Strengthening the offensive capability of nuclear weapons is the nub of China's strategic deterrence
It is far from enough for China to rely on ground-based anti-missile technologies to deter the US. China also needs to further strengthen its offensive capability of nuclear weapons, which is the nub of China's strategic deterrence.
/
China-US nuclear rivalry and the discovery of China’s missile silos
An air-defense missile system attached to a brigade under the PLA 71st Group Army launches an air-defense missile at a mock target during a field live-fire training exercise in late February, 2022. (eng.chinamil.com.cn/Photo by Xue Weigao)
China on Sunday successfully conducted an antiballistic missile test in a move experts said on Monday is a crucial part of the country's national defense development that is defensive in nature, demonstrating the reliability of China's antiballistic missile umbrella amid US attempts to blackmail China with modern, nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles and deploying intermediate-range ballistic missiles in the Asia-Pacific region on the doorsteps of China.
China conducted a land-based, mid-course antiballistic missile interception technical test within its borders, China's Ministry of National Defense announced in a press release late on Sunday.
The test reached its desired objective, the press release said, noting that the test is defensive in nature and not aimed at any other country.
A similar test was held in February 2021, according to an announcement of the Chinese Defense Ministry at the time.
The flight of an intercontinental ballistic missile usually consists of three phases. First is the boost phase in which the rocket booster powers the missile. Second, the mid-course phase in which the booster stops as the missile travels outside the atmosphere. Third and last, the reentry or terminal phase in which the missile reenters the atmosphere and dives on its target.
Intercepting an intercontinental ballistic missile during its mid-course is very challenging because during this phase, the missile, usually equipped with nuclear warheads, travels high outside of the atmosphere at very high velocity, experts said.
It is technically easy to intercept a ballistic missile in the boost phase because the missile is still close to the ground and accelerating, but it is difficult to get close to the launch site which is usually deep in hostile territory. In the terminal phase, the interception is also challenging because the speed of the diving missile is very high, analysts noted.
Countries are developing hypersonic missiles with wave-rider gliders that can adjust their trajectories mid-flight when they reenter the atmosphere, which makes terminal interception even more difficult, and mid-course interception has become even more important, analysts said.
A mid-course antiballistic missile system consists of two parts - a booster and an interceptor as its warhead, and moves to intercept the ballistic missile in the second phase of its flight where it is traveling outside the atmosphere, an expert familiar with the technology told the Global Times on the condition of anonymity.
One of the key challenges for a mid-course antiballistic missile system is the miniaturization of the warhead, making it light enough without compromising its flight precision as well as sensitivity, the expert said, adding that it is preferred to use a rapid combustion rocket as the booster for the system so that it can send the antiballistic missile to the atmosphere as fast as possible.
Although small in size, the mid-course antiballistic missile has a complete set of combat systems, including power, tracking, target-identifying systems and the killer part, the expert explained.
The mid-course antiballistic missile interception also has a network of support systems with an early warning and monitoring function. The centerpiece of the warning and monitoring systems is the missile early warning satellite, and support from long-range monitoring radars and a highly efficient and rapid command system are also playing crucial roles in the interception process, the expert said.
The latest test brings the number of publicly announced Chinese land-based ABM technical tests to six. According to media reports and official statements, other known ABM tests were carried out by China in 2010, 2013, 2014, 2018 and 2021. It was not revealed in which interception phase the test in 2014 was carried out, while all other five were carried out in the mid-course phase. All of those Chinese tests ended successfully.
By comparison, the US Ground-based Midcourse Defense system only has a success rate of just 55 percent, according to the Washington DC-based Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.
The high success rate of China's tests shows that the country's land-based mid-course antiballistic missile system has become mature and reliable, Wang Ya'nan, chief editor of Beijing-based Aerospace Knowledge magazine, told the Global Times on Monday.
For the next step, China needs to conduct tests under more complex scenarios to further hone its antiballistic missile capabilities, Wang said, noting that the US' lower success rate does not necessarily mean China has surpassed the US, because the US tests might involve different and more challenging simulation parameters.
US threats
Despite China's latest test does not target another country, analysts said that the US is the biggest source of ballistic missile threats to China.
