Underway at Last!

"China's carrier has gone to sea" was the headline of one Asian newspaper. The event -- the story implied -- marked the long-awaited operational debut of the former Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag. In reality, the ship got underway with harbor tugs providing the power, moving the ship from a pier in the port of Dalian to a nearby dry dock, a "voyage" of about two miles.

As of this writing, no major work on the ship has been observed since she arrived at Dalian in northeastern China on 3 March 2002. The ship was painted a few years ago, but little other effort has gone into the unfinished giant despite periodic press claims that the carrier was being "clandestinely" completed.

While the ship was being towed to the dry dock on 27 April the Varyag was extensively photographed. Those photos reveal much about the ship: She rode high in the water and, with the lack of "patches" on her flight deck, it is obvious that engines had not been installed in the ship. Her flight deck lacks arresting cables and operational markings, and her island structure is void of the aerials, electronic domes, and radar antennas that inundate aircraft carriers.

The question is: Why has the Varyag moved into a dry dock. A number of reasons are possible for her brief voyage and dry docking. These include:

(1) Completing the carrier -- which was laid down at the Nikolayev South shipyard as the Soviet Riga in the Ukraine in 1985. This would involve the complex task of installing engines and other machinery (assuming that they are now available), auxiliary equipment, messing and berthing facilities, radars and other electronic equipment, etc.

(2) Carrying out general maintenance on the hulk, including cleaning her underwater hull, and taking other measures to simply preserve the Varyag until a definite decision is made concerning her eventual fate.

(3) Permitting naval architects and others to examine the ship's underwater hull, possibly to assist in efforts to design and construct an indigenous Chinese aircraft carrier.

There can be no question but the Chinese Navy's leadership wants to acquire aircraft carriers, primarily to provide air cover for naval operations in the South China Sea, an area of great interest to China because of offshore oil activities. In long-range planning, the Chinese may also be considering their increasing political and economic interests in Africa and South America. However, despite periodic press reports -- some saying that the first Chinese carrier will be completed this year -- there is still no publicly available evidence that construction of such ships has begun in China. Indeed, even commercial satellites would have detected such efforts.

Chinese shipyards, which are producing advanced missile destroyers and nuclear-propelled submarines as well as large merchant ships, can certainly build a large aircraft carrier. Completion of the ship -- which would take probably four years or more from the start of construction -- would have to be followed by a lengthy working up period, with extensive ship and then aircraft trials and qualifications. Thus, with at least a year from the decision to build such a ship until actual construction would start because of the need to order components and materials, if that decision were made today the first Chinese carrier could be ready in about six or seven years.

-- Norman Polmar

Chinese Navy Requires Supercruising Fighter

This article first appeared in Aviation Week & Space Technology.

A supercruising combat aircraft is a high priority of the Chinese navy, the country's top admiral says in a revealing official interview that gives strong clues of perceived shortcomings and future directions for the maritime force.

Adm. Wu Shengli also says China must step up work on precision missiles that can overcome enemy defenses, and the nation should move faster in developing large combat surface ships -- probably meaning the aircraft carrier program that looks increasingly imminent.

Wu's demand for supercruise -- supersonic flight without afterburner -- hints that such performance will be available from the next Chinese fighter, sometimes called the J-XX.

"One possibility is that the J-XX is being designed for supercruise and that Wu is trying to build support for a naval version of the aircraft," says Richard Bitzinger, a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore.

The design of the J-XX is unknown. It could be a new aircraft or quite possibly a development of the J-10, a fighter now entering service.

The J-10's configuration is similar to that of the Eurofighter Typhoon, which the manufacturer says can supercruise at Mach 1.5, although it is likely to be somewhat slower with a useful external load.

For the Chinese navy, one advantage of supercruising would be the ability to cover a large defensive area in less time -- quite useful if the imagined target is a U.S. carrier group at long range.

Importantly, Wu lists a supercruising fighter among a series of technological demands that all look quite achievable for the Chinese navy over the next decade or so, suggesting that he does not regard such flight performance as a pie in the sky.

"Sophisticated equipment is the key material basis for winning a regional naval war," says the admiral, evidently referring to the possibility of a confrontation in the Taiwan Strait. "We must accelerate and promote steps to work on key weapons.

Read the rest of this story, check out Turkey's new AW149, see a Russian fighter go down and read about the Poseidon's first flight from our friends at Aviation Week, exclusively on Military.com.

-- Christian

ChiCom Carrier Killer

This is not the first time we've covered this issue...

From the US Naval Institute:

With tensions already rising due to the Chinese navy becoming more aggressive in asserting its territorial claims in the South China Sea, the U.S. Navy seems to have yet another reason to be deeply concerned.

After years of conjecture, details have begun to emerge of a "kill weapon" developed by the Chinese to target and destroy U.S. aircraft carriers.

First posted on a Chinese blog viewed as credible by military analysts and then translated by the naval affairs blog Information Dissemination, a recent report provides a description of an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) that can strike carriers and other U.S. vessels at a range of 2000km.

The range of the modified Dong Feng 21 missile is significant in that it covers the areas that are likely hot zones for future confrontations between U.S. and Chinese surface forces.

The size of the missile enables it to carry a warhead big enough to inflict significant damage on a large vessel, providing the Chinese the capability of destroying a U.S. supercarrier in one strike.

Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minutes.

Read the rest of this story on Military.com...

-- Christian

Cross-Strait Situation Changing

In offices in the Pentagon and the State Department, China-Taiwan experts are scrutinizing the latest reports from the Far East of the changing relationship between China -- officially the People's Republic of China -- and Taiwan, the offshore island "state." For more than a half century the United States has anticipated a possible Chinese assault on Taiwan. But the situation is changing rapidly.

Taiwan became the Republic of China after 1949. Communist armies had overrun most of China and the surviving Nationalist troops, led by Chang Kai-shek, fled to the island, then known by its Japanese name of Formosa.

There followed several decades of intense animosity between the "two Chinas." Initially, there was concern in the West that the Nationalist armies, rested and rearmed, could invade the mainland, some 100 miles away. Subsequently, there was concern for several decades that Chinese armies would cross the Taiwan Strait to invade Taiwan.

During the latter period the United States gave considerable military assistance to Taiwan in anticipation of a Chinese assault across the strait. And, U.S. war plans called for defending Taiwan against such an invasion, although the difficulties of such an amphibious operation should have been obvious to all parties.

Indeed, China did not build a massive amphibious fleet or a large airborne assault force. Further, China's marines -- currently two brigades in strength -- are assigned to the South Sea Fleet rather than to the East Sea Fleet, which faces the Taiwan Strait. While detailed data are not publicly available, it appears that the East Sea Fleet is the smallest of China's three fleets.

While strong words are still voiced by some leaders of both China and Taiwan, there has been a remarkable rapprochement between the two entities during the past few years. There is now direct postal service, commercial air transport, and, most recently, shipping between China and Taiwan. Also, Taiwan businessmen are investing in China.

And, in early January the China News Agency announced that representatives of China and Taiwan were are expected to meet after the Chinese New Year holidays to hammer out the technical details of several agreements to be signed during the third round of high-level, cross-Taiwan Strait talks. According to Straits Exchange Foundation Chairman Chiang Pin-kung, the new set of agreements will address issues such as cooperation on financial supervision and regulation, prevention of double taxation, intellectual property rights protection, and cooperation on combating crime.

These "semi-official" talks have seen unprecedented agreements between China and Taiwan, certainly a means of "defusing" the previous, danger-fraught relations between the two. Thus, there is increased reason for optimism that conflict in the Taiwan Strait is increasingly unlikely.

At the same time the Chinese armed forces, and especially the Navy, are undergoing an extensive modernization and -- to a limited extent -- expansion. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the naval modernization, with the largely unsubstantiated reports that China is preparing to construct aircraft carriers, is intended for missions other than a cross-strait assault. These missions are undoubtedly to insure access to offshore oil resources in the South China Sea, the safe passage of Chinese merchant ships through the various world straits, support to overseas Chinese economic and political interests (especially in South America and Africa), and, most recently, supporting anti-piracy operations.

This rapidly changing situation is causing U.S. government experts on Far Eastern issues to reevaluate official views and plans related to the Taiwan Strait.

-- Norman Polmar

Gi Zhou Examines the New PLA Corps

It appears that the structure of the PLA's New Heavy Corps will be similar to the British 1 Corps in Northern Germany during the Cold War. The PLA Corps will be structured around brigades and I believe the Corps itself will contain a heavy artillery group, a ground manoeuvre group, an aviation group and a battlefield support group which would include bridging, electronic warfare and logistics.

An early version of the corps envisioned a total of 500 Model 96 or Model 99 main battle tanks in two armoured and two mechanised brigades; 586 ZDB-97 tracked infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs), 126 155mm PLZ-45 self-propelled guns; 96 120mm turreted self-propelled mortars; 36 Type 89 30 tube 122mm and 27 300mm 12 tube A-100 multiple rocket launchers; 12 DF-15D tactical missiles and 48 attack, 18 multipurpose and 60 transport helicopters and around 2,000 other types of vehicles.

This was clearly outside what the PLA is currently able to afford with armored brigades now have three armoured battalions for a total of 99 main battle tanks, one mechanised infantry battalion, one artillery battalion with 18 self-propelled guns and one air defence battalion of 18 AAA guns. Each armoured battalion will have three armoured companies, each of three platoons with each company having 11 main battle tanks; three in each platoon and two headquarters vehicles. There are no tanks at the battalion or brigade headquarters. This is a total of 33 main battle tanks.

The new mechanized infantry brigade is to have four mechanised infantry battalions, one armoured battalion, one fire support battalion, one engineer battalion and one communication battalion. Each mechanized infantry battalion has three mechanized infantry companies, each of three platoons with each company having 13 infantry fighting vehicles; four in each platoon and one headquarters vehicle. A complete brigade contains approximately 4,000 soldiers.

By comparison the British Army's armored regiment (battalion) had tank squadrons (companies), each with four platoons of three Challenger 1 main battle tanks for a total of 58 tanks including headquarters vehicles. The mechanised infantry battalion had four companies of FV432 armoured personnel carriers, each of four platoons with four vehicles per platoon and one or two and the company and battalion headquarters. These vehicles were the direct equivalent of the PLA's current ZSD89 APC and its family of vehicles, and the recent Type 96 and Type 99 main battle tanks. Similarly the battalion battle groups envisaged by the PLA are similar to the British Army battle groups of 1981. Each British army battle group was built around a battalion headquarters, a close reconnaissance troop (platoon) with eight Scimitar reconnaissance vehicles, an anti-tank troop with four to six armoured long range anti-tank guided missile vehicles, six self-propelled guns and one or two armoured vehicles with man portable surface to air missile systems.

This comparison quickly shows two glaring deficiencies in the PLA's current structure and move towards modular combined arms battle groups. The first is the lack of a dedicated scout/close reconnaissance vehicle and the second, which in many ways is far more important, is the shortage of in-house infantry in the armored brigade and the mechanized infantry battalion.

The mechanised infantry lacks a fourth company in the infantry battalion meaning the armored brigades cannot create balanced battalion battle groups. Besides being unsuited to operations on complex terrain (urban and high altitude), armored forces that have neglected proper infantry support and have suffered large casualties include the Russian Army's 131st Maykop Brigade on New Year's Day 1995 in Grozny, and the Israeli tank forces during their initial counterattacks along the Bar Lev in the first morning of the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

Reconnaissance in the New Corps

Unlike the German and British Armies, the PLA like the United States Army does not have a dedicated mechanised brigade reconnaissance element. Under the new corps/brigade structure there will be a reconnaissance element as part of the corps. In the tracked units, the medium reconnaissance vehicle will be the Model 03 amphibious reconnaissance vehicle, which is replacing the Model 62 light tank and the Model 63 amphibious tank in PLA service. It will operate ahead of the main forces; and provide a flanking screen up to four km on the flanks. It is too bulky and large for scouting and close-in reconnaissance which could be performed by the ZBD05 airborne vehicle which besides having a 30mm automatic gun can carry a scout section. This role may have been trialled with aviation and other armoured vehicles by the composite reconnaissance/cavalry brigade in the Peace Mission 2007 joint exercise. The Model 02 100mm assault gun would have provided medium reconnaissance and explain the large amount of assault guns compared to the number of armoured personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles.

-- Martin Andrew

New PLA Armor and Mech. Infantry Brigade Structures

The Soviet Operational Manoeuvre Group in 1986 was looking at creating a 'Shock Division' of three regiments, with each regiment containing two tank and two mechanised infantry battalions. Armoured divisions are too unwieldy in complex terrain and an armoured battle group (battalion sized) is easier to control and execute its mission.

The People’s Liberation Army, following on from their experience with the Operational Manoeuvre Group, can now deploy the new mechanised infantry division and using modular forces have created a composite cavalry brigade for use in complex terrain.

