Gates ignorant assumptions about air power--verified

Gates, one of the contributors to the reduction of U.S. Air Power Dominance, got his portrait, unveiled in the Pentagon the other day.

I wish I could spit on it.

Meanwhile, all the Gates assumptions about the emerging threat picture have been verified as 100 percent rubbish.

Poor analysis

Not the best analysis.

As Lockheed Martin has found out with the both the F-22 and the F-35, fifth-generation fighters are hard to get right: the F-22 was recently grounded with a system problem that was causing pilots to black out, while the F-35 is behind schedule, over budget and testing the patience of the U.S. Air Force to the limits.

So, because a U.S. deskilled and groupthink-rich environment has such problems, those same problems will be there for the Chinese? Well, that is an environment that would have people shot for doing what the U.S. military-industrial-congressional-complex has done.

Also, I am curious how many communist factories let you drink your lunch under a tree in your pick-up truck?

And, the U.S. only has one fifth-generation fighter. The other that marketing pukes are trying to push as such is a complete disaster.

I suspect that Chinese problems will be somewhat different.

The key challenge facing Chinese designers is not in coming up with a stealthy platform, but the systems that go inside it. These include electro-optic sensors and an AESA fire-control radar – a generational jump in technology that comes as standard on F-35s and F-22s; stealthy coatings; and reliable engines. The latter are a particular bugbear for China, which has for years relied on Russian technology to power its fast jets. Many Western observers believe the Shen Fei is powered by two Russian-sourced Klimov RD-93 turbofans, reinforcing perceptions that this particular weakness is holding China back. The fact that the same images show that these engines appear to be ill-fitting suggests that Shenyang may be following the lead of Chengdu, which is believed to be trying out a number of different engines on the J-20.

The author needs to use a push mower on a warm summer day while wearing winter gear. Then maybe he will understand the concept of "thermal issues" with the F-35 and the show room options he claims work in an unproven and troubled weapons system that is way short of real operational testing.

As for the avionics, I would think the Chinese will not over reach like the U.S. has with the Just-So-Failed. They might use something like, oh, I don't know, a HUD, instead of a helmet/display fubar.

Engines? Yeah sure. And, we will see.

More thoughts on the unveiling of the Chinese J-21 stealth fighter

Bill has some interesting thoughts about China's new J-21 stealth fighter over on Aviation Week's Ares blog.

Bill also points to this piece of history from another source:

In the past year (2009) alone, Lockheed Martin found “six to eight companies” among its subcontractors “had been totally compromised – emails, their networks, everything” according to Lockheed Martin chief information security officer Anne Mullins.

He sees the F-35 if the short-take-off-vertical-landing (STOVL)was not a requirement. STOVL design requirements have caused numerous problems with all 3 F-35 variants.

It will be interesting to see what mission sets China expects out of the J-21. I still think this design is complementary to the J-20 for achieving regional air supremacy.

It is obvious that the compromised U.S. data has born fruit. If it were me designing this thing, I would have built the center section around the F-22 main weapon's bay. It is a better bay for performance aircraft.

I suppose the coming months will see how far these assumptions go.

China puts out the welcome mat for Panetta visit--a new stealth fighter

U.S. Defense Secretary Panetta will be visiting China this week. The NY Times has a short summary of the pivot to Asia such as it is.

Or maybe his visit is about Chinese communist bullying in the region.

China has put out the welcome mat already. Chinese internet sources have shown this photo of the new J-21 stealth fighter prototype.



The J-21 gives the appearance of a pure air-superiorty machine, that would be more in the area of the F-22 than its' predecessor, the J-20.

The absense of rearward facing low observable nozzles on the J-21 could be:

1. They haven't figured that out, and that this of course is a prototype waiting on other design issues.
2. They don't want to spend that much on the airframe and consider something like "affordable stealth" (frontward facing and easy to maintain...like the F-35) good enough for the missions it will perform.

David and others consider the idea that China may only be able to afford either the J-20 or J-21. I'm not so sure. I would put my money on the J-21 being more air supremancy with some possible light strike ability, and the J-20 carrying more (longer range) strike capability yet being able to do interceptor duty.

A balanced approach in capability planning: backed up by tankers, airborne intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and on their own turf, a credible integrated air defence system (IADS).

China's long game is steady. When matched up against a country over $16T in debt that has seriously de-skilled defence-thinking, China should be more than secure about defending their local interests into the future.

