New US defense policy challenges trust; China in US gunsights!

 

Tweet

By  Li Lianxing, Ma Liyao and Tan Yingzi  (China Daily)

 

WASHINGTON / BEIJING - US President Barack Obama's revamped national defense strategy may challenge mutual trust with China, experts said.

While promising to make the US armed forces smaller and leaner, Obama pledged to shift the country's military focus to the Asia-Pacific region.



The nation's military review says that US economic and security interests are "inextricably" connected with the area and the US military accordingly will "of necessity rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific region", including strengthening Asian allies and investing in the strategic partnership with India.

Though Washington recognizes that the United States and China share common interests and stakes in the region, it fears China's rise will affect its economy and security in many ways and it worries about the strategic intention of China's military buildup, according to the review.

The assertive moves by the US may cause potential military tensions between China and the US, said Yuan Peng, an expert of American studies at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations.

"China has repeatedly explained its defensive policy, but the US keeps pressuring China. This may irritate China and lead to negative reactions if the US continues to do so," Yuan said.


 

"However, we need to be clear that the draft of the plan, as a whole, is not China-centered, though it is somehow offending that the document puts China in a similar position with Iran," Yuan said.

In the 10 primary missions of the US armed forces listed in the draft of the plan, published on the US Department of Defense website, China was mentioned with Iran - a country labeled as a member of "the axis of evil" by former US president George W. Bush.

"Why does the US want to shift its focus to Asia-Pacific as the region has been the most peaceful area compared with other areas which saw conflicts and wars in the last three decades?" asked Xu Hui, professor with Beijing-based National Defense University.

The US military faces $450 billion in budget cuts through 2021, including about $261 billion through 2017, part of the administration's effort to put the US fiscal house in order.

But "budget reductions will not come at the expense of this critical region", Obama said at the news conference.

After the war in Iraq came to an end last month and as the US is winding down its presence in Afghanistan, Obama said the nation can now meet the new challenges, especially from the Asia-Pacific region.

"Our military will be leaner, but the world must know: The United States is going to maintain our military superiority with armed forces that are agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats," Obama said.

In the document, the US listed China as one of the countries that will continue to pursue asymmetric means to counter America's power projection capabilities.

Although the Chinese government did not comment on the US review on Friday, the country had said earlier that it welcomes the US playing a positive role in the region, but it opposes Washington's involvement in disputes in the South China Sea.

Newscribe : get free news in real time

Related Reading

1. Hu briefly meets Obama at G20 summit in Cannes
2. Obama briefed by new Afghan team
3. Obama: A Clay Pigeon?
4. Obama calls on Egyptian authorities to refrain from violence
5. Chinese president concludes state visit to U.S.
6. Obama welcomes first indictment in former Lebanese PM's case
7. Obama urges Americans to unite following Arizona shooting
8. Arizona shooting will not dampen hopes: Obama
9. U.S. president meets Chinese FM on relations, Hu's upcoming visit
10. Most Americans say they are worse off under Obama: poll   

China in US gunsights

By Damian Grammaticas Beijing correspondent, BBC

 

The US review has prompted some to ask whether a clash between the US and China is inevitable >>

 

Is China's rise going to lead to conflict with America? Is Beijing destined to go to war with today's undisputed global superpower?

The question is not posed directly in the new US defence strategic review. But, unspoken, it is there, running through the document that seeks to shape America's new military thinking for the 21st Century.

Read the review and it is clear that the challenge posed by a rising China is at the very heart of America's new defence strategy.

The document is careful to say China is not destined to be an adversary. But it makes clear America is, nevertheless, about to retool its military to deter China, and, if necessary, to confront it.

Released by President Barack Obama at the Pentagon, the aim of the new strategy is there in black and white: to reshape the US military in a way that "preserves American global leadership, maintains our military superiority".

The Pentagon and the White House are certainly not ready to accept the notion that America is inevitably facing long-term decline while China is on an equally inevitable rise. America wants to remain number one, and this new defence policy is designed to achieve that.

Lack of trust

In the very first sentence of his preamble, President Obama says "our nation is at a moment of transition," and the review states: "We face an inflection point." It identifies two basic forces shaping the transition, one inside America, one outside.