Utilising the deep operation theory, they can employ am air mechanised and/or fast wheeled force as a 'lance' followed up by the mobile force (tank heavy) to exploit the breach in an enemy’s defences followed by a holding force (heavy mechanised), that is the dozer blade.

An article in the 1/2008 issue of Tanke Zhuangjia Cheliang (Tank and Armoured Vehicle) is titled 'News From Overseas- Chinese Built Many Light Type Mechanised Units.' The article was written to correct the mistakes that appear in non-Chinese media about the structure and equipment of these new light mechanised units.

The mechanised infantry brigade has four mechanised infantry battalions, one armoured battalion, one fire support battalion, one engineer battalion and one communication battalion. Each mechanised infantry battalion has three mechanised infantry companies, each of three platoons with each company having 13 infantry fighting vehicles; four in each platoon and one headquarters vehicle.

Each armoured brigade has four armoured battalions for a total of 132 main battle tanks, one mechanised infantry battalion, one artillery battalion with 18 self-propelled guns and one air defence battalion of 18 AAA guns. Each armoured battalion has three armoured companies, each of three platoons with each company having 11 main battle tanks; three in each platoon and two headquarters vehicles. A complete brigade contains 4,000 soldiers.

The 112th Mechanised Infantry Division, part of the 38th Army Group, uses the Model 99 main battle tank and the Model 86 infantry fighting vehicle. The 3rd and 116th Armoured Divisions, part of the 39th Army Group are to be equipped with 198 Model 99 main battle tanks each, meaning at present they will stay with the three tank platoon structure and two regiments.

The 54th Regiment, part of the 127th Mechanised Infantry Division uses the Model 96 main battle tank as do the independent 20th Tank Regiment and 58th Tank Brigade.

The 113th Mechanised Infantry Division of the 38th Army Group is equipped with both Type 92 and 92A wheeled infantry fighting vehicles. Other vehicles based on the chassis include command, anti-tank with the Hong Jia- 8 ATGW, the Yi-Tian self propelled SAM system and the wheeled 122mm self-propelled gun is close to approval.

-- Martin Andrew

A Grab Bag of New Chinese Weapons

[Editor's Note: Our good friend Martin Andrew, who publishes an investigative blaster chronicling Chinese military development called the Gi Zhou Newsletter, has some interesting tidbits for us this week. And please note, the picture at left is an earlier Type 89 self-propelled gun.]

New 122mm Self-Propelled Gun

In 1966, Luo Ruiqing, the PLA's then chief-of-staff criticised the defence industry because it was concentrating on R&D rather than on production. He was accused in the official Report of Luo's Mistakes that, 'he still frantically attacked our national defence scientific research work as going from data to data, from design to design, without completing anything'. Luo believed China was in imminent war with the United States, and advocated Soviet assistance. His criticism of the Chinese defence industry could well have applied into the 1990s as well as today with too many designs that achieve little.

A new 122mm self-propelled gun has been shown in the online version of PLA Daily. Titled 'Artillery troops enhance combat effectiveness with new equipment', it shows a battery of these guns. The vehicle uses the chassis from the new ZBD97 infantry fighting vehicle with a turret, most probably a modified version of the one used on the Model 89 122mm self-propelled gun.

WZ731 Tracked Scout Vehicle

Identified as a xinxihua zhanchang (Informationalised battlefield) system, the WZ731 tracked scout developed from the ZSD89 hull with a low profile turret mounting two armoured sights, one with a laser rangefinder and CCD daylight sight and the other a thermal imager. The WZ731 had a crew of up to six including a three man scout team. It was 6.62m long, 2.626m wide and 1.88m high at the hull and 2.556m at the top of the armoured sights. The combat weight was only 8.1t which gave it a maximum road speed of 80.5 km/hr.

The armament comprised eight 76mm smoke grenade dischargers, four mounted in a row on each side of the turret and a pintle mounted Model 59 12.7 x 108mm heavy machine gun on the left side if the commander's cupola which is directly behind the driver on the left hand side. This single machine gun on its open pintle mount was deemed insufficient in the event of the vehicle coming under attack. The lack of an automatic cannon was one reason the vehicle was not introduced into service. The British Scimitar tracked reconnaissance vehicle is similar in weight, is better armoured, smaller in size, more mobile and m mounts a 30mm cannon.

The basic design was sound and a new scout version of the ZSD89, using the enlarged rear hull of the ambulance version, with a modified low profile turret from the WZ731. This incorporates flat transmitter panels on the turret roof, and on top of this is a compressed gas catapult for a small UAV.

New Unmanned Air Vehicle

The Wenchuan Earthquake has seen the use of at least one Chinese developed and manufactured unmanned air vehicle (UAV). It was to survey the extent of the damage.

It is only 2.1 m long and has a wingspan of 2.6m. It weighs 20kg and is of pusher configuration with twin booms connecting a 'V' shaped rear fin. It can travel at 110km/hr, reach an altitude of 3,500m and has GPS assisted guidance. Its photographic images are excellent.

-- Martin Andrew

China Close to Anti-Ship BM

I didn't really understand it until I noticed the seriousness in the source's eyes. I hadn't given it much thought recently, what with all the other stuff going on around us ... MRAP, Air Force shakeup, body armor, tanker -- you name it.

But when the far-ranging discussion we were having came around to the subject of aircraft carriers, this guy said (and I paraphrase) "you think carriers are irrelevant in a contested environment now, just wait til someone gets an anti-ship ballistic missile capability. That'll be a game-changer."

To me, this seemed implausible. Shooting a ballistic missile at a moving ship?

"Did you see the ASAT test? That was 10-times more difficult," he replied. "And they're a lot closer than anyone thinks."

He wouldn't tell me the country that's so close to getting this capability, but it's not hard to guess which one it is.

From the 2008 Chinese Military Power report:

China is developing an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) based on a variant of the CSS-5 medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) as a component of its anti-access strategy. The missile has a range in excess of 1,500 km and, when incorporated into a sophisticated command and control system, is a key component of China’s anti-access strategy to provide the PLA the capability to attack ships at sea, including aircraft carriers, from great distances.

That's subtle -- not a whole lot there. But my guy tells me this country that he would not mention could plausibly demonstrate that capability "very soon."

According to our friends at Globalsecurity.org:

Work is believed to be ongoing to provide this missile with a sophisticated terminal guidance system. According to some reports the Mod 2 version of the CSS-5 will be comparable to the US Pershing II IRBM, employ advanced radar guidance to achieve extremely high accuracy.

Now, here's what it means: carriers must stay at least 1000 miles off this enemy's coast. Think how that affects strike planning, surveillance, rescue...any number of factors that go into naval aviation planning. And how do you defend against such a strike? I'm not sure about all the details, but it seems to me there's a pretty short flight time in which to generate a solution for an anti-ballistic missile interceptor. Maybe ABL could handle this one, but how many can it shoot down at any one time? A salvo of even five or 10 of these could be devistating.

Another source tells me there have been tests of the system but they have so far been unsuccessful. But the source also told me the Russians might have recently delivered a key component to the Chinese to make this system more effective.

We'll have more on this as it develops and I'll be interested to see what DT readers might be able to add on this...

-- Christian

Who's Afraid of the Big, Bad Dragon?

DT editor emeritus Noah Shachtman send us a heads up on a cool post at his current gig, The Danger Room. Here's an excerpt:

For years, the American armed forces have worried about an attack on US satellites; this could be how it begins. The United States military has become increasingly dependent on space. It uses photo-reconnaissance satellites to observe potential adversaries, GPS satellites to guide munitions with pin-point accuracy, communications satellites to handle the flow of information into and out of a theater of operations, and early warning satellites to detect and track enemy missile launches to name just a few of the better known applications. Because of this increasing dependence, many analysts have worried that the US is most vulnerable to asymmetric attacks against its space assets; in their view US satellites are “sitting ducks” without any sort of defense and their destruction would cripple the US military. China’s test of a sophisticated anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon a year ago, Friday -- 11 January 2007, when it shot down its own obsolete weather satellite -- has only increased these concerns. But is this true? Could a country—even a powerful country like China that has demonstrated a very sophisticated, if nascent, ability to shoot down satellites at all altitudes—inflict anything close to a knock-out blow against the US in space? And if it was anything less than a knock-out, how seriously would it affect US war fighting capabilities?

So is China a valid space threat or not? Read Noah's three part series, starting with Part I here.

-- Ward

A Little Chinese Sub Buffet?

Is this for real?

From the UK Daily Mail

When the U.S. Navy deploys a battle fleet on exercises, it takes the security of its aircraft carriers very seriously indeed.

At least a dozen warships provide a physical guard while the technical wizardry of the world's only military superpower offers an invisible shield to detect and deter any intruders.

That is the theory. Or, rather, was the theory.

American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.

By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.

According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy.

The Americans had no idea China's fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat.

One Nato figure said the effect was "as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik" - a reference to the Soviet Union's first orbiting satellite in 1957 which marked the start of the space age.

The incident, which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan, is a major embarrassment for the Pentagon.

The lone Chinese vessel slipped past at least a dozen other American warships which were supposed to protect the carrier from hostile aircraft or submarines.

And the rest of the costly defensive screen, which usually includes at least two U.S. submarines, was also apparently unable to detect it.

According to the Nato source, the encounter has forced a serious re-think of American and Nato naval strategy as commanders reconsider the level of threat from potentially hostile Chinese submarines.

It also led to tense diplomatic exchanges, with shaken American diplomats demanding to know why the submarine was "shadowing" the U.S. fleet while Beijing pleaded ignorance and dismissed the affair as coincidence.

Analysts believe Beijing was sending a message to America and the West demonstrating its rapidly-growing military capability to threaten foreign powers which try to interfere in its "backyard."

This sounds like a a similar incident that occured last year, where another Chinese popped up a little too close for comfort next to the Kitty Hawk.

What gives? I mean, Pentagon chief Gates was just over in China making nicey nice with is Sino counterparts. Why the shadow puppetry which is certainly going to give the US Navy a serious case of the jitters? I can't find much more on this story, and the Daily Mail is surely not the most credible source...What do you dear readers make of this?

(Gouge: CM)

-- Christian

China One Step Closer to Planting Flag on Moon

It’s kind of funny that on the same day we posted a piece on the pros and cons of American space weapons, the Chinese flew its first survey satellite of the moon into lunar orbit.

From the AP:

A Chinese satellite successfully entered lunar orbit Monday, a month after rival Japan put its own probe into orbit around the moon, but Chinese officials denied there was any competition between the two nations.

Chinese space officials said the Chang'e 1 satellite, part of the country's ambitious space exploration plans, entered lunar orbit after completing a planned braking operation.

China plans to keep the Chang'e 1 — named after a mythical Chinese goddess who flew to the moon — there for one year, about the same length of time as Japan's probe. China launched its satellite late last month, while Japan put its into space in September.

The timing of the launches raises the prospect of a space rivalry between the two Asian nations, with India possibly joining in if it carries through on a plan to send its own lunar probe into space in April.

But Long Jiang, deputy commander of spacecraft systems of China's lunar exploration program, said Beijing wanted to use its space program to work with other countries.

It also was perfectly timed to coincide with a visit by U.S. defense chief Robert Gates, who was forced to be conciliatory in his remarks on the development. According to the AP he congratulated China’s achievement, saying “it’s a clear credit to Chinese industry and innovation” (as long as they’re not using lead paint).

More AP:

"We are willing to cooperate with the rest of the world to the benefit of humankind, but as to what kind of cooperation, it depends on specific circumstances," Long told a news conference.

The Chang'e 1 blasted off on top of a Long March 3A rocket on Oct. 24 from the Xichang Satellite Launch Center in Sichuan province in southwestern China.

"All of the subsystems of the Chang'e 1 are in normal operation so far," said Pei Zhaoyu, spokesman for the China National Space Administration.

The Chang'e 1 has survived the most critical part of its journey, Pei said. It had to enter the moon's orbit at the right time and speed, otherwise it could have hit the moon or flown by it.

He said the satellite's success was a sign of China's advanced engineering. "The project is a comprehensive demonstration of China's economic, scientific and technological power."

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who is on a two-day visit to China, commended China's Defense Minister Cao Gangchuan over the lunar mission.

"I congratulate him and the people of China on this achievement. It's clearly a credit to Chinese industry and innovation," Gates said.

The lunar mission adds depth to a Chinese space program that has sent astronauts orbiting the Earth twice in the past four years.

Chang'e 1 is the first step of a three-stage moon mission. In about 2012 China plans an unmanned lunar landing with a rover. In the third phase, about five years later, another rover is to land on the moon and be returned to Earth with lunar soil and stone samples.