The US Department of Defense is modernizing its intercontinental ballistic missile force with the $100 billion Ground Based Strategic Deterrent program in an attempt to deter China and Russia, US media outlet Defense News reported in April, when the US Air Force named its next-generation intercontinental ballistic missile the LGM-35A Sentinel, which is to succeed the 5-decade-old Minuteman III beginning 2029.
Having a reliable antiballistic missile system serves as a deterrent against US nuclear blackmail, experts said.
After withdrawing from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 2019, the US began planning an anti-China missile network along the first island chain, media reported.
Fears are that the US could deploy intermediate range missiles in places like Japan, South Korea, Guam and Australia, despite Japan, South Korea and Australia ruling out this US proposal for the time being, according to media reports. As the Western missile network is pressing in on the Asia-Pacific region, China needs to develop antiballistic missile systems as well as far-reaching weapons like aircraft carriers and hypersonic missiles to defend itself, analysts said.
If the US succeeds in deploying intermediate range missiles near China, it means China will face not only more missile threats, but also more uncertainties. If US missiles are deployed in multiple locations along the island chains, it would be more difficult to predict from where those missiles could come from, Wang said.
That is why China needs both spear and shield, Wang pointed out.
When needed, China should be able to use its long-range strike capabilities and destroy those missile positions, and use missile defense systems to intercept those that have made into the air, Wang said.
China just launched its third aircraft carrier, the Fujian, on Friday, and showcased its DF-17 hypersonic missiles at the National Day military parade in 2019. If US missiles are deployed on China's doorsteps, they are likely targets of those Chinese weapons if they aim at China, analysts said.
China already has a military advantage over the US on the doorsteps of China, and further national defense development is needed to deter the US and lower casualties in case of a conflict, analysts said.
China follows a national defense strategy that is defensive in nature, so both the spears and the shields it develops are aimed at safeguarding its national sovereignty, territorial integrity and development interests, as well as contribute to regional stability and world peace, analysts said, noting that this is totally different from the US' aggressive military development that aims to maintain global hegemony.
One thing is clear, whilst the quantity of educated manpower is critical to national strength, quality may matter more.
Parents quarrel about the quality of education for their kids, just as societies are deeply divided on education as it defines the future.
Is the current education system fit for purpose to cope with a more complex, fractious future, fraught with possible war?
According to Stanford University’s Guide to Reimagining Higher Education, 96% of university chief academic officers think that their students are ready for the workforce, where only 11% of business leaders feel the same.
As the population and work force grow, the gap between skills demanded by employers and the education received by school leavers is widening, so much so that many are finding it hard to get the jobs that they want.
As technology accelerates in speed and complexity, the quality of education becomes more important than ever. Is it for the elites or the masses?
The Greek philosopher Aristotle recognised that the aim of education is for knowledge, but there was always a different view as to have knowledge for the individual or whether education must prepare the individual to fulfil the needs of society.
Feudal systems hardly paid attention to the masses, whereas most ancient institutes of higher learning were for elites, either for religious orders or in Chinese history, to prepare for civil or military service, but blended with self-cultivation.
Conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has just produced a fascinating study on the implications of higher education for national security.
Covering the period 1950-2040, the study acknowledged that the United States attained uncontested power status, because it had the highest levels of educational attainment and manpower.
In 1950, the United States, with less than 5% of the world’s population, had 45% share of world population aged 25 to 64 with completed tertiary education.In comparison, India had 5% and China about half of that.By 2020, the United States’ share had dropped to roughly 16%, whereas China was catching up, whilst India had just under 10%.By 2040, depending on different estimates, China may double its share to between 15% and 20%, whereas India would have overtaken the United States with 12%, leaving the United States third with 10%.
It is a truism that education matters for economic growth and power.Every additional year of schooling for children is estimated to add 9% to 10% increase in per capita output.
If you add in “business climate” with improvements in education, health and urbanisation, these factors explain five-sixths of differences in output per capita across countries.
Under the liberal world order, America encouraged the spread of global education, so much so that the global adult illiteracy (those without any schooling) fell from 45% in 1950 to only 13% by 2020.
This worldwide expansion in education was good for the world, but it also reduced the comparative advantage of the education and technology front-runners, particularly the United States.
The AEI study reported that the share of global adult population with at least some tertiary education increased from under 2% in 1950 to 16% today and would approach 22% by 2040.