China tests mobile-8400-mile 10RV capable ICBM

While others are blathering about a U.S. political convention, we have this:

China today announced that it has successfully test-fired a new 14,000 km range inter-continental ballistic missile which can carry multiple warheads, providing it with a "first strike capability" to attack targets deep inside the US and round the world.

The Dongfeng-41 with strike distance of 14,000 km was test-fired by People's Liberation Army's (PLA) Second Artillery Corp last month, state-run CCTV reported, showing a rare lengthy footage of is mobile missile units.

"The new missile's mobility, precession and war head yield combined give China a first strike capability," the report said.

As many as 10 nuclear warheads can be put on the missile. China claims that it will not be the first one to use nuclear weapons and says its nuclear forces are designed for counter attack against nuclear attack on its territory.

UPDATE-Chinese made Backfire long range bomber to see West Pacific service

What will a Mach-capable Backfire long-range bomber that can be air-to-air refueled mean to the future of the West Pacific anti-access discussion? As it seems now, quite a lot.

Back in 2001, there were indications that China wanted to buy 32 Backfire bombers from Russia. A deal at the time which could have been up to $1 biillion dollars. There was mention of this hope as early as 1998.

It seems now that sometime in 2010, China just decided to instead, buy the Russian production line for the jet.

A move by Russia to sell its production line of Tu-22M3 long-range bombers to China for US$1.5 billion to China was confirmed by the US-based US-China Economic and Security Review Commission two years ago and the bomber's name will be changed to the Hong-10, reports the state-run China News Service.

The Chinese name for their version of the Backfire (version is important because it is bound to have PLAAF specific items in it) is expected to fly in the second half of next year.

---
UPDATE: Google translate Chinese to English, this source says the H-10 "is expected to go into production next year". Different from the above first-flight mention.

--

The continent purchase Backfire bomber production line put into operation next year will be called the H -10

At 12:36 on June 15th, 2012

Aging bomber fleet replacement of old, the Chinese mainland to Russia for $ 1.5 billion purchase of Tu-22M3 Backfire (Backfire) long-range bomber production line, named "H -10", is expected to go into production next year, combat The deployment of 36.

According to Japan's "Sankei Shimbun" reported that, after the end of the Cold War, the continent had financial difficulties in Russia express willingness to buy the Tu-22M bombers, but would undermine the military balance in East Asia, Russia grounds to refuse.

After years of fight, Russia agreed to sell $ 1.5 billion Backfire bomber production line is expected to go into production next year, the actual deployment of 36, the People's Liberation Army into the military after named "H -10". As early as two years ago, the hearings held by the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission is responsible for assessing the safety of US exchanges (The US-China Economic and Security Review Commission), has confirmed the deal.

Tu-22M3 bombers maximum combat radius of 2880 kilometers, took off from mainland China in the South China Sea, East China Sea, and even the activities of the Western Pacific, is expected to be a serious threat to the safety of the air defense of the Western Pacific countries.

Warning on weak Australian defence strategy

Pundits that offer weak solutions to Pacific Rim communist aggression are a dead weight on Australia's defence posture road map.

ANZUS works.

The communist threat has to know that Australia, the U.S., Singapore, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, and yes, even Indonesia see anyone offering verbal and written threats in regard to territory not theirs as unacceptable.

This article from today is a collection of nonsense that quotes some who, at he end of the day, are just communist appeasers.

Or, weak, wishful-thinkers.

Solid trade with China and a solid military deterrence against their aggressive behaviour can co-exist. Like the Soviets before them, Chinese communists only respect strength and despise weakness.

As for Australian military capability, well, authors of the above mentioned article don't seem to have a clue. When they can have a better grasp of these issues, then, they might be able to offer something resembling useful reporting.

Play nice now

Not mentioned in this piece is that communism only understands force.

That means we have to try to persuade Washington not to confront China, as it is doing now, but to work with it. We should also try to persuade China that it, too, must accept a continuing role for America in Asia. Both will have to do a lot of compromising.

Maybe the communists will act nice if we tell them to pretty-please, stop bullying the Philippines over South China Sea areas the communists have no claim over.

Top U.S. Defense firms deliver weapons with Chinese counterfeit parts

The counterfeit parts problem in major U.S. weapons systems continues:

The Senate Armed Services Committee report uncovered 1,800 cases of counterfeit parts, including parts in the Electromagnetic Interference Filters used in night missions and in operation of "hellfire" missiles on SH-60B Navy helicopters.

They were also found in memory chips in the display systems of C-17 Globemaster III and C-130J military cargo planes, and refurbished ice detection modules on the Navy P-8A Poseidon, modified Boeing 737 aircraft incorporated with anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare capabilities.