China plans a new generation of more powerful Long March 5 rockets able to lift more weight to the moon — and possibly a manned mission — but Pei told the news conference these wouldn't be used until after 2012, missing the second phase.

According to Japanese news reports last week, Japan plans to send an unmanned probe to land on the moon by 2015.

It would cost about $437 million and consist of an unmanned lander, a rover to study the lunar surface and a small satellite to transfer data, according to the Asahi and Mainichi newspapers.

Chang'e 1's goal is to analyze the chemical and mineral composition of the lunar surface. It will use stereo cameras and X-ray spectrometers to map three-dimensional images of the surface and study the moon's dust.

The 5,070-pound satellite is expected to transmit its first photo back to China late this month.

China sent its first satellite into Earth orbit in the 1970s but the space program only seriously took off in the 1980s, growing apace with the country's booming economy.

In 2003, China became only the third country in the world after the United States and Russia to put its own astronauts into space.

But China also alarmed the international community in January when it destroyed an old satellite with a land-based anti-satellite missile.

I tend to think it’s kind of cute that the Chinese are just now getting into lunar exploration. I’ve been watching the Discovery Channel special on the upcoming mission to Mars, and the challenges are so far beyond what the Chinese are now attempting, it’s staggering.

And the specter of some Chinese military moon base, bristling with laser weapons and nukes pointed at New York is at best far fetched.

America’s space race and launch to the moon was an amazingly maturing phenomenon for the country, maybe it can do the same for China ... and India.

-- Christian

AF Sec Calls China Sat Kill an "Egregious Act"

A top Pentagon official leveled sharp words at China Wednesday, reacting with some of the most candid and unambiguous language yet to that country's destruction in January of a satellite in space with a ground-launched ballistic missile.

Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne called the shoot-down an "egregious act" and said the Chinese sent a clear message to the U.S. military that its aging satellite force is under threat.

"We were not surprised, we were shocked," Wynne said at a Sept. 19 meeting hosted by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a defense policy think tank. "What was shocking about it was the denial."

"Was it part of a plan; was it not part of a plan?" Wynne wondered. "That's what was shocking about it."

Wynne said the shoot-down of a 1990's-era Chinese weather satellite in polar orbit has forced astronauts aboard the international space station to avoid the debris field scattered in the intercept, and he concluded that China now claims space as a legitimate battlefield.

Future enemies "want to make sure that you will not want to get involved" in a conflict, Wynne reasoned.

"They can pin-prick you, they can threaten you - as China has with shoot-down of the satellite - just to tell us 'you don't think you're safe up there,' " he said. "Space is not a sanctuary anymore."

The Chinese government was silent on the shoot-down - and the international condemnation that resulted - for weeks after the Jan. 11 hit, and has been murky on the issue ever since. In June, U.S. Joint Chiefs chairman Gen. Peter Pace said he had not raised the issue with his Chinese counterparts during a meeting in May.

A Pentagon report released this summer assessing the Chinese military said the test was an example of China's pursuit of asymmetric countermeasures to American military prowess.

"The test put at risk the assets of all space faring nations and posed dangers to human space flight due to the creation of an unprecedented amount of debris," the report stated. "The direct ascent ASAT system is one component of a multi-dimensional program to generate the capability to deny others access to outer space."

Wynne's comments are some of the strongest yet from a senior Pentagon official and indicate how seriously the military considers Chinese anti-satellite weapons development. America's increasing reliance on space-borne assets to guide weapons, conduct long-range communications and keep an all-seeing eye on potential enemies could become the Pentagon's Achilles Heel in a future conflict, many analysts fear.

The move prompted Air Force planners to redouble their efforts to come up with ways to defend U.S. space assets from destruction. But officials are reluctant to replace a $1.5 billion satellite, only to have it destroyed by a $100 million ASAT missile.

"If space comes under attack, maybe we don't want to put up big, expensive retainer forces, maybe all we want to put up is just enough to kick the crap out of whoever shot at our satellite - kind of send a message to them," Wynne said. "And then we'll put up another expensive satellite."

Other experts wonder whether the Pentagon could reduce its dependence on satellite systems - particularly those used for GPS navigation - and position more assets in the atmosphere, leaving fewer targets for enemy ASAT weapons to hit.

Whatever defensive solution is adopted, the Air Force faces an aging fleet of satellites that are running out of fuel to keep them in orbit, Wynne said. Now, the service is faced with a potential investment of $20 billion per year to replace its space-borne fleet in the face of an aggressive threat from ASAT weapons.

"Right now, the satellites have gone up all in a peaceful mode," Wynne said. "I do think we should have some defensive mechanisms, but it is very hard to defend a satellite you're actually trying to talk to."

-- Christian

Recent DoD Network Attack Disclosed

Look, I don’t want anyone to get the impression that this is turning into a “China threat” site...it’s not and never will – notwithstanding the earlier post today on Chinese development of a hyper-sonic weapon.

But our sister site Military.com posted a story this morning about a computer attack against a DoD site that came to light this weekend, and we wanted to post the Pentagon’s response today.

Defense spokesman Bryan Whitman confirmed the attack, but he also said DoD sites are a regular target of a wide variety of computer network attacks – both amateur and military in nature. But what’s amazing is that Whitman confirmed that it was an attack by the Chinese military.

Now, we’re not saying that’s an act of war, but it is at least significant that the Pentagon would dive head first into that pot of geo-strategic boiling oil.

Again, don’t read with the impression that the DT staff is “warmongering.” But we feel that this story may be a bit underreported and that a serious debate needs to occur over whether a computer network attack such as this is indeed an aggressive act – or worse.

From Armed Forces Press Service:

The Defense Department receives many attempted cyber attacks each day and has measures in place to aggressively respond to and deter these attacks, a department spokesman said today.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman addressed media reports that a computer system in the Office of the Secretary of Defense was hacked into by the Chinese military earlier this year. Whitman confirmed that an attack did occur in June but declined to identify the origin of the threat. It is often difficult to pinpoint the true origin of an intrusion into computer systems and even more difficult to tie the intrusion to a specific nation or government, he noted.

"Cyber or non-kinetic type threats to military computer networks are viewed as just as real and just as significant as physical or kinetic threats," Whitman said. "The department aggressively responds to deter all intrusions to defend what is known as the GIG, the global information grid."

When the intrusion occurred in June, elements of an unclassified e-mail system in the Office of the Secretary of Defense were taken off-line briefly, Whitman said. However, the department has redundant systems in place, so ongoing operations were not disrupted, he said. The system was restored to full service within two or three weeks.

There are hundreds of attempted intrusions into the Defense Department computer network each day, the majority of which are detected and stopped, Whitman said. The nature of the threat is large and diverse and includes recreational hackers, self-styled cyber vigilantes, various groups with nationalistic or ideological agendas, transnational actors, and nation states. When appropriate, the department turns cases over to law enforcement officials for investigation, he said.

"We continue to aggressively monitor our networks for intrusions," Whitman said. "We have appropriate procedures to address events of this nature."

Since the incident in June, Whitman said, he knows of no successful intrusions into the Defense Department computer system.

-- Christian

Sino Scramjet in the Works

China is starting to ramp up its scramjet propulsion work—an initiative that will benefit high-speed missile programs while also helping the country to develop advanced aerospace materials, greater computational capabilities and a cadre of young engineers who have matured as a result of cutting-edge engine and aerodynamic challenges.

Building on its ramjet experience, China is embracing the much more difficult task of developing Mach 5 air vehicle concepts in which propulsion and aerodynamics are highly coupled.

As part of this effort, an integrated scramjet model is about to begin testing at up to Mach 5.6 in a new wind tunnel in Beijing.

In addition to the technology and engineering experience to be gained, the mid-term military payoff is likely to be more advanced high-speed tactical and medium-range Chinese missiles, especially for antiship warfare that could threaten U.S. aircraft carriers in the Pacific or operating in support of Taiwan...

...And over the next several decades, the scramjet work could eventually provide China with a tactical hypersonic global-strike capability beyond the country's strategic ballistic missile force. The U.S. has similar goals for its own growing scramjet program.

Read the Aviation Week story "China Developing Scramjet Propulsion."

(Starting soon, Defense Tech and Military.com will be featuring frequent articles from our friends at Aviation Week.)

-- Christian

The Dragon Enters the Bear's Den

Two Chinese naval ships visited the Russian port city of St. Petersburg on the Gulf of Finland on August 27. This is believed to be the first time that a Chinese warship has visited the one-time Russian capital, which remains the country’s “second city” and a major port, naval center, and shipbuilding center of Russia.

The Peoples Liberation Army’s missile destroyer Guangzhou and the replenishment ship Weishanhu are on an 87-day cruise that is also taking them to ports in Britain, France, and Spain. The two ships are under the command of Vice Admiral Su Zhiqian, the deputy commander of the South Sea Fleet. (The PLA Navy is divided into three fleets -- the North, East, and South Sea Fleets.)

The two ships, expected to travel some 23,000 nautical miles on their cruise, are among China’s most modern naval units. The cruise apparently has a dual mission -- training for the officers and enlisted men, and demonstrating the increasing naval capabilities of China.

The Guangzhouwas built in China, being completed in 2004. She is a multi-purpose destroyer, with anti-air, anti-submarine, and anti-ship weapons. A helicopter is embarked in the ship, which has a full load displacement of 6,500 tons. It is significant that the Guangzhou is a Chinese-built ship and not one of the four Russian-built Sovremennyy-class missile destroyers delivered to China from 1999 to 2006.

The Weishanhu, a 22,000-ton replenishment ship completed in 2005, can transfer fuel, provisions, and munitions while underway to ships alongside or astern. She, too, has a helicopter capability.

-- Norman Polmar

China Rolls Over Taiwan

I know it’s kind of random, and the sourcing is a bit strange coming from the American Conservative magazine, but a piece written by a UPI reporter in the magazine that posits how a potential conflict between China and the United States over Taiwan would go is worth a read.

This piece comes on a day that Chinese defense chief Cao Gangchuan told his Japanese counterparts China’s military is not a threat to security in the region and that his defense buildup and development are becoming more transparent.

But he did reiterate that the main justification for China’s accelerating defense spending and buildup is primarily due to tensions over the Taiwan issue.

Give the futuristic "The Chips are Down" piece a read and see what you think...food for thought at least.

...Beijing announced that if the newly elected government in Taiwan declared independence, China would intervene militarily. The United States responded by dispatching two carrier task forces attached to the USS Abraham Lincoln and the USS Ronald Reagan. Besides the usual high-tech armament, including ship-to-shore missiles, ship-to-air missiles, and ship-to-ship missiles, and 400-odd warplanes aboard the carriers, the combined task force also included two Battalion Landing Teams, some 4,000 Marines.

The Chinese had nowhere near as many warships, planes, or tanks, but they had 350,000 men aboard transport ships—and they had a secret weapon in orbit.

As the Chinese expeditionary force approached Taiwan, they crossed an imaginary red line drawn across a Pentagon map, breaching the point American generals estimated would be one from which the Chinese would not turn back.

From his command post aboard the USS Ronald Reagan, Adm. Anthony S. Samuelson picked up a secure telephone connecting him directly to the Pentagon and to the office of the secretary of defense. The secretary picked up on the first ring.

“Tell me it’s good news, admiral.”

“Wish I could, sir. They are now in firing range and are not about to turn around. It looks like this is it.”

The secretary of defense asked the admiral to stand by. He picked up a burgundy phone on his desk.

The president answered instantly. “Madame President,” said the secretary, “You must order the attack. If we are to proceed, it must be now.”

The president scanned the room, moving her eyes around the Oval Office where her national security advisers were gathered. Each in turn nodded his head, indicating a silent “yes.” The president of the United States put the phone to her ear and told her secretary of defense to proceed. With a heavy heart, Chelsea Clinton placed the receiver back in its cradle.

As the first Chinese soldier set foot on the beaches of Taiwan, the order was received from Adm. Samuelson’s headquarters to open fire.

Minutes before the order was given, some 300 miles up in space, a Chinese scientific satellite released a burst of electro-magnetic energy aimed at American and Taiwanese forces. Other similar satellites positioned strategically around the Earth released a number of similar bursts directed at strategic U.S. missile silos in the continental United States, Korea, and Australia.

Total confusion followed. Not one order issued electronically by U.S. command-and-control centers reached its target. Missiles fired from the ships of the Seventh Fleet went straight into space and exploded harmlessly above the earth. The Abrams M1A1 tanks started to turn around in circles like demented prehistoric dogs trying to bite their tails. The few planes that managed to take off from the carriers crashed into the South China Sea. Search-and-rescue helicopters were unable to even start their engines.

The Chinese were able to walk ashore and take Taiwan without firing a single shot.

(Gouge: NC)

-- Christian

Big Asian Wargame Boom or Bust?