In 1950, eight of the top 10 largest national highly educated working age labour pool was in advanced countries. By 2020, their share was half.
By 2040, this is likely to be only three out of 10.
In essence, India and China would take the lead in total highly trained manpower, especially in science and technology, with the United States “an increasingly distant third place contestant.”
The AEI study illustrates why increasingly American universities will be more selective in their future foreign student intake, especially in science and technology which may have impact on national security matters.
As late as 2017, MIT manifested global ambitions in its strategic plan, “Learning about the world, helping to solve the world’s greatest problems, and working with international collaborators who share our curiosity and commitment to rigorous scientific inquiry.”
That global vision may be cut back in light of the growing geopolitical split into military blocs. Western universities may no longer be encouraged to train foreign students into areas where they can return to compete in key technologies.
In short, geopolitical rivalry will determine the future of resources allocated to education, research and development and technology.
No country can afford liberal education in which every student is encouraged to do what he or she wants to do.
Students today want to be more engaged in the big social issues, such as climate change and social inequality.
But at the same time, they expect more experiential immersion into careers that are more self-fulfilling.
Instead, institutes of higher learning are forced by economics to provide more shorter term courses to upgrade worker skills, using new teaching methods and tools, especially artificial intelligence, virtual reality etc.
At the national level, governments will push universities into more research and development and innovation to gain national competitiveness, including R&D on defence and national security sectors.This means that the education pipeline or supply chain will also be bifurcated like global supply chains that are being disrupted and split by geopolitics.
The conversation on what should go into the curriculum for education is only just beginning. Much of this is to do with funding.
As higher levels of education are more expensive, especially in the high technology area, whilst governments budgets are constrained, universities will turn to private sources of funding.
The more society polarises, the more likely that such funding would turn towards entrenchment of vested interests, rather than solutions to structural problems.
Education is controversial precisely because it is either a unifying social force or a divisive one.
One thing is clear, whilst the quantity of educated manpower is critical to national strength, quality may matter more.
The Soviet Union had the second largest share of educated manpower during the Cold War, but it did not save it from collapse.
Will our future education system provide leaders who are able to cope with the complexities of tomorrow?
As the poet T S Eliot asked in his poem “The Rock” in 1934, “where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?”
That question is being asked not just in universities, but by society as a whole.
Andrew Sheng writes on global issues from an Asian perspective. The views expressed here are the writer’s own.
On Sunday, China released a comprehensive white paper to formalize its positions on trade negotiations with the U.S. The set of statements come as the trade war escalates and Beijing threatens to hit back with a retaliatory blacklist of U.S. firms. Here are some key takeaways from the press conference announcing the white paper:
U.S. ‘responsible’ for stalled trade talks
The “U.S. government bears responsibility” for setbacks in trade talks, chided the paper, adding that the U.S. has imposed additional tariffs on Chinese goods that impede economic cooperation between the two countries and globally.
While it’s “common” for both sides to propose “adjustments to the text and language” in ongoing negotiations, the U.S. administration “kept changing its demands” in the “previous more than ten rounds of negotiations,” the paper alleged.
On the other hand, reports of China backtracking on previous trade deals are mere “mudslinging,” Wang Shouwen, the Chinese vice minister of commerce and deputy China international trade representative, said as he led the Sunday presser.
China ready to fight if forced to
China does not want a trade war with the U.S, but it’s not afraid of one and will fight one if necessary, said the white paper.
Beijing’s position on trade talks has never changed — that cooperation serves the interests of both countries and conflict can only hurt both — according to the paper. CNBC’s Eunice Yoon pointed out that Beijing’s latest stance repeats previous statements made back in September.
#China white paper highlights out on state media. My take on msg so far:
-China is the grown-up
-China is the victim
-China wants talks but only as an equal
-China will fight US for as long as it takes
(Not too diff from Sep 2018 white paper same topic) https://t.co/A5LCw3kZVL
#China white paper highlights out on state media. My take on msg so far:
-China is the grown-up
-China is the victim
-China wants talks but only as an equal
-China will fight US for as long as it takes
(Not too diff from Sep 2018 white paper same topic) http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-06/02/c_138110190.htm…
Deals must be equal
Difference and frictions remain on the economic and trade fronts between the two countries, but China is willing to work with the U.S. to reach a “mutually beneficial and win-win agreement,” stated the paper. However, cooperation has to be based on principles and must not compromise China’s core interests.
“Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed,” Wang said.
He said one needs not “overinterpret” China’s soon-to-come entity list, adding that it mainly targets foreign companies that run against market rules and violate the spirit of contracts, cut off supplies to Chinese firms for uncommercial reasons, damage the legitimate rights of Chinese companies, or threaten China’s national security and public interests.
China respects IP rights
The paper also touched on issues that are at the center of the prolonged U.S.-China trade dispute, including China’s dealings with intellectual property rights. U.S. allegations of China over IP theft are “an unfounded fabrication,” said the white paper, adding that China has made great efforts in recent years to protect and enforce IP rights.
Wang claimed that China pays the U.S. a significant sum to license IP rights every year. Of the $35.6 billion it shelled out for IP fees in 2018, nearly a quarter went to the U.S.
Investments are mutually beneficial
The white paper claimed that bilateral investments between the two countries are mutually beneficial rather than undermining for U.S. interests when taken account of “trade in goods and services as well as two-way investment.”
The Chinese government also pushed back at claims that it exerts influence on businesses’ overseas investments.
“The government is not involved in companies’ business activities and does not ask them to make specific investments or acquisitions,” said Wang. “Even if we make such requests, companies won’t obey.”
In response to China’s probe into FedEx over Huawei packages that went stray, Wang assured that “foreign businesses are welcome to operate legally in China, but when they break rules, they have to cooperate with regulatory investigations. That’s indisputable.”
The Shenzhen-based smartphone and telecom giant has been hit hard by during the trade negotiations as the Trump administration orders U.S. businesses to sever ties with the Chinese firm.
Chinese authorities announced on Saturday that relevant
department has decided to open an investigation into whether FedEx
violated the legitimate rights and interests of its Chinese clients.
Huawei recently revealed to the media that FedEx had diverted two
parcels sent from Japan destined for an address in China to the US, and
two others from Vietnam to Hong Kong and Singapore respectively were
also diverted to a US address after delay.
Source: Global Times | 2019/6/1 23:36:25
China's Ministry of Commerce announced on Friday that the
country will release its non-reliable entity list. Foreign entities,
individuals and companies that block and shut the supply chain, or take
discriminatory measures over non-commercial reasons, and when their
actions endanger the business of Chinese companies will be included in
the list.
Source: Global Times | 2019/5/31 20:09:26
The annual Shangri-La Dialogue kicked off in Singapore
Friday. Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe and Acting US Defense
Secretary Patrick Shanahan will attend the event and make a speech,
raising observers' expectations on this year's Dialogue.
China
does not want a trade war, but it is not afraid of one and it will
fight one if necessary. China's position on this has never changed, the
white paper pointed out.
Point man: Asean has designated Manila its
‘leader’ in dealings with China, but can the moody Duterte, here shown
bonding with Xi on a visit to Beijing in 2016, clinch a an agreement
from China for the regional association? — AP
NOW that the quartet of Asean-related summits is over for the year, so should the niggling criticisms. At least they should – more important matters are at hand.
Over the week Singapore hosted the 2nd RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) Summit, the 13th East Asia Summit, the 21st Asean Plus Three Summit, and – not least – the 33rd Asean Summit.
These summits were held because it was time they were, and Singapore hosted them because it was its turn. But criticisms were not far behind.
US President Donald Trump was a no-show, and so was Chinese President Xi Jinping. Vice-President Mike Pence and Prime Minister Li Keqiang attended instead.
Trump was criticised for his absence, which allegedly “left the region wide open” for Xi’s China to make further inroads here. That complaint was limited only by Xi’s own absence.
Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte was also criticised for not attending an “informal breakfast summit” between Asean and Australian leaders.
His said it was only an informal event, and it was over breakfast which he did not eat.
A casual observer may be forgiven for sensing that there must be more important developments than these scheduled rounds of handshakes and photo opportunities. There are.
One of these begins in two days: Xi’s state visit to the Philippines, following the scheduled 30th Apec Summit in Papua New Guinea.
Duterte had made three visits to China as President, inviting Xi to visit Manila each time. This will be Xi’s first state visit, coming upon the third invitation to him.
