China's military giving USA sleepless nights

last SG · 2010-01-28T19:12:24+00:00

Compared to Zhu Cheng Hu, this guy is mild. I am really not surprised that China has focused a lot of ELINT and maritime surveillance technologies. Afterall...

weasel1962 SG

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.

Atobe SG

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.

Daniel.ventre SG

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.

Gaosung SG

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....

Shotgun SG

Some people here are obviously PRC and don't make sense at all.

weasel1962 SG

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.

Shotgun SG

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.

weasel1962 SG

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

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/5379285/China-warns-Federal-Reserve-over-printing-money.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."

Arapahoe SG

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.

38 SG

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

Atobe SG

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’

‘Chinese Navy Part 2’

‘Chinese Aircraft Carrier’

As romanista2001 SG

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.

Gaosung SG

wah compare typhoon to F16?

thought typhoon should be better?

Atobe SG

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
ARTICLES

On 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.

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.

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.

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 ?’

- ‘Hummer sold to China 1’

- ‘Hummer sold to China 2’

Arapahoe SG

Why China’s Naval Rise Could Help the World
David Axe
February 12th 2010

‘If the Taiwanese don't believe that Chinese military intervention is at least possible,’ Farley says, ‘then they might become unpredictable.’

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

when 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......

38 SG

when 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......

The answer to that is a distinctive yes, the international relations are conducted fundamentally different after cold war.

Economy is the fundament for superstructures like politics or military, if we all agree on this principle, then it’s not too difficult to understand that during cold war, there’re two economic systems, soviet central-planning economic system and western market orientated economic system, both economic systems were completing for the single resources, to be energy, territories etc, The individual international relations or militaries as the superstructures for individual economy, were competing each other.

However, with the ending of cold war, the central planning economic system is no longer there, today’s economic system is identified as the common market, integrated supply chain etc. Because of the integrated supply chain, energy, raw materials etc, no longer necessarily to be in a “you die so I alive” situation. In terms of volume, both China & US, are the top 2 trade nations in the world. In this regard, both China & US share the most of the common market and world wide supply chain. Talking about supply chain, then it’s linked to, for example, SLOC which in turn is directly linked to one’s navy responsibility to protect it. After cold war, US’s CVGs are no longer in a competition with a hostile USSR fleet, its main duty is to protect the SLOCs where the traffic for global supply chain flows. As such, the US CVGs' function of protection of the SLOC doesn’t jeopardize the China’s interests as many of Chinese export goods and raw materials are using the same route. Vise verse, If a PLAN’s carrier group emerges, the sole purpose is to secure the same SLOC, which eliminate any interference of the free flow of Chinese goods and imports. Those activities are essential parts of the global economy, why US must be against them?

Atobe SG

when 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......

International relations have certainly been conducted differently between nations since WW-2 - more so between the colonial masters and their newly independent colonies.

The United Nations charter seems to be the accepted rule and standards that most civilized nations will live by.

However, if you are referring to the reasons for nations to pursue national goals that are centered on economic survival - they remain largely the same in the pursuit for raw materials, energy, and market for the goods produced.

Real conflicts in terms of using the military option can only disrupt economic progress and result in destruction - as seen in the recent wars over Kuwait and the ethnic wars in Yugoslavia, Albania, the various ethnic and tribal conflicts in Africa, the ongoing wars in the various provinces in Afghanistan and Pakistan - in which economic and social progress come to a halt.

Was Churchill "war crazy" - or was he the only viable personality that could mobilise the efforts to confront Hitler's passion in using the German war machine ?

No matter which side you stand on - Churchill certainly was not the one who ignited WW-2.

weasel1962 SG

Just wanted to highlight that Churchill was prime minister of UK only on 10 May 1940. WW2 started in Sep 1939.

Prior to 1940, UK PM was Neville Chamberlain. Often Messrs Chamberlain is often credited with the appeasement of the Germans resulting the reoccupation of the rhine in 1936 and the rollover of czechoslovakia in 1938. Some analysts believe that if Chamberlain had been more forceful during this period, Hitler might not have been as bold in his actions that precipitated the war.

Prior to May 1940, Churchill was first lord of the admiralty twice across 2 world wars. Gallipoli was probably his biggest disaster and he's definitely much more of a war monger than Chamberlain ever was.

Some people believe that a chamberlain equivalent US president could in the same manner precipitate a war with China.