Defense Tech and Military.com contributor Norman Polmar has posted a new article here on a recent large-scale military exercise involving Chinese and Russian troops.

Read his post below, but stick around for some perspective from a Defense Tech reader who goes by “Ruger” and follows this issue closely. Ruger sent us his analysis of the exercise a few days before Norman’s post, and we thought it appropriate to include it now for conversation’s sake.

Norman first…

A historic military exercise with China and Russia as well as four other nations participating has come to an end. Known as “Peace Mission 2007,” the exercise was sponsored by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which consists of China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

“Peace Mission 2007” began on August 9, and was conducted in Urumqi, the capital of China's Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, and subsequently in Chelyabinsk. The emphasis of the maneuvers was to defeat an international terrorist organization that was attempting to overturn a friendly government. Some 4,000 troops and 80 aircraft from the participating nations took part in the exercise.

The historic exercise, which involved forces from all six SCO nations, was considered an important step in exchanges between those nations as well as enhancing the capabilities of their armed forces to counter terrorists and to promote regional security and stability.

The exercise was particularly significant for China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) with the Chinese troops being transported to the operational area by rail and by air. It was the first time that PLA forces carried out a large-scale and long-distance movement. The rail distance, through Chinese and Russian territory, was some 6,400 miles wile the air distances was 1,700 miles.

China had 1,600 PLA troops participating in the exercise with fighter and bomber aviation units, airborne units, transport units, special purpose units, armored units, and Army aviation units taking part. The rail transportation effort for the PLA included more than 120 vehicles and 500 tons of munitions and equipment for the exercise.

Now Ruger’s follow…

Dubbed as Peace Mission 2007 and is developing into a counter-balance to the US, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) has been responding to the geopolitical situation in Europe, Asia and the rest of the world. Former Soviet republic made repeated attempts to streamline integration by setting up different associations, but they were not destined to live for many reasons. Experts are unanimous that the SCO is a success. source: Moscow, Russia (RIA Novosti) Aug 16, 2007...

The Peace Mission 2007 is taking place in western Russia and is aimed at four key operations, according to PLA Senior Col. Lu Chuangang, chief of the command group of the Chinese exercise directorate.

These areas include long-distance mobility of forces by rail and aircraft, joint operations with six nations; precision engagement using high-technology attack capabilities; and long-distance integrated military support operations.

“This is the first time that the PLA conducts a large scale and long-distance transnational force delivery involving different branches of the armed forces in a systematic way,” Lu told Xinhua. “The one-way distance of railway transportation is 10,300 kilometers and air flight distance is about 2,700 kilometers.” source: Peoples Daily online July 31, 2007

So, success is measured by how long a train ride one takes (do the math)? It was reported that Azerbijan wouldn't allow the China troops to traverse its country.

The Chinese, Russians and the anti-US crowd are touting the SCO Peace Mission 2007 as a success. If you look at the measurement of success from the Chinese General (Col), it sounds (to me) like he is trying to polish a turd. They did not purposely try to exercise long distance logistics (Chinese troops were not permitted to travel through neighboring country, so they had to go around).

Secondly, the PLA Air force flew a third of the distance the PLA had to move its troops. Success in long distance logistics by western standards (which is really their standard now) would have been realized by moving the 5000+ PLA troops by air. Hence the phrase: “putting lipstick on pig.”

Alright folks, I honestly don’t follow this that closely, so what do you think – big deal, or no big deal?

-- Christian

The Rising Dragon

Just in case you didn’t see it already, the Pentagon released its annual Chinese Military Power report Friday.

One of the best China reporters in the country, Bill Gertz, wrote in the Washington Times that the report shows a robust effort by the PRC to develop anti-satellite weapons that can “deliver a knockout blow to many U.S. military satellites.”

Gertz writes:

According to defense officials familiar with the report, it also highlights new strategic missile developments, including China's five new Jin-class submarines, and states that Beijing continues to hide the true level of its military spending.

The officials also said that the report will detail how China is developing two new types of strategic forces that go beyond what nations have done traditionally using air, sea and land forces by aiming to knock out modern communications methods on which the U.S. military relies for advanced warfighting techniques.

China also is training large numbers of military computer hackers to deliver crippling electronic attacks on U.S. military and civilian computer networks.

-- Christian

Pearl Harbor in Space?

TAIPEI, Taiwan (AP) - The Fengyun - "Wind and Cloud" - 1-C weather satellite was a proud worker in China's space program. Launched in May 1999, it provided a wealth of information that scientists used for forecasting floods, sandstorms and disturbances in space caused by solar activity.

Now, it has been reduced to a nebula of debris. And that may prove to be its most lasting legacy.

In January, China blasted the Fengyun 1-C into oblivion with a land-based anti-satellite missile from its southwestern Xichang spaceport. It was the first kill of a satellite by a land-based missile ever conducted by any nation, including the United States and Russia.

The message was hard to miss: China is ready - and increasingly able - to challenge the U.S. military advantage in space.

"Competition is moving toward the new frontier, space," said Arthur Ding, a research fellow at Taiwan's National Chengchi University.

To space and military experts, China's success is no surprise - its military-run space program has taken a great leap forward in recent years.

It launched its first manned space flight in 2003. A second mission in 2005 put two astronauts into orbit for a week, and a third manned launch is planned for next year. This year, China plans to launch a probe that will orbit the moon.

On Saturday, the country launched a Long March 3-A rocket that sent a navigation satellite into orbit as part of its effort to build a global positioning system, the official Xinhua News Agency reported. The satellite is the fourth China has launched as part of the Compass navigation system, which is expected to be operational in 2008.

But some see the anti-satellite missile as evidence that China's program is taking an alarming direction.
"The successful test of a Chinese direct-ascent anti-satellite weapon represents a new and dangerous phase of Chinese foreign policy," said Tom Ehrhard, a retired U.S. Air Force colonel and senior fellow with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment, a military think tank.

"Despite official statements about its 'peaceful rise,' China aims to challenge the internationally recognized sanctity and neutrality of the 'commons,' those areas like international waters, airspace, cyberspace and space itself," he said.

A host of other nations - from Japan to Israel - have spy satellites collecting military data, and the United States also has been considering weapons in space.

Satellites are already the eyes and ears of the U.S. military, used to guide missiles to their targets, provide detailed information on enemy positions and movements and make immediate, global communications possible. The next step, first envisioned during Ronald Reagan's presidency, would be weapons such as lasers that could be used from space to destroy or disable enemy satellites or possibly even targets on the ground.

U.S. military planners have long warned that the satellites they depend upon are vulnerable. A 2001 report by a commission headed by Donald Rumsfeld, then defense secretary-designate, said the U.S. is "an attractive candidate for a space Pearl Harbor" and the country needed to develop systems to protect them.

China and Russia, which like Washington have signed the 1967 treaty outlawing weapons of mass destruction in space, advocate a complete ban on anti-satellite and other space weaponry. The Bush administration, however, blocked a U.N. resolution to that effect in 2005. Beijing and Moscow resubmitted a similar proposal this year.

Beijing says it wants to bring Washington back to the negotiating table, and that its satellite kill was in line with its larger goal of demilitarizing space.

"China opposes the weaponization of space and any arms race," Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said. "The test is not targeted at any country and will not threaten any country."

Russian President Vladimir Putin stressed after the satellite kill that Moscow continues to oppose weapons in space and criticized Washington, not Beijing, for planning space-based weapons, which he said was the reason behind the Chinese test.

"We must not let the genie out of the bottle," he warned.

The United States and Soviet Union also shot down satellites, but didn't use ground-based missiles. The U.S. did it in 1985 with an air-launched missile, and the Soviets used a hunter satellite to approach its target and then fired at it.

Bill Sweetman, an analyst with Jane's Space Systems and Industry, said the Chinese test does not violate any treaties, but deliberately hits at a sensitive nerve.

"The Chinese are aware of a difference between them and the U.S.; the U.S., and Western forces in general, are highly dependent on low Earth orbit assets such as imaging spacecraft and GPS, but the Chinese are not," he said.

The test, he noted, was also sure to hold Washington's attention for years to come. The debris from the satellite will continue to float in space, a hazard to other spacecraft.

"You fill low Earth orbit with high-velocity buckshot," he said.

China Spends the Cash

With all the attention being paid to problems in the Middle East these days, it’s easy to lose sight of the military buildup in Asia.

Remember pre-9/11 assessments that the major threat looming on the horizon was a rising China? The first significant military confrontation the Bush administration faced was the mishap between a Chinese F-8 fighter and an American EP-3 surveillance plane in March 2001. The incident and its messy aftermath sent Sino-U.S. relations into a tailspin, cutting off mil-to-mil contacts and icing over diplomatic relations.

As America’s involvement in the Middle East and its commitments to the global war on terrorism increased, China continued its double-digit defense buildup.

A column from the online magazine “World Politics Watch” analyzes the increase and its impact.

While much of the reaction to China's increase in defense spending was dictated by domestic politics, there are real concerns about China's military intensions. China has been reluctant to disclose such information -- mostly out of fear that such a disclosure would remove any advantage it might have should a conflict over Taiwan break out. Still, Beijing does not want any suspicions over its army to lead to an unwanted conflict, so it has made greater efforts in the past year to air its military intentions.

Still, we need to keep in mind that even though the Chinese defense budget has posted huge increases for 19 years straight, it’s still only a fraction of the U.S. military budget in real terms. And the technical prowess of their purchases is generations behind American technology – or even those of defense spendthrift Europe.

But the recent successful test firing of a Chinese anti-satellite missile has put that country’s military evolution back into the headlines. And intelligence officials still tell Congress America’s spooks are keeping a wary eye over their shoulder at the rising dragon in the East.

(Gouge: NC)

-- Christian

China Cops to Sat Kill; Mysteries Remain

So Beijing has finally owned up to blasting one of their satellites out of orbit -- althogh a foreign ministry spokesperson says that "the test is not targeted at any country and will not threaten any country."

But space-tracker Sven Grahn, over on the FPSPACE list, is wondering why the Chinese bothered to hit the sat in the first place. After all, he notes, Beijing didn't have to destroy its orbiter, in order to prove its satellite-killer worked.

The Chinese could have put up a a target satellite with a miss-distance indicator and then launched the ground-based interceptor to fly really close without destroying the target. But who would have noticed? US intelligence perhaps - but what could the US have said? "A Chinese missile came very close to a Chinese satellite!" So what would the general public say? They could say: "just another unsubstantiated accusation from the Pentagon!" The Chinese would not want to announce such a test. To prove that it was effective they would have had to release test data. They also want to keep up appearances that they only want to use space for peaceful purposes.

So, the Chinese decide to really hit a satellite and create a huge cloud of debris. The U.S. detects the intercept and releases the [debris information], provid[ing] the general public with hard evidence that the test really occurred. This raised the credibility of the U.S. And the Chinese are happy because the message they wanted to send to the world has gotten out - loud and clear.

This sort of subterfuge is one of several reasons why Joe Buff thinks that the anti-satellite (ASAT) test wasn't just some rogue operation -- it was authorized from the top. President Hu Jintao "is head of state, commander in chief, and General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party all rolled into one," Buff reminds us. "The People's Liberation Army makes sure that the CCP stays in total control of the nation. The General Political Department of the PLA [People's Liberation Army] has commissars everywhere who make sure the armed forces stay absolutely loyal to the Party. So no way was Mr. Hu clueless on any front in this ASAT brouhaha."

This isn't China's only space controversy, long-time satellite-watcher Peter Brown notes in a fascinating piece for the Washington Times. "The loss of another Chinese satellite in early November is causing headaches as well, something that China would prefer to keep quiet."

This involved a spanking new Chinese communications satellite, the largest ever built to date by China. Known as Sinosat-2, it was launched on October 29 and weighed more than 5 tons. In a matter of days, however, any celebrating ended rather abruptly. Sinosat-2 suffered a complete failure and soon was hurtling back into the earth's atmosphere...

Despite initial reports that Sinosat-2 was experiencing problems, Chinese space officials elected to remain silent for two weeks or more -- until late November -- until accounts of this Chinese satellite in distress began appearing in the Asian press...

Why was China reluctant to admit that Sinosat-2 was in serious trouble? First, this satellite represented China's first flight of its new Dongfanghong or DFH-4 spacecraft bus. Second, Sinosat-2 was the first of a new generation of jamming-resistant satellites created by China after satellite broadcasts were jammed in 2002. These incidents were characterized by the Chinese government as deliberate acts of sabotage carried out by the outlawed Falun Gong involving a satellite known as Sinosat-1.

ALSO:
* China Tests Satellite Killer?
* China Space Attack: Unstoppable
* Beijing's Next-Gen Sat Strike
* Satellite Killer's Big Impact
* Why Did China Smack the Sat?
* Who Ordered the Satellite Strike?

Who Ordered the Satellite Strike?