At home growing budget pressures mean there have to be cuts in military spending. At the same time there is the awareness that, abroad, China's growing economic strength is changing the dynamic of power in Asia.

US President Barack Obama insists his country welcomes the "peaceful" rise of China >>

 

The new defence posture, says the US, encourages "the peaceful rise of new powers". That is code for welcoming China's ascent, and has been said many times before.

As to what China's rise means, the new strategy is open-minded. "Over the long term," it says, noncommittally, "China's emergence as a regional power will have the potential to affect the US economy and our security in a variety of ways."

Note the way that China is described as an emerging "regional power". The Pentagon is not ready to accord China the status of a global power or superpower, or even an emerging superpower, a reflection of the fact that China's military reach is still far from global.

However China's economic influence does now span the world. America and China are bound by mutual self-interest. But the review is clear there is a real lack of trust.

"Our two countries have a strong stake in peace and stability in East Asia and an interest in building a co-operative bilateral relationship. However, the growth of China's military power must be accompanied by a greater clarity of its strategic intentions in order to avoid causing friction in the region."

Arms race

So the US is still hedging its bets. Already last year, the Obama administration unveiled its "pivot", turning America's gaze towards the Pacific. That shift is clear in this new doctrine. "We will of necessity rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific region", it says several times.

Now America is stating that it will work on several fronts to counter China's emerging power.

There is a clear concern about China's efforts to develop weapons that would make it hard for US forces to operate in parts of East Asia. China is investing in "anti-access" and "area denial" weapons like so-called "carrier killer" missiles that could sink US aircraft carriers at sea. It has also invested heavily in submarines and is building stealth fighter jets.

The US and China may send up in a tug-of-war over the Pacific region - and perhaps globally >>

 

All of those could push US aircraft carrier fleets further from China's shores, limiting their ability to influence vital trade routes in the South China Sea, or to defend Taiwan if it is attacked by China.

The review says "states such as China and Iran will continue to pursue asymmetric means to counter our power projection capabilities." But it promises "the United States must maintain its ability to project power in areas in which our access and freedom to operate are challenged".

"The maintenance of peace, stability, the free flow of commerce, and of US influence in this dynamic region will depend in part on an underlying balance of military capability and presence," it says.

So the US wants to keep its military superiority over China intact. What that leads to is an escalating arms race as America moves to counter China's own advances.

In a way the Pentagon may be copying China's own strategy, investing in similar types of weapons. There will be a focus on developing increasing air and naval power, and on advanced weapons such as even more sophisticated stealth jets, missiles and drones, along with cyberwarfare and space capabilities too.

Making friends

Strengthening a network of alliances around China is the other pillar of the strategy. "We will emphasise our existing alliances, which provide a vital foundation for Asia-Pacific security. We will also expand our networks of co-operation with emerging partners throughout the Asia-Pacific region."

“Start Quote

China must make the US realise that its rise can't be stopped”

Global Times State-run Chinese newspaper

 

Already the US has close defence relationships with South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines and Australia. It is working to build ties with Vietnam, Indonesia and is "investing in a long-term strategic partnership with India".

What all this amounts to is a very robust message of deterrence to China. The US will contest any challenge to its dominance. It will cement core alliances with China's neighbours and protect its interest in East Asia.

To return to the question we began with. Will there be conflict between the US and China one day?

The answer may well depend on how China responds to this new policy. Will it seek to assert its own power in East Asia? Will that cause growing friction?

One early response to the new US policy has come from the state-controlled Global Times newspaper, often nationalist in its opinions.

It says "China needs to enhance its long-distance military attack ability and develop more ways to threaten US territory in order to gradually push outward the front line of its 'game' with America".

"China," the paper says, "must make the US realise that its rise can't be stopped and that it is best for the US to show friendliness towards China."

Related post;

China warns US on Asia military strategy

China, Russia Could Make U.S. Stealth Tech Obsolete

Tweet



By David Axe, Wired News


It’s been a pillar of the U.S. military’s approach to high-tech warfare for decades. And now, it could become obsolete in just a few years.

Stealth technology — which today gives U.S. jets the nearly unparalleled ability to slip past hostile radar — may soon be unable to keep American aircraft cloaked. That’s the potentially startling conclusion of a new report from Barry Watts, a former member of the Pentagon’s crystal-ball-gazing Office of Net Assessment and current analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington.