There will be handshakes and photo opportunities too, but the substance and symbolism now may be more than the recent multiple summits in Singapore and Papua New Guinea.
The Philippines has been vocal about rival claims to territory in the South China Sea. The previous The region is generally unsettled by China’s recent occupation and construction of islands, with Vietnam remaining most disturbed. Duterte’s critics have also blamed him for being soft on Beijing.
However, Xi’s visit is expected to be smooth with an emphasis on the positives. These include mutual interests deemed to be larger than interminable disputes over distant rocks and islets.
Last year Chinese Vice-Premier Wang Yang visited Manila for four days amid more audible protests over territory such as Benham Rise. Yet the visit proceeded unhindered.
This time it is President Xi himself, for a state visit of only two days, with no particular complaint against China outstanding. It will also be after one full year of China having become the Philippines’ main trading partner.
For both sides the focus will be quite intense on specific projects backed by Chinese assistance. Duterte left the merrymaking in Papua New Guinea early to return home to prepare for Xi’s arrival.
For China, it would demonstrate to the region how it can cooperate with even a country locked in dispute with it to mutual benefit. This gains added significance when it is the Philippines, historically a US ally.
For the Philippines, there is a host of projects and programmes on Duterte’s wish list requiring Chinese aid. They span his ambitious 9-trillion peso (RM717bil) “Build, Build, Build” infrastructure plan covering all three regions of the Philippines: Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao.
These come under the Six-Year Development Program (SYDP) signed last year with China as a framework for the Philippines’ “Golden Age of Infrastructure.” It is to be Duterte’s legacy for his country.
The 75 projects include a water pump and irrigation scheme, a dam, a north-south railway, a highway, bridges, a park and a rehabilitated power plant. Economic growth is projected to outpace debt.
Duterte is clear-minded enough to know that only China is able and willing to provide the assistance needed. No other country or combination of countries is in a position to do so.
There are also plans for more Chinese business investments, as well as a framework agreement for joint oil and gas explorations at sea. The latter are understood to cover some disputed areas, with China agreeing to only a 40% share of recoverable deposits.
Countries in dispute over territory and the reserves found therein tend to shy from joint exploration, as legally this may imply recognition of the other disputing party’s claim.
But since this condition applies equally to both parties, the Philippines may be confident that China would also be obliged to acknowledge the Philippine claim. Can there be a lesson here for other Asean countries with claims to the South China Sea?
To ensure the success of Xi’s visit, there had been a positive build-up of Philippines-China relations in recent months. Xi’s state visit in turn is envisaged to lead to even better bilateral relations.
Last August, joint simulated naval exercises were held in Singapore among Asean countries and China without US participation. Manila defended that decision by saying that the “tabletop” drill was meant only for neighbouring countries in the region.
Now as Xi prepares for his visit, the US Pacific Fleet is reportedly readying a series of naval operations as a “show of force” in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Straits. In response to China’s stated concern, the Philippines said it will have no part in those operations.Xi’s visit is important not just for the Philippines but also Asean, which had designated Manila the “point man” in dealings with China. Can Duterte clinch an agreement from China for Asean?
Manila had said that a legally binding Code of Conduct (CoC) in the South China Sea was on the agenda, but Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said it may take another three years.
If China really wants to prove its goodwill in Manila, Xi could suggest it may happen considerably sooner.
The last Chinese President to make a state visit to the Philippines was Hu Jintao in 2005. That occasion also marked the 30th anniversary of bilateral relations, which is as auspicious a time as any.
This Tuesday’s visit by Xi will be the first Chinese state visit in 13 years. That is an auspicious number in Chinese, but not so in Western culture.
Will it be auspicious for the Philippines, the only Christian-majority country in the region once colonised by Spain and then the US? Duterte’s original style of leadership may yet make the difference.
In the last day of China's biennial air show and weapons expo in Zhuhai, a pair of the country's J-20 heavy stealth fighters
added a surprise twist to their routine—they popped open their weapons
bays and showed off full magazines of missiles. This is the first time
such a full load of weapons has been fully exposed and the first time
China has officially shown off the jet's complete internal weapons
configuration in the flesh.