I spoke with John Pike, the long-time military space observer and director of GlobalSecurity.org, shortly after the news broke that the Chinese had destroyed a satellite, more than 500 miles above the Earth. He wondered how much "adult supervision" there had been of the sat-killer test. Perhaps this was a small group of China star warriors looking to teach the U.S. a lesson, he mused -- not a big, strategic move from the chiefs in Beijing.

Now, there have been lots of theories about why China decided now to conduct their anti-satellite test. Maybe it was a way to scare the Bush administration back to the negotiating table. Maybe it was done to compete with India's recent ballistic missile test. Maybe it was a designed to show the U.S. how costly an intervention on Taiwain's side would be. (The CIA is "especially concerned," because "the Chinese have become so adept at camouflage," according to Aviation Week.)

Today's analysis in the New York Times, however, seems to lend credence to Pike's guess. "Bush administration officials said that they had been unable to get even the most basic diplomatic response from China," the paper says. Those American officials "were uncertain whether China’s top leaders, including President Hu Jintao, were fully aware of the test or the reaction it would engender."

The American officials presume that Mr. Hu was generally aware of the missile testing program, but speculate that he may not have known the timing of the test. China’s continuing silence would appear to suggest, at a minimum, that Mr. Hu did not anticipate a strong international reaction, either because he had not fully prepared for the possibility that the test would succeed, or because he did not foresee that American intelligence on it would be shared with allies, or leaked.

In an interview late Friday, Stephen J. Hadley, President Bush’s national security adviser, raised the possibility that China’s leaders might not have fully known what their military was doing.

“The question on something like this is, at what level in the Chinese government are people witting, and have they approved?” Mr. Hadley asked.

ALSO:
* China Tests Satellite Killer?
* China Space Attack: Unstoppable
* Beijing's Next-Gen Sat Strike
* Satellite Killer's Big Impact
* Why Did China Smack the Sat?
* China Sat-Killer Not Yet Weapons Grade?

China Sat-Killer Not Yet Weapons Grade?

Last week, I described China's satellite strike as "next-gen," and America's ability to fend off such an attack however somewhere around zero. After all, there's never been a direct ground-to-space satellite smack; and the Air Force itself says such defenses are improbable, at best.

But veteran space analyst Jim Oberg says the anti-satellite test was a little easier than it looked. And there may be some defenses, after all. Because there's a big difference between a "satellite-killing demonstration and the needs of a real weapon — one that would be a genuine threat to other countries' satellites," he notes.

Now it's important to keep in mind that the Chinese carefully timed the launch of their kinetic kill vehicle so that it would intercept the known position and orbit of the satellite it was aiming for—intercepting a target in an arbitrary orbit is a much more difficult proposition...

The missile's kill mechanism is that of a bullet: It crashes head-on into a target moving at 28 000 km/hr, adding its own speed to the total impact velocity...

The Chinese targeted a low-orbiting, obsolete, weather satellite, where the kinetic kill energy was very great. However, the really strategic satellites fly much higher — the [GPS] navigation network is 20 000 km up... [T]he orbital velocities [there] are so much lower that the impact energy would be only about a tenth as high as in last week's test.

Distance introduces a second burden: terminal navigation. When a target satellite is close to the Earth, ground radars can track it and relay final course corrections, both to the rocket during its ascent and to the kill vehicle, once it has been deployed on its hoped-for collision course. Radar operates at an inverse fourth power law, which means that for the Chinese system to aim many times farther than low Earth orbit—as it would have to do to track objects geosynchronously—the demands on a ground-based radar would be simply impossible...

Nor are space targets helpless victims to such kinetic kill attacks, especially at higher altitudes... [A] target satellite can take steps to interfere with the attacker obtaining a workable targeting solution, and the farther from Earth the attack occurs, the more the odds favor the target.

Objects can hide in space, to a greater or lesser degree, by lowering their radar reflectivity or optical brightness along the attacker's expected line of approach. This makes terminal navigation and guidance more difficult. That effect can be augmented with decoys, which can either be deployed when an attack is detected or can be sent, as a matter of routine, to fly in formation with the high-value target. A decoy doesn't have to be a throwaway subsatellite, it could be an inflatable spar a few tens of meters long with a pseudo-target at the end to attract the on-rushing kinetic kill vehicle away from the real spacecraft. Such a decoy could be deployed in a matter of minutes, and even re-stowed afterwards for future re-use.

Even the simple suspicion that a target may have such a capability would discourage a potential attacker. And the realization that a target might also be able to detect and characterize even a failed attack would be an additional deterrent. There would be no way for the attacking country to get away with attempted mayhem.

ALSO:
* China Tests Satellite Killer?
* China Space Attack: Unstoppable
* Beijing's Next-Gen Sat Strike
* Satellite Killer's Big Impact
* Why Did China Smack the Sat?
* Who Ordered the Satellite Strike?

(Big ups: Stefan Landsberger, for his awesome collection of Chinese propaganda posters)

Why Did China Smack the Sat? (Updated)

So why did China blow up one of their satellites last week? The Times offers up a few possible explanations:

Having a weapon that can disable or destroy satellites is considered a component of China’s unofficial doctrine of asymmetrical warfare. China’s army strategists have written that the military intends to use relatively inexpensive but highly disruptive technologies to impede the better-equipped and better-trained American forces in the event of an armed conflict — over Taiwan, for example...

Some analysts suggested that one possible motivation was to prod the Bush administration to negotiate a treaty to ban space weapons. Russia and China have advocated such a treaty, but President Bush rejected those calls when he authorized a policy that seeks to preserve “freedom of action” in space. Chinese officials have warned that an arms race could ensue if Washington did not change course.

Now, Beijing officials aren't even admitting they destroyed the orbiter, yet. But the China Matters blog uncovers a post by a self-proclaimed Chinese soldier, who seems to reinforce the scare-'em-into-cutting-a-deal motive:

This overweening country [the USA] began to regard space as its own back yard. The national space policy it announced in 2006 nonchalantly regarded space as its private property. At the same time, when China at the United Nations proposed a special international organization to resolve the actual problems of a space arms race that were being faced, the United States, acting as a country far in the lead in space, vehemently opposed, saying that there was no arms race in space...

We hope... [this] will smack the American carnivores back to reason. History shows us that if you don't hit Americans, they aren't willing to sit down at the negotiation table.

This was actually the fourth time the Chinese tried to destroy a satellite, GlobalSecurity.org notes. And as "reckless, self-defeating and stupid" as the test was, adds Arms Control Wonk Jeffrey Lewis, the test was legal, because there's "currently no prohibition on destructive ASAT [anti-satellite] testing. There should be."

UPDATE 01/21/07: Last week's test has given a "shiver of hope" to the "nation’s star warriors, frustrated that their plans to arm the heavens went nowhere for two decades despite more than $100 billion in blue-sky research," Bill Broad says in a tart opinion piece.

ALSO:
* China Tests Satellite Killer?
* China Space Attack: Unstoppable
* Beijing's Next-Gen Sat Strike
* Satellite Killer's Big Impact
* China Sat-Killer Not Yet Weapons Grade?
* Who Ordered the Satellite Strike?

Satellite Killer's Big Impact

There's been immediate fallout -- both physical and political -- from China's satellite killer test.

Debris from the orbital collision has already been spotted, the M-T Milcom blog notes. "As of this writing NORAD has officially cataloged 32 objects... that now pollute a vital area of space (sun-synchronous polar orbit)." The picture to the right is of a few of 'em.

"There are over 125 satellites that operate in this portion of space," the M-T blog observes. Those include reconnaissance satellites, like the Lacrosse and Advanced Keyhole orbiters, as well as weather-monitors, like the Defense Meteorological Satellites Program series. In other words, this test directly affects the American military's ability look for terrorist hideouts, and survey a potential battlefield. These are not small matters. "Our space assets are the first asset on the scene," GlobalSecurity.org's John Pike tells the AP. "They are absolutely central to why we are a superpower - a signature component to America's style of warfare."

Frequent Defense Tech commenter Robot Economist, now with his own blog, warns that "this situation has the potential of becoming the next Katyusha rocket or IED problem for the United States." Even the International Space Station could be at risk. That said, RE reminds us that "it is unlikely that [China's] success... translates into any sort of immediately fieldable capability."

If the spotty record of our ground-based missile interceptors demonstrate anything, it is the difficulty of intercepting even predictable space targets... [And] the Chinese had a pretty good handicap on this test.

Robert Farley sees the anti-satellite trial as "first and foremost... a deterrent move aimed at the United States."

The US military isn't completely dependent on spy satellites (in case of war, the Taiwan Straits would be overflown by enough spy and communications aircraft to make the satellites redundant), but destroying them is a way of chipping away at US capability, and thus indicating that China can inflict real costs in case of a US intervention in a militarized China-Taiwan dispute. The public way in which the Chinese have carried out this test, as well as earlier "blinding" tests, and the recent submarine-stalks-carrier debacle indicates to me that they're as serious as possible about showing the US their capabilities, which is key to a deterrent strategy. Also, Chinese anti-satellite capabilities don't have to be targeted against US military satellites; the Chinese may threaten commercial satellites as well, which would help to metastasize the costs of any US intervention.

No wonder, then, that governments around the world are protesting the move. With one exception, apparently: Russia. Arms Control Wonk notes...

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov commented to reporters that he has heard reports of the Chinese test, but thinks that the rumors are quite abstract and are exaggerated.

In an interview, vice-preseident of the Russian Academy of geopolitcal affairs, General Leonid Ivashov, said that he thinks the Chinese used Russian developments for making their antisatellite missiles.

How do you think this is going to play out? Speak up!

ALSO:
* China Tests Satellite Killer?
* China Space Attack: Unstoppable
* Beijing's Next-Gen Sat Strike
* Why Did China Smack the Sat?
* China Sat-Killer Not Yet Weapons Grade?
* Who Ordered the Satellite Strike?

Beijing's Next-Gen Sat Strike

China's satellite shoot-down isn't just a provocative, dangerous act, writes veteran space analyst Jim Oberg. It also marks the rise of a new kind of satellite-killing technology -- one in which a weapon is shot directly from the ground, to the orbiter up on high.

Previous anti-satellite weapons tests, conducted during the Cold War, involved either co-orbiting killer satellites (the Soviet approach) or an air-launched anti-satellite missile (the U.S. approach, also considered by the Soviets but never attempted). Some tests involved shooting ground-based anti-missile missiles toward satellites, but those missiles never hit their mark.

That's because it's hard to nail an orbiter, traveling hundreds of miles up at thousands of miles per hour, from the ground. The fact that the Chinese were able to do it could have troubling repercussions beyond space, as one commenter to the FPSPACE list notes:

Assuming the [Chinese target satellite] was on the order of 3 meters in size, and assuming the kill was made in direct ascent mode as opposed to co-orbiting mode, this test demonstrates the capability to achieve a velocity error on the order of 3 meters / ~1000 seconds, i.e., way less than 1 cm per second. This has obvious implications for their CEPs [Circular Error Probables, the accuracy] of Chinese ballistic missiles.

Now, Beijing seems to have cheated just a bit in this test, Oberg observes.

The last orbital data released by NORAD seem to show one end of the [Chinese target] satellite's orbit being raised by about 20 miles (32 kilometers). Such tweaking is characteristic of a satellite lining up its orbital path for a rendezvous with a ground-launched visitor. The international space station does this in preparation for Russian spacecraft visits.

In fact, the reason the U.S. Air Force chose the air-launched anti-satellite system is that it does not have to have its target line up with a ground-based missile pad. Naturally, a real target in the real world would never make such a helpful maneuver.

Without the target’s maneuver to make itself easier to kill, a ground-based shot would likely have to be made from the side — or “out of plane,” in space navigation parlance. With such a geometry, the final approach for physical contact occurs under much higher rates of angular change, making terminal guidance much more difficult. It can be done, but with less reliability.

But even with some fudging, this remains a very serious technical accomplishment. Oberg's piece has lots more -- including some possible (repeat, possible) countermeasures to a satellite strike. Be sure to read the whole thing.

Of course, for a long time, directly attacking the orbiter with another piece of metal seemed like the least likely, least effective way to knock a satellite out. Since 2004, the U.S. Air Force has had in its arsenal a series of radio frequency jammers, to interfere with satellite operations. Three or four times a year, small groups of junior officers gather at an Air Force Research Laboratory facility in New Mexico to figure out how to take American satellites off-line using nothing more than sweet talk and off-the-shelf gear.

Then there are the lasers. Not only did China recently light up an American orbiter with a ground-based laser. But, as Dan Dupont reminds us, the U.S. military spent much of the 90's testing out a satellite-shooting beam weapon of its own: the Mid-Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser, or "MIRACL."