38 SG

People like to talk I’ve got the best line of fighter like F-15SG, coupled with harpoon. Long range, big gun so I can rule the South China Sea and taking on big boys. Well, this is one common opinion I often come across nowadays in forums. But rest assured I’m not the one to ruin somebody’s day. I’d just like to highlight a force with only the top of line fighters like F-15or Su-30, is not going to be the champion in the sea. In a big picture, fleets are moving in the vast sea, especially in a busy trafficked place for example, the spratly’s, detect and identify a hostile target from friend or neutral ones as well as persistent tracking it can’t be accomplished by fighter alone, you need establish your own F2T2EA,( Find, Fix, Track, Target, Engage, Assess ) killer chain in which the fighter jet is just the tip node. On the contrary, Chinese are well aware how important the F2T2EA is if they really want to go blue water, and over the years, huge money is invested some infrastructures are preliminarily in place, which is more lethal than just adding squad after squad of fighter jets.

Over the last decade, whole range of Y-8 based MPAs and ELINT/SIGLINT airborne platforms are gradually induced into both PLAAF & PLAN, more information can be found here:

http://cnair.top81.cn/y-8x_sh-5_a-50i.htm

Compass Navigation systems will have a regional coverage by 2012, which means some long range LACMs in PLA service like CJ-10 will have reliable GPS alike guidance by then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compass_navigation_system

In short, you need your C4ISR cover as far as your maritime striker’s range can reach, US is essentially moving all their F2T2EA killer chain airborne, so they can go globally. Looking at Y-8 based EW/MPA aircrafts and IL-76 based AWACS, Chinese are doing the same now. Even a small CVGs well covered by C4ISR network, its limited airborne fighters can posed even greater threat than a bigger numbered fighters based on fixed airfield, because they can strike your fixed airbase/C3 nobe, radar station etc, while you need go through the whole F2T2EA in order to neutralize the sea based threat.

38 SG

Here is another read about the PLA’s C4ISR

Advances in PLA C4ISR Capabilities

http://www.jamestown.org/programs/chinabrief/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=36052&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=25&cHash=44f7c29ff2

Publication: China Brief Volume: 10 Issue: 4February 18, 2010 01:56 PM Age: 22 hrsCategory: China Brief, Home Page, Military/Security, China and the Asia-Pacific, Featured
By: Carlo Kopp

C4ISR (Command Control Communication Computer and Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance) systems are a key measure of military capability, and an area in which the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is steadily advancing. Determining how strong PLA capabilities in this area are presents some analytical challenges, as unlike other areas of PLA military growth, C4ISR has received little public exposure. The Chinese military's ISR systems are more easily surveyed due to the wealth of published imagery, but technical detail on most is scarce and must often be dissected by engineering analysis of antennas or other visual features.

C4 Versus ISR – Analytical Challenges

All modern C4ISR systems can be broadly divided into the "back end" or C4 components, comprising the command and control systems, and the networks and computers supporting them, and "front end" or ISR components, comprising the orbital, airborne, maritime and fixed or mobile ground-based sensor systems, which collect raw data for the "back end" components.

The traditional division of C4ISR systems into strategic, operational and tactical is becoming problematic, as the flexibility of modern digital systems permits many such components to be concurrently employed for all three purposes.

There are good reasons why the PLA has not widely advertised its C4ISR capabilities. The first is that Western, especially U.S. military doctrine, emphasizes early and intensive attacks on an opponent's C4ISR systems to create confusion and paralysis at a tactical, operational and strategic level. As many C4ISR systems are fixed and difficult to harden, wide public disclosure presents opportunities for opposing intelligence analysis and collection against a critical national vulnerability in times of conflict.

Another consideration is that footage or imagery of racked computer and networking equipment has much less public relations appeal, compared to fighter aircraft, ballistic missiles, guided bombs and other more traditional symbols of national military power.

From a technical analysis perspective, study of C4ISR systems also presents challenges due to the pervasive and usually distributed nature of the technologies used to construct them, the complexity of networked systems, and the now global propensity to share transmission channels, such as satellites, optical fibers, copper cables, and microwave links between civilian and military users, making it difficult to determine where the military capability starts and ends. Often high-quality HUMINT (human intelligence) is the only means of determining the ground truth in such systems.

Airborne and Land Based ISR

The PLA Air Force (PLAAF) has advanced the furthest in atmospheric ISR capabilities, with the development of the KJ-2000 and KJ-200 Airborne Early Warning and Control systems, which like their Western counterparts, fully integrate active radar and passive radiofrequency sensors, with a comprehensive digital and voice C4 system. These airborne systems employ phased array radar technology one full generation ahead of the U.S. E-3C AWACS and E-2C Hawkeye. The C4 fit on either system has not been disclosed. At least four KJ-2000 systems are claimed operational [1].