China’s J-20 Stealth Fighter Will Likely Look Like This At Its Air Show DebutBy Tyler Rogoway
What we see isn't necessarily
surprising, but it is interesting nonetheless. In the main ventral bays,
the J-20 is carrying four PL-15 medium-to-long-range air-to-air
missiles. The type is somewhat analogous to the American AIM-120D AMRAAM. Speculation about what missile actually would hold the PL-15 designation has bounced around a lot, with very long-range missiles and those fitted with throttleable ramjets
also potentially receiving the designation, but now it seems the PL-15
is indeed a dual-pulse motor and AESA equipped missile with a similar
profile as its predecessor PL-12. The PL-12 is loosely analogous to the
AIM-120A/B.
Chinese Internet
Note
that even with their clipped fins, only four PL-15s are mounted in the
J-20's bays in a similar fashion to the YF-22's missile configuration.
It isn't clear exactly what the launch mechanism for these missiles is
based on these photos. A staggered arrangement with six PL-15s may be
possible in the future by the looks of the bays, but this depends a lot
on the how the missiles are ejected from the bay itself. The F-22 uses a
trapeze launcher system to chuck the missiles clear of the bay. The
J-20's main weapons bays also look remarkably uncluttered,
which makes one wonder if the missiles are just mounted to static
hardpoints inside, but this is doubtful as what appear to be launchers have been visible in the J-20s bays for years.
Chinese Internet
The
most interesting part of this display of the J-20's lethal payload
carrying abilities is the pair of PL-10s deployed on the outside of the
jet's side weapons bays. This novel configuration is one of the most
fascinating aspects of the J-20's design. I was one of the first to
point it out and explain its utility back in early 2013, when I wrote the following:
"The F-22, a very loose analog for the J-20 (emphasize very),
uses a canted trapeze that pushes the AIM-9’s seeker out into the
air-stream for proper establishment of a lock before launch once the bay
doors are swung open. Only once the missile has acquired a target and
the pilot 'receives tone' (the AIM-9 series has an audible growl as it
hunts for a heat source, once it finds one it goes from an intermittent
growling sound to a solid tone, cueing the pilot to fire) the missile
can be fired and only then do the launch bay doors close up.
This
method increases the F-22’s radar signature dramatically while also
disturbing the airflow around the jet which makes for lower performance
and a rougher ride during close-in air combat maneuvering, or
dogfighting. Soon, the F-22 will have the AIM-9X
Block II which features lock-on after launch data-link capability. In
other words, the pilot can 'acquire' a target via his or hers onboard
sensors, including the hopefully forthcoming Scorpion helmet mounted
display... Once the target is 'virtually locked' within the AIM-9X Block
II’s engagement envelope the pilot can quickly fire the Sidewinder,
with the bay doors opening and closing momentarily, and allow the
data-link to transfer the acquiring secondary sensor’s info to the
missile after it has left the bay in the form of a vector [to the
target]. The
missile will fly in this prescribed direction so that it can acquire
the target itself, at which point the AIM-9X Block II becomes truly
'fire and forget.'
Once the AIM-9X Block II is integrated into
the Raptor, and especially once the helmet mounted display is
operational, the F-22’s side bay doors only have to briefly open to let
the AIM-9X on its one-way mission. All this begs the question: If China
loves copying the US when it comes to weapons systems, why not just
build something similar for the J-20 when it comes to deploying its
short-range air-to-air missiles?
The
answer is quite simple, lock-on after launch capability is not an easy
one to achieve. It is technologically complex, requires deep systems
integration (software architecture permitting), and robust testing using
live missiles, and thus it is expensive. China, being the resourceful
and cunning folks that they are, figured out a way to employ any new or
relatively archaic high-off-bore-sight short ranged air to air missile
while keeping the jet’s aerodynamics relatively intact (doors closed
during prolonged maneuvering while the missile hangs out on its rail)
while also minimizing the impact a 'deployed missile' has the J-20’s low
radar cross-section.
That is right folks, China just said "we don’t want to have to rely on LOAL capability, so why not just temporarily (as in for seconds or minutes) mount a similarly agile, but much less complex and expensive, short ranged air-to-air missile outside of the bay during times when close range combat is imminent?”