"In October 1997, the Air Force commissioned a test of an ASAT [anti-satellite] system based on the MIRACL laser," the Union of Concerned Scientists notes. "This system was directed toward a satellite orbiting 420 km above the Earth. The MIRACL laser apparently had technical difficulties, but the results of the test were startling."

A lower-power (30-watt) laser intended for alignment of the system and tracking of the satellite was the primary laser source used during the test, and it appeared that this lower-power laser was sufficiently powerful itself to blind the satellite temporarily, although it could not destroy the sensor. That a commercially available laser and a 1.5 m mirror could be an effective ASAT highlighted a US vulnerability that had not been fully appreciated. Although the Pentagon described the test as defensive (i.e., to learn about the vulnerability of US satellites to laser attack), many—in particular the Russians—expressed concern about the offensive capabilities of this system and whether it constituted a breach of the ABM [anti-ballistic missile] Treaty, and formally requested negotiations on an ASAT weapon ban.

(Big ups: AT)

ALSO:
* China Tests Satellite Killer?
* China Space Attack: Unstoppable
* Satellite Killer's Broad Impact
* Why Did China Smack the Sat?
* China Sat-Killer Not Yet Weapons Grade?
* Who Ordered the Satellite Strike?

China Space Attack: Unstoppable

China has shown it can destroy a satellite in orbit. What could the U.S. do to stop Beijing, if it decided to attack an American orbiter next? Short answer: nothing.

It takes about 20 minutes to fire a ballistic missile into space, and have its "kill vehicle" strike a satellite at hypersonic speed -- over 15,000 miles per hour -- in low-earth orbit. That's far too quick for anything in the American arsenal to respond, in time. There's "no possibility of shielding" a relatively-fragile satellite against such a strike. "And it is impractical [for a satellite] to carry enough fuel to maneuver away even if you had specific and timely warning of an attack," Center for Defense Information analyst Theresea Hitchens notes.

The American military today counts on its satellites to relay orders, guide troops across battlefields, and spy on enemy hideouts. The U.S. Air Force's primer for war in space -- "Doctrine Document 2-2.1: Counterspace Operations" -- lists a number of measures that can be taken to protect American assets in orbit, including "deploying satellites into various orbital altitudes and planes" and "employing frequency-hopping techniques to complicate jamming." But those tactics are used to preserve the U.S. satellite constellation as a whole. None of them could save a single American orbiter against a direct attack. "Physical hardening of structures mitigates the impact of kinetic effects, but is generally more applicable to ground-based facilities than to space-based systems due to launch-weight considerations," the Air Force document notes. "Maneuver[ing] is limited by on-board fuel constraints, orbital mechanics, and advanced warning of an impending attack. Furthermore, repositioning satellites generally degrades or interrupts their mission."

With today's conventional defenses proving so impotent, expect a new push within the U.S. military for more exotic countermeasures. The Airborne Laser is a modified 747 that's being designed to blast missiles out of the sky, as soon as they leave they launch pad; the jet's first flight test in expected in 2009, after years and years of delays. The Kinetic Energy Interceptor is a long-range, non-explosive missile, meant for the same task. But the weapon "exists mostly on paper, and couldn't be operational before 2014," Defense Tech's David Axe noted recently.

The U.S. could also try to destroy an anti-satellite missile, before it took off. Over the last several years, momentum has been building in the Pentagon for the ability to conduct "Prompt Global Strikes," hitting anywhere on Earth, in an hour or less. But near-term PGS plans -- using modified Trident ballistic missiles -- have been put on hold, for fears that such an attack could start World War III, in the process. Destroying a satellite is as clear an act of war as there can be, however. Perhaps those Trident attacks will now be seen as worth the risk.

In the meantime, GlobalSecurity.org director John Pike figures the Chinese will continue to test their satellite-killing weapons. It takes a dozen or more trials before a strategic weapon like this is deemed reliable enough to be considered operational. "So expect one or two more tests like this every year, for a long time," he says.

The Chinese test, now confirmed by the National Security Council, would be the first successful anti-satellite weapons trial since 1985, when the United States used an F-15 and a kill vehicle to destroy the Solwind research satellite. And that trial was dangerous -- not just for its target, but for nearly everything orbiting in space, Hitchens notes. Even small pieces of space debris can be lethal to spacecraft. The '85 test "resulted in more than 250 pieces of debris, the last of which deorbited in 2002."

The Chinese trial could "lead to nearly 800 debris fragments of size 10 cm or larger, nearly 40,000 debris fragments with size between 1 and 10 cm, and roughly 2 million fragments of size 1 mm or larger," the Union of Concerned Scientists' David Wright notes on the Arms Control Wonk blog. "Roughly half of the debris fragments with size 1 cm or larger would stay in orbit for more than a decade."

"This raises an interesting public policy question because we are so much more dependent on commercial and military satellites that the ASAT [anti-satellite] options available to us are much more complicated than those available to the Chinese," adds Jeffrey Lewis. "This is a race that favors them, unfortunately."

ALSO:
* China Tests Satellite Killer?
* Beijing's Next-Gen Sat Strike
* Satellite Killer's Broad Impact
* Why Did China Smack the Sat?
* China Sat-Killer Not Yet Weapons Grade?
* Who Ordered the Satellite Strike?

China Tests Satellite Killer?

"China performed a successful anti-satellite weapons test" last week, according to Aviation Week. In the trial, a ballistic missile, armed with a non-explosive warhead, "destroy[ed] an aging Chinese weather satellite target" over 500 miles above the Earth, U.S. intelligence agencies believe.

The news comes just a few months after reports of China testing high-powered lasers to temporarily blind American orbiters. "If the test is verified it will signify a major new Chinese military capability," AvWeek says. And it could be the spark that ignites an arms race in space, analysts believe. Theresa Hitchens, with the Center for Defense Information called it an "irresponsible and self-defeating act" that will give "space hawks… more ammunition to take the United States down a similarly dangerous path."

Details emerging from space sources indicate that the Chinese Feng Yun 1C (FY-1C) polar orbit weather satellite... was attacked by an ASAT [anti-satellite] system launched from or near the Xichang Space Center.

The attack is believe to have occurred as the weather satellite flew at 530 mi. altitude 4 deg. west of Xichang, located in Sichuan province...

Although intelligence agencies must complete confirmation of the test, the attack is believed to have occurred at about 5:28 p.m. EST Jan. 11. U. S. intelligence agencies had been expecting some sort of test that day, sources said....

USAF radar reports on the Chinese FY-1C spacecraft have been posted once or twice daily for years, but those reports jumped to about 4 times per day just before the alleged test.

The USAF radar reports then ceased Jan. 11, but then appeared for a day showing "signs of orbital distress". The reports were then halted again. The Air Force radars may well be busy cataloging many pieces of debris, sources said.

Harvard University's Jeffrey Lewis, a self-admitted skeptic about China's space ambitions, has been hearing from many sources in recent months that "China’s ASAT work seem[s] to have been ramping up." He writes over at his blog, Arms Control Wonk:

If China has conducted an ASAT test, this is extremely bad. I had been hoping that the Bush Administration would push for a ban on anti-satellite testing, either in the form of a code of conduct. The Bush folks, however, have been fond of saying that wasn’t necessary, because 'there is no arms race in space.'

Well, we have one now, instigated by an incredibly short-sighted Chinese government.

(Big ups: EM)

UPDATE 11:42 AM: Why would Beijing pull a stunt like this? The China Matters blog has a theory. Meanwhile, one keen space-watcher notes that, if this anti-sat weapon was really "kinetic" -- i.e., hit-to-kill, non-explosive -- instead of a plain ol' exploding weapon, that's extremely bad news. That means the booster rocket has to be very accurate "in order to deliver the kill vehicle to the desired initial trajectory.... Then the kill vehicle needs to tweak its trajectory into a precise collision course using on-board propulsion and either on-board target tracking or... command guidance from the ground." That's no mean task.

ALSO:
* China Space Attack: Unstoppable
* Beijing's Next-Gen Sat Strike
* Satellite Killer's Broad Impact
* Why Did China Smack the Sat?
* China Sat-Killer Not Yet Weapons Grade?
* Who Ordered the Satellite Strike?

Gates' China Choice

Topic A at today's Senate confirmation hearings for Defense Secretary Bob Gates was Iraq. Topic B was Afghanistan. Topic C? That was the fate of Texas A&M's football team, naturally. (You know how politicos love their sports-talk.)

Somewhere down around the bottom of the alphabet was China. Which is really too bad. Because one of the biggest choices Gates will have to make in his term at the Pentagon will be how to handle Beijing.

As guys like Tom Barnett have endlessly pointed out, there are, roughly speaking, two competing camps in the Defense Department. One group -- mostly Army guys and Marines -- wants to retool our military, to go after terrorists and tackle insurgents. The other -- largely made up of Air Force and Navy-types -- thinks that Iraq and Al-Qaeda are distractions from the one mortal enemy that can really threaten America long-term: the Chinese.

Donald Rumsfeld's words favored the first camp. "[P]repar[ing] for wider asymmetric challenges" is a "fundamental imperative" for the military, the Pentagon noted in the Quadrennial Defense Review, its every-four-years look at grand strategy. We're in the middle of a "Long War." Iraq and Afghanistan are just the opening battles.

But follow the money, and a very different set of priorities emerges. The Pentagon is spending its $70 billion budget on new weapons like it's the Cold War all over again – with China stepping in for the Soviets. Nearly $10 billion a year goes to ballistic missile interceptors originally designed to stop Russian missiles; $9 billion to new-jack fighter jets meant to take on MiGs; $3.3 billion to next-gen tanks and fighting vehicles; $1 billion for the Trident II nuclear missile upgrade; and $2 billion for a new strategic bomber.

Gates can continue the trend. Or more than five years after 9/11, he can commit to focusing the Defense Department firmly, absolutely on the two-front war which he admits the U.S. is "not winning." That's the fundamental choice to be made. You can change tactics in Iraq –- or not. But as long as China remains front-and-center for so much of the military, it's hard to see how the U.S. winds up winning this "Long War."

UPDATE 6:10 PM: So what will Gates do? Here's the only interchange on China from today's hearings:

SEN. INHOFE: The -- in 2000, we formed the U.S.-China Security Economic Review Commission, and it's usually referred to the U.S.- China Commission. They have had -- come out with five reports. This is the fifth report that just came out. I've been disturbed that no one seems to care about these. They don't seem to read these and understand what's in them. I have a couple of questions about that I want to ask you. But I am concerned about China, and I'd like to hear what your thoughts are.

And just in the last month the Chinese hackers, as you, I'm sure, have read, have shut down the e-mail and official computer work at the Naval War College. The -- this is referred to by this commission as the "tightened rein" "Titan Rain."

In September the Department of Commerce experienced a massive shutdown of its computer system. This goes on and on.

In July the State Department acknowledged that Chinese attacks had broken into systems overseas and in Washington.

Recently China's been -- used lasers to blind our satellites.
On October 26th a Song-class Chinese submarine surfaced near the USS Kitty Hawk. They'd been following them undetected for a long period of time.

I've had occasion to spend quite a bit of time in Africa, and I noticed that China's presence in Africa, particularly in those states around the Sea of Guinea and where they have great oil reserves, is there. And they are way ahead of us. It happens that China and United States are the two countries that depend on foreign sources of oil more than any of the other countries.

The -- as this continues, I'd like to ask you what your feeling is about this as a top priority, about how you view China, about whether or not you have read these reports, and if not, if you would or if you plan to do that, and if you agree with some of that which you have heard coming out in these reports.

MR. GATES: Yes, sir. I have not read the reports.

SEN. INHOFE: And I would also say that we watched this -- as we were drawing down in the 1990s, they increased their military procurement by over 1,000 percent. So this is a great concern.
Go ahead.

MR. GATES: Yes, sir. I have not read the reports. I would be more than willing to do so.

I've been aware, just from reading in the newspapers -- it's been a number of years since I received any classified intelligence on what the Chinese were up to. But it's been my impression that they've had a very aggressive intelligence-gathering effort against the United States. Some of these other things that you've mentioned -- this is the first time I've heard about that. And clearly, if confirmed, this would be something that I would want to get well informed on quickly

(Bigs ups: Inside Defense for the transcript.)

UPDATE 7:15 PM: "I've been watching defense secretaries in confirmation hearings for 30 years, off and on, but I don't think I've seen any perform more forthrightly than Gates did this morning," coos Fred Kaplan.

The most eyebrow-raising moment—of many such moments—in Robert Gates' confirmation hearings today came when Sen. Robert Byrd, the stentorian Democrat of West Virginia, asked if he favored attacking Iran.

Most witnesses in Gates' position would duck the question, citing the time-honored practice of avoiding "hypotheticals." No senator would have condemned him for following precedent. But Gates plunged right in and said, basically, no.