Democratic Chairman Carl Levin, who launched the report alongside Republican John McCain, says it "outlines how this flood of counterfeit parts, overwhelmingly from China, threatens national security, the safety of our troops and American jobs."

The obvious: some of the above systems are in use by the ADF.

And there is more:

Suspect Display Parts

Two new Air Force C-27J Spartans from New York-based L-3 deployed to Afghanistan had displays with suspect parts, according to the panel.

The committee traced memory chips in the L-3 to the company in Shenzhen, which also delivered an earlier counterfeit part L-3 discovered in October 2009, the panel said.

The Air Force on January 13 suspended the company, Hong Dark Electronic Trade Co., from Pentagon contracting, according to a memo from the service.

“Hong Dark has supplied suspect counterfeit parts” to a middleman who then sold the parts to L-3 Communications, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon, among others, Air Force Deputy General Counsel Steven Shaw said in the memo.

Many of the 84,000 electronic parts from Hong Dark have been installed on aircraft such the C-17 transport and helicopters such as the AH-64 Apache and CH-46, according to Shaw.

Lot Samples

After the November hearing, L-3 officials sent samples from 20 lots of parts purchased from the company for independent testing, which confirmed that all except two were suspect, according to the Senate committee.

L-3 also provided the committee an “extensive” list of equipment beyond the C-27J aircraft that contained suspect counterpart parts, such as the Traffic Alert and and Collision Avoidance System for preventing mid-air collisions used on several military programs, including the Global Hawk drone from Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC)

So basically, the RAAFs top U.S. labelled C-130J, C-17 and the upcoming C-27 have some part content issues. Australia is also looking at the P-8A Poseidon. Who knows what else is out there.

Feel-good policy

The chattering class has a new project of self-importance. It is called; 'Australia in the Asian Century'.

Can't say I have ever liked the word "Asian" because it doesn't describe much given there are so many different kinds of peoples with different concerns in the Pacific Rim and beyond.

I agree that "all the way with LBJ" was a bad idea. Just as having Australian troops waste any more time in Afghanistan is a bad idea.

With that, I don't think being a useful tool for Communist China is especially worthwhile.

How would Australia react if they were instead located in the space occupied by the Philippines; facing a bullying Communist China who have over-reached on their definition of territory?

How is the China appreciation club going to react if the only sane response to an increasingly aggressive North Korea is to have a JDAM party once and for all?

Smith made the right response or at least an OK response.

I look forward to the new white paper on Australia in the Asian Century.

ANZUS Treaty--stronger than some think

For such a short document, the ANZUS treaty has some good words in it.

It is also a go-to document for Australia and the U.S. to consider in relation to the loss of regional air superiority and overall regional strategic force posture. The later cannot be healthy without the former.

Robert Gottliebsen of Business Spectator presents some strong reason which includes solutions for the current tepid approach by Australia and the U.S. in relation to regional strength. He also has some advice for Australia's Foreign Minister Mr. Carr to take a proper look at the direct language in the ANZUS treaty.

Myself? I am not a Carr fan. But, he is all we have. So, moving right along.

Article 2 and Article 3 of The ANZUS Treaty are strong. Take a moment to consider them.

I also like this part in the beginning:

DESIRING to declare publicly and formally their sense of unity, so that no potential aggressor could be under the illusion that any of them stand alone in the Pacific Area,

Unfortunately, some here in Australia give the impression that they prefer a division. That, Australia seek more approval from China.

I wonder what that same crew thinks of this?

The lead article the Chinese Communist Party newspaper Global Times on Tuesday contained an alarming call for a declaration of war against Vietnam and Philippines, two nations that in recent weeks launched the loudest protests against China’s sweeping maritime sovereignty claims over the South China Sea.

The fiery rhetoric of the article states that “the South China Sea is the best place for China to wage wars” because “of the more than 1,000 oil rigs there, none belongs to China; of the four airfields in the Spratly Islands, none belongs to China; once a war is declared, the South China Sea will be a sea of fire [with burning oil rigs]. Who will suffer the most from a war? Once a war starts there, the Western oil companies will flee the area, who will suffer the most?”

The article further calculates that “the wars should be focused on striking the Philippines and Vietnam, the two noisiest troublemakers, to achieve the effect of killing one chicken to scare the monkeys.”

But back to the loss of regional air superiority. This negative trend is underway with not only the currently failed RAAF/Defence roadmap but that too of incompetent leaders in the United States Air Force and U.S. Department of Defense.