This
is exactly what they did, and honestly, I think it is genius. Radar
signature becomes a small factor when fighting for one’s life at close
range, having a reliable missile ready to make a u-turn off the rail and
subsequently turn your enemy into chaff is so important that is can be
seen as a life and death requirement [especially for a big, not
remarkably maneuverable fighter]. The alternative, such as the reality
the F-22 has faced for the better part of a decade, is that you open the
bay up for prolonged periods of time and pay a large penalty in radar
cross section and [some] performance. Also, by building a relatively
simple contraption, kind of similar to one of those bars that goes on
your lap on a roller coaster, albeit with a missile attached, Chinese
engineers simplified the launch system and also probably made it much
lighter than an F-22 type design. Once again, genius.
Another
point to be taken from the J-20’s short-range air-to-air missile launch
mechanism revelations are that designers absolutely thought it was
necessary to give this jet high-off-bore-sight close range missile
capability from day one, and in a reliable and persistent nature when
needed. This could be due to lack of maneuverability and/or because of
its mission, which I have said for years
is to break through the enemy’s (American, Taiwanese etc.) fighter
cover and take out their enablers (see tankers, AEW&C, C2 and
connectivity nodes). In such a case, being electronically silent is your
best bet at surviving, so using infra-red passively guided missiles,
which require no electronic emissions, at medium-close ranges may be
your only play, at least for anything that does not put out a continuous
or semi-continuous form of radiation (see AWACS or JSTARS). In that
case, a passively guided anti-radiation missile may be the J-20’s weapon
of choice, or a medium-long range AAM that can get within locking
distance and featuring active radar or IR for terminal homing, via a
traditional data-link feeding the J-20’s targeting picture to it
provided by passive sensors (IRST, ESM etc).
Analysts refute Ashton Carter's China 'self-isolation' claims
SINGAPORE - US defense secretary's China "self-isolation" claims were totally incorrect, local analysts said here on Saturday.
In a speech delivered here Saturday at the on-going Shangri-La Dialogue, US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said China could end up erecting a Great Wall of self-isolation, but analysts here refuted Carter's remarks as one-sided and over-exaggerated.
As China develops, Asia-Pacific countries had built close relations with not only the United States but also China, which proves Carter's China "self-isolation" claims at best "exaggerated," said Huang Jing, Professor and Director of Center on Asia and Globalization, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore.
Carter's claims are misinterpreting China's policies, and are not in line with the two countries' consensus on forging new pattern of relationship, said Colonel Lu Yin, Associate Researcher from the Institute of Strategic Studies of China's National Defense University.
The colonel noted that Carter's remarks revealed logical paradoxes in the US rebalance strategy in the Asia-Pacific.
"I don't see it possible that without efforts from China, the United States can realize its rebalance strategic in the Asia-Pacific region as well as achieve common prosperity as envisioned," said Lu.
In his half-hour or so speech, the US defense secretary mentioned the word "principle" for as many as 37 times. In Professor Huang Jing's view, it is fairly disputable that the United States does faithfully stick to principle.
When asked about the fact that not only China, but countries including Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam all had similar construction actions, Carter said there are differences in the scale of such activities.
If one really sticks to principles, it doesn't matter what scale the actions might be, any construction activity is against the principle, argued Professor Huang.
On matters of navigation freedom, the professor said that navigation freedom should be guaranteed, but any country's freedom shall not be at the cost of posing threats to others.
Although tensions in the South China Sea are included in Carter's speech, analysts pointed out that the US defense secretary had also elaborated on the fact that China and the United States do have cooperation potentials over a number of international agendas. To safeguard peace and stability in Asia-Pacific, the two countries need to cooperate.
Oh Ei Sun, senior fellow with S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore, said that Carter actually adopted a relatively "mild" approach when addressing disputes in the Asia-Pacific and gave much emphasis on setting up security networks in the region.
William Choong, Shangri-La Dialogue Senior Fellow for Asia-Pacific Security, said he thought the US-China relations are far more inclusive.
It's a broader relationship, although they disagree on the South China Sea issue, they can agree on many other issues which are important, such as the cooperation in cyber space, the DPRK issue, and climate change, he said.
The two countries are preparing for their upcoming strategic economic dialogue as well, he noted.
"To put it very simply, even though there are tensions in the South China Sea, I think the relationship is broad enough and strong enough, and has enough institutional mechanism for both sides to avoid their differences and work on potential solutions," said the researcher.