"We have seen in Iraq," Gates replied, "that once war is unleashed, it becomes unpredictable." The Iranians couldn't retaliate with a direct attack on the United States, he said, but they could close off the Persian Gulf to oil exports, send much more aid to anti-American insurgents in Iraq, and step up terrorist attacks worldwide...

When Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, the panel's senior Democrat, asked if the United States was winning the war in Iraq, he said, "No, sir." Later, when James Inhofe, R-Okla., asked if he agreed that we weren't losing the war either, Gates replied, "Yes," but added, "at this point..."

It is impossible to imagine any of George W. Bush's previous Cabinet appointees, or any of his sitting Cabinet officers, making such stark—and, at least implicitly, critical—statements in an open Senate hearing.

In short, Gates may well be that entity that Washington has not seen for many years: a truly independent secretary of defense.

China Wants Weapons Whizzes

Forget buying arms -- the real way to develop your military is buying arms designers.

The seems to be the verdict of China's People's Liberation Army, anyway.

Remember the Australian Metal Storm system? You know, the one that fires more than a million rounds a minute? You might remember Sharon Weinberger used it last month as an illustrative example of her new Stupid Weapons Score Card. Presumably it scores pretty high on the scale…

Well, I guess the Chinese Government disagrees with that assessment, since they reportedly offered the system’s designer more than $100 million dollars to move to Beijing, after repeated attempts to by various pieces of equipment [and after Al-Qaeda just put out a recruiting call to all nuclear scientists with a jihadist bent -- ed]. It’s hard to understand why he didn’t head north to the Middle Kingdom after assurances like this: “We don’t need any Metal Storm weapons, we don’t need any of the paperwork, none of that. What we want is you.”

If nothing else, I guess it’s good to be wanted.

-- Matthew Tompkins

Chinese Laser vs. U.S. Sats?

"China has fired high-power lasers at U.S. spy satellites flying over its territory in... a test of Chinese ability to blind the spacecraft," Defense News is reporting. And, at least in theory, those lasers might be able temporarily take offline America's most powerful orbiting spies, like the giant electro-optical Keyhole spacecraft or radar-based satellites like the Lacrosse.

Now, the article is a little short on details. "It remains unclear how many times the ground-based laser was tested against U.S. spacecraft or whether it was successful," the story says.

And there's a touch of hyperbole in the piece. According to the article, a recent Pentagon report "acknowledge[d] China has the ability to blind U.S. satellites, thanks to a powerful ground-based laser." That's not exactly right. What the report actually says isn't quite so definitive:

Evidence exists that China is improving its situational awareness in space, which will give it the ability to track and identify most satellites. Such capability will allow for the deconfliction of Chinese satellites, and would also be required for offensive actions. At least one of the satellite attack systems appears to be a groundbased laser designed to damage or blind imaging satellites.

Nevertheless, citing unnamed "top officials," the trade journal asserts that "China not only has the [anti-satellite] capability, but has exercised it. It is not clear when China first used lasers to attack American satellites. Sources would only say that there have been several tests over the past several years."

Within the U.S. military, there's a contingent that's been worried for years about China arming up like this. The other day, I was talking to an Air Force colonel, about the Pentagon's plans for "prompt global strike" -- the ability to launch, in a matter of hours, a bolt-from-the-blue attack against an enemy thousands and thousands of miles away. Some in the armed forces talk about the strikes as a way to take out an Iranian nuclear facility, a terrorist chieftain, or a North Korean missile on the launchpad. But this colonel had a different target in mind for the instant attack: a Chinese "anti-satellite, ground-based laser wreak[ing] havoc with our constellation."

If China really is pursuing such a weapon, it wouldn't be the only country looking at lasers to interfere with enemy eyes above the sky. In a 1997 test, the U.S. fired a chemical laser at a satellite orbiting 420 kilometers above the Earth. The "laser apparently had technical difficulties," according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, "but the results of the test were startling."

A lower-power (30-watt) laser intended for alignment of the system and tracking of the satellite was the primary laser source used during the test, and it appeared that this lower-power laser was sufficiently powerful itself to blind the satellite temporarily, although it could not destroy the sensor.

These days, the Air Force's Starfire Optical Range is shooting lasers in the sky, trying to figure out how best to correct for atmospheric interference. Astronomers looking into the heavens will be the most immediate beneficiaries. But Starfire could help out anti-satellite weaponeers, too. These days, ground-based lasers aren't powerful enough -- or good enough at traveling through the air -- to permanently take out a satellite; the best the beams might be able to do is blind the thing, temporarily. That could change, if Starfire (or its Chinese equivalent) does its job right.

UPDATE 10:12 AM: Color Theresea Hitchens, the Center for Defense Information's resident spacewar guru, "not convinced – nor impressed."

The folks quoted in this story are neither space nor China experts -- and those folks are easy to find. And there is the odd timing: just as Griffin goes to China, over the earlier objections of Rummy and the P-gon. Statements like "China's burgeoning antisatellite capabilities..." -- who SAYS? Even the P-gon hasn't gone that far in its reports on Chinese Military Power.

All that said, I would NOT be surprised if the Chinese were testing a Ground-Based Laser. So are we, at Starfire Optical Range. If they lased U.S. satellites though, how do we know they were trying to blind them rather than TRACK them -- since we say Starfire is using lasers only to track sats? China doesn't have all that great tracking ability, and it needs it, not just to track our stuff but their own. There isn't any real way to tell, I don't think, what the INTENT behind such lasing would be.

NOT that it is a good thing -- lasing other people's sats without their consent, or at least specific statements of your intent to do only tracking, in peacetime ought to be off the playing field, hence the need for a code of conduct of some sort in space operations.

Finally, with regard to laser blinding -- it is not as easy as it sounds to "blind" an optical satellite with a laser. I'm no physicist, but as I understand it, imaging satellites usually work in several wavelengths, meaning first of all you'd have to have lasers in all the colors that match those wavelengths to blind the sat, not just one single wavelength laser beam. Secondly, because of the way imaging sats work, taking pictures of strips of the Earth using strips of pixels, you'd have to figure out how to blind all the pixels -- which apparently is so hard as to be well nigh impossible. And I note that as far as I know, we haven't gotten that far with Starfire, so what makes us so sure the Chinese are ahead of us there?

If you ask me, the story raises more questions than answers.

China's Killer Hovercraft

China is about to buy a six pack of heavily-armed hovercraft, Defense News reports. Sino-hawks here are already starting to freak out over the sale.

"A few years ago, the 'don’t worry, be happy' school of analysis of the PLA [People's Liberation Army] said that we should all be reassured that the PLA couldn’t attack Taiwan because it didn’t have enough hovercraft. Clearly, this is changing," University of Miami's June Teufel Dreyer tells the military trade.

The 540-ton Zubr LCAC, the world’s largest amphibious assault hovercraft, can reach speeds in excess of 60 knots, can travel 300 nautical miles and can shoulder various large loads: 130 tons of cargo, 500 troops, three 50-ton medium battle tanks, 10 BTR-70 armored personnel vehicles or eight BMP-2 infantry fighting vehicles.

"The Zubr will greatly enhance the PLA Navy’s capability to launch a large scale amphibious assault operation," Sinodefence.com observes.

At the moment the PLA has to rely on conventional landing ships for such an operation. The slow process for the troops and vehicles to swim from their carrier ships to the beachhead makes them highly vulnerable to enemy firepower. The LCAC’s ability to deliver troops, vehicles and cargos directly to the beach makes a huge advantage. China has developed several models of its own indigenous LCACs, but most of these are unarmed small designs carrying no more than 20 soldiers.

The deal to buy the hovercraft from Russia's Almaz Shipbuilding has been in the works for five years. And the initial order is teeny: just six ships. But "there are signs that China plans to build its own version of the Zubr-class craft," Defense News says.

"It could be that the Chinese want to test the vehicles or purchase a few and then begin... produc[ing] them in the PRC [People’s Republic of China]," Dreyer observes. "The amount ordered here, six, won’t be enough to mount an invasion. But it’s a start."

Eyeing China's Missileers

Hey all, Jeffrey Lewis from Arms Control Wonk.com here. After spending a couple of days crashing at Shachtman's place in NYC, I figured I needed a crosspost to say "Thanks."

ITAR TASS reports that China test fired a DF-31 ICBM from the Taiyuan Space Launch Center:

China has carried out a regular test launch of a Dongfeng-31 intercontinental ballistic missile. Itar-Tass was told at the Russian Defence Ministry on Tuesday that "the Chinese side had notified the Russian Defence Ministry in advance about the upcoming launching of the intercontinental missile".

"The Dongfeng-31 missile was fired from the Wuzhai launch site towards the Taklimakan desert at about midnight on Monday", a Russian ministry official said. The head section of the missile, he added, flew approximately 2.5 thousand kilometres. The Russian space control facilities had tracked the missile's start and flight.

The new Chinese intercontinental ballistic missiles will be put into
service already this year. Improved longer-range Dongfeng-31A missiles are expected to be commissioned in 2007. These two types of intercontinental silo-based ballistic missiles are compact systems, which can be moved by means of tractors along general-purpose roads.

FAS has a nice summary of the DF-31 program in relation to this, probably the sixth flight test since 1999.

The Taiyuan Space Launch Center is called the Wuzhai Space and Missile Test Center by the US intelligence community for reasons that I've never understood -- the facility is NOWHERE near Wuzhai. In fact, isn't all that close to Taiyuan -- 284 km from Taiyuan City either by train or bus.

Anyway, I found the Taiyuan facility in GoogleEarth a while back, checking it against the map on the China Great Wall Industry Corporation website. You can see most of the major areas of the center, including the technology center, telemetry station (I think) and launch complex. (Mark Wade has a very nice map, too.)

If you look a little further north of the launch complex, you can see an area that is not on the map -- a some buildings and big concrete launch pads that might be a candidate (and I stress might) for bthe DF-31 area.

Just a guess, though. The facility is huge, with something like 4 launch sites and more than a dozen support areas. I've posted a 1982 DIA report on the construction of a new assembly/checkout facility on the southeast edge of the facility -- unfortunately, that area is low resolution.

So, take a look at the site -- one aspect I would like to find is China's R&D silo for the DF-5, which is at what the intelligence community called Launch Site B. I may have to zip over to the National Archives to see if there are any reports on the facility with handy maps.

-- Jeffrey Lewis

China Top Card in Pentagon Shuffle

So, imagine you are the Rumsfeld Defense Department. You are locked in a "global struggle against violent extremists" stretching from"stretching from Indonesia through the Middle East,". You have 150,000 troops stationed in Iraq as the central front in said struggle. The United States is facing major foreign policy crises in Iran and Lebanon, of other which might involve your beloved Pentagon.

You decide to elevate one Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense with regional responsibilities to become a full Assistant Secretary over a region. This is an easy call. You pick: Asia-Pacific.

Oh, sure, sure, you have no exit strategy for Iraq and you are sizing up air defenses around Tehran, but c'mon ... real men hate on China.

Of course, focusing on China ... er the Asia-Pacific ... was the plan, from the first Defense Strategy Review by Andy Marshall which reportedly "cast the Pacific as the most important region for military planners..." I kind of admire the sticktuitiveness of the whole thing, 9/11 and Iraq be damned.

You almost wonder why they didn't have the stones to pin the 9/11 attack on Jiang Zemin. After all, their friends did.

I've posted the new organization at my blog, Arms Control Wonk.com. USD(P) Eric Edelman explained the issue as one of matching up to State and NSC:

The secretary sensed that we were misaligned in some ways ... and we wanted to make it easier for Policy and the (combatant commands) to figure out what the right address was (in the other agencies) to go forward solving problems. I think this will make it a little easier to operate interagency.

Now, when I was at Policy -- oh so briefly -- the fact that the State Department Bureaus were headed by Assistant Secretaries, one level higher than the equivalent DOD offices, was kind of irritating.

And maybe I am being too cynical. As an "Asia expert" -- whatever that means -- I am psyched to see my region getting attention. And, were I ever lucky enough to hold that office at OSD, I'd appreciate the extra step to full Assistant Secretary.

But, really, wouldn't a single "Assistant Secretary for South West and Central Asia" with DASD's for the Middle East, South Asia and Central Asia better protect the country's interests?

-- Jeffrey Lewis, cross posted at Arms Control Wonk.com

Compass - Chinese SatNav or Galileo Bluff?

As has been widely reported, China plans to construct its own global satellite navigation network. Or so it would appear. No one’s quite sure. The system, dubbed Compass, is mired in confusion, with possible intentions ranging from a modest upgrade of their regional Beidou system to a full blown competitor to GPS and Galileo.

