensions.
But it is also important to note that what didn’t happen in that instance is as important as what did. Even when a US Navy destroyer and a Chinese patrol ship steamed into the disputed zone, no one opened fire. ‘Armed confrontation is possible, but it's hardly inevitable,’ Farley says. ‘There are identifiable flash points which could start a militarized dispute between the US and the PRC, but it's easy to envision a future in which none of these points are sparked.’
‘A lot of countries have strong navies and are friendly with the US,’ Davies notes. China could, and should, be one of them.
http://www.the-diplomat.com/001f1281_r.aspx?artid=392
David Axe is a US-based defence analyst and author of the 'War is Boring' blogwhen i read articles such as the above....
I don't mean to be a skeptics but has international relations conduct differently between nations since WWII?
We are still concern about energy, raw material, mercantilism...."Reason of the State" still applied.
What is true is that it maybe "Unthinkable to have conflict between 2 Giant and that we might not want to see it happen"
Was Churchhill war crazy or the only sane person before the invasion of Poland.
It depend on which side of the world you are lookin from......