If one wants to avoid war, they have to prepare for it. Today, that is only platitude.

All of the suggestions by Gottliebsen are on-point and are a dire warning of our current path if our governments do not change. If senior Australian leadership ever comes to its senses, they must tell the U.S. (in the spirit of friendship) that their Pacific strategy, is weak without a strong air power roadmap.

Are Mr. Carr and this current government, the people to stand up and do that?

American Enterprise Institute off on PacRim U.S. force-structure needs

The American Enterprise Institute (bless their little neocon heart--note neocons really are not "conservative" in any normal sense) have stated the U.S. needs more stealth aircraft in the Pacific.

They are right, but their solution is wrong.

Their primary fix for all this is to "invest heavily" in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).

The problem is that the F-35 is not survivable for the threats mentioned. That and the F-35 is neither affordable or in possession of any worth-while range.

The F-35 program is also defective.

They also don't understand that we only have about 120 combat capable F-22s. This is what you get when you build complex "A" models of anything these days.

The AEI is in no way skilled up on this issue or the solution. Best for them to go back and do more extensive research.

First things first

Interesting conversation here of how much appeasement is too much.

"We need to distinguish between containment, which is the real agenda of some, and hedging, which is a realist strategy and one, if properly explained, China can feel comfortable with and not threatened by, even if it doesn't like it," Raby says.

"We need to avoid giving Chinese nationalists, of which there are many, gratuitous ammunition (and) we ourselves should be clear about our intentions and predictable in our behaviour towards China."

Maybe if we act real nice to the communists they will respect us?

Yeah, there are a lot of Chinese "nationalists". Consider this:

The lead article the Chinese Communist Party newspaper Global Times on Tuesday contained an alarming call for a declaration of war against Vietnam and Philippines, two nations that in recent weeks launched the loudest protests against China’s sweeping maritime sovereignty claims over the South China Sea.

The fiery rhetoric of the article states that “the South China Sea is the best place for China to wage wars” because “of the more than 1,000 oil rigs there, none belongs to China; of the four airfields in the Spratly Islands, none belongs to China; once a war is declared, the South China Sea will be a sea of fire [with burning oil rigs]. Who will suffer the most from a war? Once a war starts there, the Western oil companies will flee the area, who will suffer the most?”

The article further calculates that “the wars should be focused on striking the Philippines and Vietnam, the two noisiest troublemakers, to achieve the effect of killing one chicken to scare the monkeys.”

As for fears of what China could do to the Australian economy, the current Australian PM and her staff are doing everything they can to destroy capitalism. That has to be addressed first before potential threats from the Chinese communists.

Australia's strategic direction

Some in Australia have great hope, that if they are nice to Communist China, everything will work out fine.

This read from Woolcott today is interesting. He writes about political balance between the U.S., China and Australia.

In the following quote, I agree with the last part (in bold).

The ANZUS treaty "should not be regarded as an absolute guarantee of American military support (which it is not), or as a political sacred cow", he writes, adding that ANZUS or the broader US alliance had led Australia into three unsuccessful wars - Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yet, I wonder what some of the be-friends-with-Communist China think of this warning?

Another question requires caution. Of the two; Communist China and the U.S., which has a better chance of supporting freedom of speech and free will?

The special relationship with the U.S. and Australia

Some have the solution to Pacific Rim security, as long as it includes the faulty F-35 and Lockmart song book. Fielding the Brewster Buffalo II throughout the Pacific is a plan to lose.

The U.S. President will speak before Australian Parliament today. Do not expect him to walk up to the podium; and pull out of his top-hat a hand-written 3 minute speech that is eloquent and relevant.

Australia and the U.S. have military exercises all the time. The idea of deploying a small number of Marines to Australia is if anything, a very very small part of that picture.

What it really shows in these budget troubled times is that the U.S. has a certain number of Marines that can't be used anywhere else. Since they will not contribute to hard deterrent in the region, we could save some money and remove those manpower slots from the USMC.

Not mentioned much is the waste of manpower Australia is funding for Operation: USELESS DIRT. Silly as Australian Army resources have plenty of security work to do right here in our own back yard.

Real deterrence can only be done when you have strong air power in place. Since no one is thinking about basing USAF F-22s in Australia, the idea of deterrence is rather empty.

Here in Australia, the Communist China lobby is worried about hurt feelings. Communism has more sway for some than democracy and freedom of speech. If China is the way forward, why bother funding a military at all? The Communist China lobby cares less about human values and more about making a buck. Or is it their true love of communist ideals?

You decide.