“The advantages of stealth … may be eroded by advances in sensors and surface-to-air missile systems, especially for manned strike platforms operating inside defended airspace,” Watts cautions in his 43-page report The Maturing Revolution in Military Affairs (.pdf), published last week.

That could come as a big shock to the U.S. Air Force, which has bet its future on radar-dodging technology, to the tune of half-a-trillion dollars over the next 30 years. The Navy, on the other hand, might have reason to say, “I told you so.”

That is, if Watts’ prediction comes true — and that’s a big “if,” the analyst admits.

“In recent years there has been speculation that ongoing advances in radar detection and tracking will, in the near future, obviate the ability of all-aspect, low-observable aircraft such as the B-2, F-22 and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, aka JSF, to survive inside denied airspace,” Watts writes, referring to America’s stealth bombers and fighter jets.



Stealth-killing advances include VHF and UHF radars being developed by Russia and China, and a “passive-detection” system devised by Czech researchers. The latter “uses radar, television, cellular phone and other available signals of opportunity reflected off stealthy aircraft to find and track them,” Watts explains.

These new detection systems could reverse a 30-year trend that has seen the U.S. Air Force gain an increasing advantage over enemy defenses. That phenomenon began with the introduction of the F-117 stealth fighter in the late 1980s, followed by the addition of the stealthy B-2 (pictured) in the ’90s and, more recently, the F-22.

So far, the Air Force has only ever fielded a few hundred stealth aircraft, requiring it to constantly upgrade some nonstealthy fighters. But the flying branch plans to purchase more than 1,700 F-35s (at more than $100 million a pop) from Lockheed Martin in coming decades, plus up to 100 new stealth bombers. In that sense, the stealth era is only now truly dawning — just as effective counter-measures are nearly ready, Watts points out.

In that sense, the Air Force’s stealth gamble could turn into very, very long odds.

Comparatively, the Navy has played it safe. At the same time the Air Force was investing its research and development dollars in stealth, the Navy has taken a different approach to defeating enemy defenses. Where the Air Force plans to slip past radars, the Navy means to jam them with electronic noisemakers or destroy them with radar-seeking missiles. That’s why the only radar-killing planes in the Pentagon inventory belong to the Navy — and why, until the forthcoming F-35C, the Navy has never bought a stealth fighter.

Nowhere is that philosophical difference more apparent than in the Pentagon’s on-again, off-again effort to develop jet-powered killer drones. The Navy’s X-47 drone, built by Northrop, is minimally stealthy. Boeing’s Phantom Ray, intended mostly for Air Force programs, is arguably as stealthy as an F-35 in certain scenarios.

There’s still a chance the Air Force’s bet on stealth could pay off, Watts writes. That largely depends on two capabilities planned for the F-35.

First, there’s “the JSF’s sensor suite and computational power,” which Watts explains “can be easily upgraded over time due to the plane’s open avionics architecture, giv[ing] the F-35 an ability to adjust its flight path in real time in response to pop-up threats, something neither the F-117 nor the B-2 have been able to do.”

Second, the F-35’s radar, a so-called “electronically scanned array,” could in theory be used to jam an enemy radar or even slip malicious software code into its control system.

Neither of these capabilities is actually a form of stealth, per se. Rather, they would complement the F-35’s ability to absorb or deflect radar waves. Described uncharitably, the Air Force has had to add nonstealthy skills to its stealth fighters, just to help them survive.

Watts doesn’t address one other way the Air Force could preserve its stealth advantage: by speeding up the development of drone aircraft — which, by virtue of their smaller size, have the potential to be much stealthier than any manned aircraft.

It’s also worth noting that America’s biggest rivals don’t doubt the continuing relevance of stealthy planes. Russia and China have both unveiled new stealth-fighter prototypes in the last two years.

The way Watts describes it, the “end of stealth” is just one of the many big changes that could occur in near-future warfare — big emphasis on “could.” “The honest answer to the question about how fundamentally war’s conduct will change — and how soon — remains: It depends.”

Photo: B-2 stealth bomber (U.S. Air Force)
Newscribe : get free news in real time