Reconnaissance pods and internally integrated sensor capabilities in PLAAF strike and multi-role aircraft lag strongly at this time against their Western counterparts. Targeting pods with ISR potential are only now appearing in operational units, mostly for targeting smart munitions.

The PLA has advanced considerably in air defense capabilities, and the C4ISR components have been prominent. Wide and diverse ranges of modern radars of Chinese and Russian origin are progressively displacing legacy Chinese designs. Notable examples are the Russian 64N6E Big Bird battle management radar, used recently in S-300PMU2/SA-20B Gargoyle ATBM trials, and the new Chinese developed Type 120, 305A and 305B high-mobility acquisition radars. These are supplemented by mobile ground-based passive emitter locating systems such as the CETC YLC-20 series [2].

PLA ground forces are now introducing tactical UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) to support maneuver force elements, with these displayed prominently during the 60th anniversary parade. While the PLA UAV force is immature by Western standards, considerable effort is being invested to develop this sector. For instance, systems in development or early service include the W-50 fixed wing UAV and Z-3 rotary wing UAV, as well as the CH3 modeled on the U.S. Predator. These supplementary conventional battlefield ISR assets are like the new CAIC WZ-10 reconnaissance and attack helicopter, modeled on U.S. and E.U. equivalents (See "New Advances in PLA Battlefield Aerospace and ISR," China Brief, January 22, 2009).

The established trend to emulate the full spectrum of Western ISR systems is not confined to aerial systems, with two UGVs (Unmanned Ground Vehicles) with ISR potential, the ASENDRO and the CHRYSOR in development (See "New Advances in PLA Battlefield Aerospace and ISR," China Brief, January 22, 2009).

C4 – The Connectivity Challenge

What is less clear is the system-level integration and networking intended for what will become a very modern and diverse fleet of tactical and operational level ISR systems. The latter problem has bedeviled Western military operators for two decades, and definitive technological solutions remain to be found.

China is deploying an extensive grid of terrestrial fiber optic links to support its civil infrastructure, which as noted by various U.S. government reports, provide for a significant dual use capability to support the Chinese military’s C4ISR needs. Buried fiber optic cables provide high bandwidth and are inherently secure from remote SIGINT (signals intelligence), hardened against electromagnetic and radiofrequency weapons and jamming.

PLA thinking on wide operational level connectivity is evidenced by two new systems displayed at the 60th anniversary parade. These are a family of fully mobile tactical satellite terminals, using characteristic dishes with boom feeds, and tropospheric scatter communications systems, easily distinguished by paired dish antennas.

While the PLA's SATCOM (satellite communication) terminals reflect global trends, the deployment of troposcatter (or tropospheric scatter) communications equipment is much more interesting. The mature U.S. equivalent AN/TRC-170 system was a mainstay of U.S. operational level connectivity during the Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom Campaigns, providing advancing land forces with high data rate "backbone" connectivity to rear areas.

Troposcatter systems are unique in that they provide non-line-of-sight over the horizon connectivity without the use of a satellite or airborne relay station, this being achieved by bouncing high-power microwave beams off of refractive gradients in the upper atmosphere. As such, a pair of mobile troposcatter terminals can provide multiple Megabits/second data rates to ranges of 100 - 150 miles. The U.S. Army and Marine Corps have employed troposcatter systems for conventional land force long haul data and voice communications applications [3].

The PLA appears to be using troposcatter terminals to support Russian supplied S-300PMU2 and indigenous HQ-9 mobile air defense missile batteries, this permitting a battery to maintain a high data rate channel to any fixed fiber optic terminal within a 150 mile range [4]. As a result, these mobile missile batteries can continuously redeploy in a "shoot and scoot" manner to evade opposing ISR systems, while maintaining connectivity with the centralized fixed air defense C4 system [5]. The wealth of recent high-quality Chinese scientific research papers on advanced troposcatter techniques suggests this technology will become pivotal in PLA C3 operations [6].

There is no direct evidence to date of the troposcatter system being deployed to support mobile Second Artillery Corps (SAC) ballistic and cruise missile batteries (SAC is the strategic missile forces of the PLA). But given that the "shoot and scoot" operating doctrine for these assets differs little from that of air defense missile batteries, the future employment of troposcatter terminals to provide C3 support for SAC units should not come as a surprise if it happens.

Maritime C4ISR Challenges

The PLA Navy has historically relied heavily on its fleet of 1,500 nautical miles range H-6D maritime strike aircraft to provide ISR capability for surface fleet elements, emulating Soviet and NATO Cold War doctrine. This is now changing with the doctrinal shift to the "Second Island Chain" strategy, in which the PLA Navy and Air Force assume responsibility for controlling a much larger geographical area, following an arc from the Marianas, through Northern Australia, to the Andaman Islands [7].