Then there is the Communist China lobby in D.C.

Australia being the farthest away they could put Marines without making communist investors--including those who invest in Congress--angry.

Never trust communists

One of China's most popular newspapers warned on Tuesday that nations involved in territorial disputes in the South China Sea should "mentally prepare for the sounds of cannons" if they remain at loggerheads with Beijing.

Source

Australian policy has a long way to go with China

It is to amaze; the belief that Australia is on the right track with China policy.

"[The address] dealt with China's obvious importance but was less China-centric than many of Rudd's offerings. I thought she treated the relationships with Japan, India and Indonesia quite well, for example.

"She went out of her way to reject, at least implicitly, Hugh White's thesis that our economic and strategic interests cannot be reconciled: 'Strong in the Asian century, with an ally in Washington and respect in Beijing' was nicely put, I thought.

"She was robust on the importance of Australia maintaining strong defence capabilities and delivering on the 2009 white paper, which had been questioned recently by the opposition defence spokesman, ill-advisedly in my view; we will probably need to spend more, not less, on defence."

Emphasis added.

This wonderful policy enlightenment they mention depends on too may “ifs”. If only the 2009 White Paper had worth. It does not.

I wonder what Gillard and friends think of this?

Meet the new Mao?

Here is something to add to the post below. I wonder if the Gillard dynasty along with Professor White et al have any idea of what could possibly go into their white paper on Asia relations that can address this?

"It may be time to concede that China’s leader-in-waiting, Xi Jinping, is not the moderate that many have assumed. Indeed, evidence from his past suggests that Xi is going to steer China in a more aggressive direction, both domestically and internationally. As his time in office nears, Xi is evincing signs of being a narrow nationalist on foreign policy and of having a penchant for police actions in dealing with domestic frictions. Hence, his rise could signify that the long struggle between Maoists and reformers that characterized China’s “reform era” is now ending. That era’s replacement could be something more like the struggle that characterized the early years of the People’s Republic, when social progressives who believed in Marxist theories of social emancipation struggled against anti-Japanese (and anti-American) nationalists who were more taken with Lenin’s theories of political control. Xi is clearly in the latter camp, siding with order and power over social progress, and he may lead China in a very unpleasant direction."

Maybe if we act real nice they will like us?



H/T- War News Updates

Chinese communists want war, Australian leadership wants to dream

The Chinese communists are fired up. They want war. Hard to believe? Try this.

The lead article the Chinese Communist Party newspaper Global Times on Tuesday contained an alarming call for a declaration of war against Vietnam and Philippines, two nations that in recent weeks launched the loudest protests against China’s sweeping maritime sovereignty claims over the South China Sea.

The fiery rhetoric of the article states that “the South China Sea is the best place for China to wage wars” because “of the more than 1,000 oil rigs there, none belongs to China; of the four airfields in the Spratly Islands, none belongs to China; once a war is declared, the South China Sea will be a sea of fire [with burning oil rigs]. Who will suffer the most from a war? Once a war starts there, the Western oil companies will flee the area, who will suffer the most?”

The article further calculates that “the wars should be focused on striking the Philippines and Vietnam, the two noisiest troublemakers, to achieve the effect of killing one chicken to scare the monkeys.”

In other news, the current Australian leadership is trying to do a white paper on 'The Asian Century and the changing structure of Australia's economy'. This is a good idea if it is realistic.

However, consider this thinking:

"But we are far from pessimistic too. Because there is nothing in our Alliance relationship with the United States which seeks to contain China, because a growing, successful China is in the interest of every country in the region, including our own and because our national strength, and that of our ally, is respected in the region and the world."

My theory is that what this government sees as the definition of a growing and successful China may be significantly different than how communist China sees it.

It will not be an equal playing field. Expect loss of intellectual property. Expect power-plays for our natural resources.

The current Australian government--where some of the politicians hold what can only be described as neo-Marxist ideals--are unable to see the real threat of communism.

Not containing communism is a bad idea. I fear that this new white paper will be weak on security to the point of putting Australia and our Pacific allies at risk.

Chicom appeasement crowd--DOD report no big deal

"Even with big defense cuts on the horizon, the U.S. has an overwhelming advantage, whether in the refueling tankers that make the U.S. Air Force dominant over Planet Earth."

Yeah, sure.

This is more of a façade each and everyday as USAF/DOD management continues to decline. This is helped by the Chinese communist appeasement crowd, and the fact that many in DC don't want to see the phoney U.S. dollar value get worse.

As our intrepid Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "How do you deal toughly with your banker?"

.