China refutes US defense secretary's China 'self-isolation' claims
SINGAPORE - A high-ranking Chinese military official Saturday refuted US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter's "self-isolation" claims about China.
"Carter's claims are incorrect and do not accord with the actual situation," Guan Youfei, director of the Office for International Military Cooperation of the Chinese Central Military Commission, told the media.
Guan's comments came after Carter's claims at the ongoing Shangri-La Dialogue that China's military activities in the South China Sea would isolate itself.
Guan said the United States should learn lessons from the wars it had waged in the Asia-Pacific region after World War II and play a constructive role in the region.
Guan urged the United States to keep its security pledges, withdraw troops from Afghanistan as soon as possible, stop arms sale to China's Taiwan and refrain from holding military drills on the Korean Peninsula.
Guan said China has made great efforts in promoting international and regional security cooperation since its reform and opening-up, and China's achievements in areas such as peacekeeping, disaster relief and naval escort missions are obvious.
China will continue to enhance cooperation with other Asia-Pacific countries under the Belt and Road initiative in various fields, the Chinese military official added.
The US defense secretary had earlier made similar accusations against China in a speech delivered at the US Naval Academy. The Chinese Foreign Ministry had responded, saying such claims reflected "American-style mentality" and "American-style hegemony."
Sources: China Daily/Asia News Network
Chinese Admiral reiterates stance on South China Sea
Despite China's strong opposition, the arbitral tribunal announced in
late October 2015 that it can judge on seven of the 15 submissions, and
linger over some other submissions.
During a 55-hour period ending Sunday, 64-year-old Admiral General
Sun Jianguo took part in a whirlwind of military diplomacy comprising 17
two-way meetings on the sidelines of the Shangri-La Dialogue in
Singapore
But Carter won’t change his attitude. He represents a clique that is
eager to sustain Washington’s hegemony in the Western Pacific by
reinforcing military deployments and containing China’s peaceful rise.
Admiral Sun Jianguo, deputy chief of staff of China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) addresses the fourth plenary session of the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, May 31, 2015. Sun Jianguo elaborated on China's foreign and defense policies. (Xinhua/Bao Xuelin)
During the just-concluded Shangri-La Dialogue, military representatives from China and the US did not engage in the bitter brawling predicted by the media. Both sides have reaffirmed their own stance. US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter asked all claimants, especially China, to cease island-building in the South China Sea, and by cautiously skirting around the question of how the US will respond if China continues its construction activities, Carter didn't issue further threats against China.
But the US is still able to launch more provocations in this region, perhaps by sending surveillance planes and warships to the periphery of 12 nautical miles from China-controlled islands.
No matter how disturbing the US can be, China must not stop its construction, which is in line with China's sovereign integrity. If Beijing backs off due to Washington's threats and some Western countries' protests, this will create a horrific precedent, which will embolden US-led forces to set tougher positions against China. China should try its best to inject prosperity into the South China Sea, promoting regional economic development and enhancing its disaster resistance ability. Only in this way will the ongoing quarrels calm down.
If China can play its cards right, these expanded islands will not only prevent the South China Sea situation from becoming intensified, but initiate a new constructive thinking for regional development. China's construction activities will offer an opportunity to break the vicious circle that has been haunting the South China Sea for decades.
These expanded islands will allow China to acquire more initiative to carry out its South China Sea policies. For now, it is China that values regional peace more than any other state, because the stability of the South China Sea is a prerequisite for China to make use of this important period of strategic opportunities.
As of now, military confrontation is still the last choice for all stakeholders in the South China Sea. However, different desires and expectations have caused the complexity in the South China Sea issues. When China can set a firm foothold in the area, it will bring along more elements that can drive peace and stability.
China needs to make broad plans including countermeasures against more US intrusions. Beijing should be fully prepared, both mentally and physically, for possible military conflicts with the US. China needs to clearly express its unwillingness as well as fearlessness to fight. The more prepared China can be, the lower the possibility of military conflict.
This round of contest in the South China Sea is more like a strategic dialogue, through which China and the US can come up with a set of models and principles under which they can show mutual respect around China's offshore areas.
If China insists on its island construction, publicizes its peaceful purposes, and avoids making these expanded islands a focal point of Sino-US military competition, we believe it will be eventually accepted by the widest number of parties concerned. - Global Times