The advent of DF-21 derived ASBMs (Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles), modern coastal battery deployed cruise missiles like the DH/CJ-10 and C-602, and a range of ASCMs (Anti Ship Cruise Missile) carried by PLA Navy strike aircraft such as the Su-30MK2 Flanker, JH-7 Flounder, and the new turbofan powered H-6K Badger, demands accurate and timely C4ISR support to be effective against opposing maritime forces [8].

To date China's maritime C4ISR model has emulated Soviet Cold War thinking, reflecting the geo-strategic realities of a continental power seeking to control vulnerable maritime sea-lanes. Unlike the Soviets, however, China's heavy dependency upon energy and raw materials imports by sea presents an additional vulnerability, more akin to that of the Western powers.

The Soviets initially performed maritime ISR using long range surface search radar equipped Tu-16K Badger C/D and Tu-95RTs/142 Bear D/F long range aircraft, which were equipped with data links to relay maritime surface target coordinates to ASCM armed aircraft, surface combatants, and submarines. As the U.S. Navy increased the reach of its carrier battle group missile and fighter defenses, the Soviets deployed the SMKRITs (Sistema Morskoy Kosmicheskoy Razvedki I Tseleukazaniya / Maritime Space Reconnaissance and Targeting System) RORSATs (Radar Ocean Reconnaissance Satellite), which employed a Molniya satellite communications downlink to relay targeting data to maritime strike assets [9].

China is currently deploying a number of coastal OTH-SW (Over The Horizon Surface Wave) and OTH-B (Over The Horizon Backscatter) radar systems, which provide ISR capabilities against surface shipping systems and aircraft [10]. This technology can provide prodigious detection ranges compared to coastal microwave radars, but is limited by atmospheric conditions, and typically lacks the required accuracy to target a terminally guided weapon, thus providing an effective tripwire ISR capability out to the Second Island Chain, but not the precision targeting capability required to support air and missile strikes.

Implementation of the Second Island Chain strategy will drive the PLA Navy inevitably in the direction of long range UAVs, aircraft and satellites for the provision of targeting ISR, and most likely GeoStationary Earth Orbit (GEO) SATCOM for C3 capability to support aircraft, UAVs and warships performing maritime strike operations.

China's remote sensing satellite program, characterized by the extant Yaogan-1, -2, -3, -4, and -5, the Haiyang-1B, and the CBERS-2 and -2B satellite systems, have been identified by the Pentagon as dual use capabilities [11]. The planned HJ-1C and HY-3 high resolution radar imaging satellites will have significant potential for RORSAT (Radar Ocean Reconnaissance Satellite) operation, and even if inadequate, will provide the technology base for a future PLA RORSAT constellation [12].

China operates a robust number of foreign built and indigenous GEO satellites for civilian direct broadcast channels, and telecommunications transponder services, including the C-band DFH-3, DFH-4 series. In 2000, the PLA launched the first of the FH-1 series of military SATCOM vehicles, intended as part of the Qu Dian C4ISR system; the latter is described as similar in concept to the NATO/US MIDS/JTIDS/Link-16 and Link-22 systems. In 2008, China launched the Tian Lian-1 data relay satellite, intended to provide expanded communications coverage for orbital assets (Xinhua News Agency, April 25, 2008).

If the PLA exploits existing and developing satellite technology effectively, it will be capable of fielding an effective orbital C4ISR segment to support the Second Island Chain strategy over this decade, including a credible RORSAT capability. Existing dual use capabilities may be improvised to provide a limited near-term capability.

Contemporary Western ISR doctrine sees the penetration of hostile computers and networks as the cyberspace segment of a nation's ISR capabilities. China's well-documented, albeit officially denied, activities in penetrating foreign, especially U.S. government, computer systems and networks indicate a strong appreciation of the value of cyberspace as an ISR environment.

Conclusion

In the final analysis, while much of the PLA's C4ISR capability remains opaque, what is abundantly clear from what is known is that the PLA has an acute understanding of the value of advanced C4ISR in modern conflicts and is investing heavily in this area, emulating specific capabilities and doctrine developed in recent decades in the West and in Russia. Numerous instances demonstrate robust indigenous capability to develop key C4ISR technologies, and apply these technologies in unique and original ways. If the observed trends in PLA C4ISR doctrine and technological capabilities continue unabated, the PLA will have a world-class C4ISR capability in place by the end of the coming decade.Notes

« Previous Page Next Page »