China invested in the European Galileo system through the Galileo Joint Undertaking. Remarkably, this investment will not allow the Chinese any role in Galileo when it transitions to the Supervisory Authority at the end of the year, likely due to the sensitive nature of Galileo’s encrypted signals. It’s no surprise, then, that China would feel betrayed by its partnership in the Joint Undertaking. Compass may be a result of China’s desire to strike out on its own– or a bluff aimed at wrangling a more substantive role in Galileo.

The business case for Galileo’s commercial signals is questionable, since most people are content with using GPS and the free Galileo signals. Another commercial competitor, such as Compass, would surely hurt Galileo. As such, China can easily use Compass as leverage for better standing within the Supervisory Authority.

China has ordered 18-20 rubidium atomic clocks, a key component of satellite navigation systems. However, this is nowhere near enough to create a global constellation, which requires at least 21 satellites, especially since there are usually multiple clocks per satellite, with GPS satellites having at least three and Galileo having four.

At best, China would be able to build eight or nine satellites with just two clocks each, which would allow for a regional navigation system for East Asia and the Indian subcontinent. Such a system would not be a commercial threat to Galileo, but has potential to become a global competitor fairly quickly if China buys more clocks; this initial order may only represent a first installment.

The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) database has 36 satellite slots registered to Compass. Fourteen are in geosynchronous orbits, and the remaining 22 are in the medium orbits traditionally used for navigation systems. While there is a tendency to register more slots with the ITU than will realistically be filled, such a large number of registrations for a regional system would be excessive and place China in a poor position with the ITU for future registrations.

What is Europe to do? The economic returns on Galileo must be protected if the project is to succeed. China could be given rights under the Supervisory Authority, minimizing its need for Compass. However, this would probably allow Chinese companies to build Galileo ground receivers, a potentially lucrative market that Europe would like to keep for itself. It would also give China access to the encrypted, and sensitive, public-safety signals. The stakes are high, but can Europe afford to call China’s bluff?

An interesting aside: there is no guarantee that the clocks would be used for Compass. Another possible application is naval signal reconnaissance satellites similar to the Navy’s Ocean Surveillance Satellites program. In that case, the clocks are used for radio inferometery, in turn determining the origin of the intercepted signals. Such a capability for the Chinese would undoubtedly have significant military implications. That possibility, however, is a subject for another day.

Another consideration: there is a possibility that Compass could jam GPS and Galileo. Even as a regional system, Compass could have significant military implications. These aspects will be discussed in another entry tomorrow.

-- Ryan Caron

Beijing Feeds the Hype

In the last few days, China has voiced its disapproval of the new Pentagon report evaluating China’s military. The comments have been about what you’d expect, along the lines of the Foreign Ministry spokesman that accused the Pentagon of a "Cold War mentality."

But that didn't stop Beijing from feeding the hype by unveiling an ambitious new program to “enhance its capability to innovate, develop and rapidly supply new-generation weaponry” on the same day it was criticizing the US for "continuing to peddle the so-called 'China threat.'"

The 15-year endeavor will include “new and high-technologies for the space industry, aviation, ship and marine engineering, nuclear energy and fuel, and information technology for both military and civilian purposes,” with a “focus on development of new and high-tech weaponry.”

The effort to develop new technologies may run up against China’s continuing difficulties with fraud in its scientific and R&D communities, although the government is also introducing initiatives to confront these problems.

In truth, the new military technology plan doesn’t appear to mark any actual departure from the trends the Pentagon report already noted – this is new PR and packaging, not new policy. But you’d think someone would realize that it’s difficult to protect your international image as a peaceful, stabilizing presence the same day you’re trying to instill national pride in your new, powerful, high-tech military. Maybe they should divert a few yuan to modernizing their media operation.

It’s actually been a rough couple of weeks for Chinese spokesmen addressing security relations with the US. Last week, they had to deal with a Taiwanese sales rep for Lockheed who pled guilty to spying for China and attempting to purchase US military technology for shipment to China. A few days later, they were criticizing a State Dept announcement that none of the Department’s thousands of new Lenovo computers would be used on classified networks, out of security concerns with the Chinese company’s systems. The FBI’s Chinese spy is still in the news as well.

So it looks to be a trend of hawks and pessimists steering the technology/security policies of both countries lately. Not to worry – our China policy remains as muddled as ever: In developments that are apparently completely unrelated, this month China (and the American Chamber of Commerce in China) asked the US to relax export controls of high-tech goods, and apparently that won’t be a problem.

-- Matthew Tompkins

Yellow Peril's Annual Comeback

Did you miss it? I’m a little out of the loop on the far side of the Pacific, so I did. But yesterday was the annual CHINA IS COMING TO GET US!! day. I’m always stumped on an appropriate gift for the special occasion... Flowers? A card? The most expensive weapons system ever?

That’s right folks, it's time for the Pentagon's yearly report on China’s military power. Get ready for the big headlines and what are sure to be some choice quotes from the SecDef and your talking-head of choice.

In the coming weeks and months, the usual China-hawks are sure to mine the report for every quote that might make China look like the next evil empire. From the opposite extreme, habitual critics of the Pentagon will likely dig up the same excerpts to paint a department full of Sino-phobes. This AFP piece makes a good start at finding the choicest of these quotes, although with the good form (or indecision) of allowing you, the reader, to decide whether you’re anti-Pentagon or anti-China. But the full study itself is actually much more balanced than these quotes would imply.

The report accurately recounts the undeniable fact that China’s military is going through tremendous amounts of modernization and improvement. It will undoubtedly become a global force that solidifies the greater influence that China has in world affairs. The study also notes, however, that politically and strategically, China has not been making moves that indicate a nation looking to throw its weight around militarily: showing continually increasing interest in effective international organizations; contributing to UN peacekeeping missions in Africa and the Caribbean; making efforts to resolve border tensions with India and be a moderating force in Indo-Pakistani tensions; playing a pivotal role in seeking a diplomatic solution to the North Korea nuclear issue. All seem to illustrate a China interested in becoming “a responsible international stakeholder by taking on a greater share of responsibility for the health and success of the global system.”

Taiwan is, of course, the fundamental exception to China not throwing its weight around. The report discusses in detail China’s continuing efforts to gain the upper-hand in a potential military conflict in the Taiwan Strait, with a particular emphasis on deterring or counteracting foreign intervention (including China’s likely long-term goal of acquiring or developing a carrier-force in support of broader efforts towards sea-denial). There is little room for doubt or question as to how seriously China considers the Taiwan issue – it is the exception to China’s otherwise very pragmatic foreign and security policy. Even here, though, the DOD study points out that in recent years and in the likely future, China has been interested in pursuing all means that may resolve the Taiwan issue: “political, economic, cultural, legal, diplomatic, and military.” For example, it draws particular attention to Beijing’s “posture of restraint following President Chen [Shui-bian]’s decision to suspend the National Unification Council and National Unification Guidelines.”

The best doomsday scenario, of course, is of a China-US confrontation – Taiwan is just a possible flashpoint. In this vein, much can be made of the report’s repeated mention of China’s efforts to observe US military forces in action and apply lessons learned. (A recent RAND report made the same observations.) The big thing to notice, though, is that almost every example of this watchfulness has as much to do with China wanting to emulate US military tactics and equipment, as wanting to counter them. A particularly ironic example of these “lessons learned” can be found in the Pentagon’s analysis of why China will be deterred from military action against Taiwan in any but the most extreme situations: high monetary costs of war at home, an expensive reconstruction program in Taiwan, political condemnation and repercussions within the international community and the possibility that “an insurgency against the occupation could tie up substantial forces for years.”

Hmm… It’s been a long time since I took a psychology classes, but that’s called projecting, right?

The report isn’t without a few oddities, though. My particular favorite is when it notes a “resurgence in the study of ancient Chinese statecraft within the PLA,” apparently catching the crucial development of a new edition of Sun Zi’s Art of War on the PLA's reading list.

The bottom line of the report is that China’s military modernization has more do with seeking the trappings of a world-class power than pursuing a particular, military-minded agenda. Ultimately, the primary motivation for these rapid expenditures can be found in the fact that “the PLA is transforming from a mass infantry army designed to fight a protracted war of attrition within its territory to a modern, professional force.”

The Pentagon actually mentions little, if anything, that’s new from last year’s report. Nonetheless, if the last few years are any indication, we’re now in for a few months of reciprocal criticisms and “no, you’re the long-term threat to international peace and security.” There had been reasons for hope of improved military relations between China and the US, with recent China visits from National Defense University and the Combat Commander for the Pacific that culminated in an invitation to China to view US exercises near Guam. Now, we’ll have to see what, if anything, comes of these overtures.

If, rather than requiring annual reports on China’s military, Congress had required reports whenever there were significant developments or changes, it seems unlikely there would have been a report at all this year. This requirement has largely become today what the annual review of China’s Most Favored Nation status was in the 90’s: a yearly exercise in bilateral nipple-twisters that does little but restate trends that haven’t changed much from the last year and aren’t likely to change much in the next.

-- Matthew Tompkins

Censorship's Silver Lining

By now the numerous slights – both deliberate and accidental – during Chinese President Hu Jintao’s visit to Washington are well known: mixing up Taiwan and China when introducing the National Anthem; the Falun Gong heckler; President Bush unceremoniously tugging President Hu around by his coat-sleeve; administration officials dozing through Mr. Hu’s statements. What's less understood, though, is the official Chinese reaction – or really, lack of reaction --to these gaffes.

The slip-ups, and their possible implications, have all been widely discussed in the US and international media. But in the Chinese press, they haven’t been mentioned at all.

In the West, the censorship has been seen as a measure of how serious these insults are. The argument is that the assorted incidents are so shaming and embarrassing that “keeping the incident off Chinese screens was to save Hu Jintao from humiliation,” in the words of one Beijing-based analyst.

Maybe. But the far more important point this censorship communicates is the value China places on its relationship with America, and the direction the government wants that relationship to go.

China’s government could have easily used these incidents to spur anti-American, patriotic sentiments within the population. They didn’t hesitate to do so a year ago, when demonstrations over revisionist Japanese textbooks engulfed the nation, or 7 years ago in the aftermath of America’s bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. In both of those instances, it would not have been difficult for the government to keep the population from learning of the issues. However, stirring up nationalist, anti-Japanese or anti-American sentiments suited the government’s agenda at the time, and it didn’t hesitate to do so. However shaming or embarrassing last week’s gaffes may have been, they pale in comparison to having your sovereign territory (the Embassy) bombed and offering only a few student protesters in response. But in the past, the government was willing to swallow the shame of these events in the interests of its agenda. They almost certainly would do so again if it furthered their plans – few things will rally a population to support you like rallying them against someone else. That they have chosen not to, and have rather gone to great efforts to hide the gaffes, indicates a desire to maintain and improve their relationship with America.

Broadcasting the insults would almost certainly have given fodder to hardliners within China to rail against the slap in the face. And it’s easy to imagine the reaction of our own China hawks to any anti-American demonstrations that may have resulted. If China’s censorship of last weeks events indicates the government’s desire to keep the ball away from these hardliners on both sides of the Pacific, it may be the silver lining to last week’s exhibition of America’s inept diplomacy and China’s continuing free speech issues.

[My thanks to Ms. Lauren Keane in Beijing for helping develop this analysis.]

-- Matthew Tompkins

America's Arsenal Aimed at China

Usually, I write about small things: a tight-knit group of cops, a single murder, a squad of soldiers, one crazy game. My cover story (!) in this month's Popular Mechanics is my first attempt to go big. Really big. $70 billion big.

The idea was to take the President and the SecDef at their words -- that the "Long War" against Islamic extremism is the country's top military priority. Does the Pentagon's $70 billion a year budget for new weapons back that up? Is America's arsenal being geared towards counter-terror, counter-insurgency type fights?

Take a guess.

Inside the defense establishment, the Long War has competition. In many minds, the real threat is a rising China. And, at least when it comes to acquisitions, the China crowd has the upper hand. Which means the weapons budget is packed with gear -- Joint Strike Fighters, DD(X) destroyers -- optimized for a big war in the Pacific, not a messy one in the Middle East.

The story hasn't appeared online, yet. I'll let you know when it does. But Tom Barnett, who's quoted several times in the piece, has some excerpts up on his blog.

Bump: China Tops Iraq, Osama in QDR

I'm bumping this post from ten days ago back to the top, because of the impending QDR roll-out [UPDATE 12:33 PM: It's online now]. According to today's Washington Post:

The United States is engaged in what could be a generational conflict akin to the Cold War, the kind of struggle that might last decades as allies work to root out terrorists across the globe and battle extremists who want to rule the world, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said yesterday.

The strategic vision outlined in the QDR has won high marks from defense analysts for diagnosing the problems the U.S. military will likely face. However, it is less successful in translating those concepts into concrete military capabilities, the analysts say...

The strategy does call for devoting resources to accelerate a long-range strike capability directed at hostile nations, and for new investments aimed at countering biological and nuclear weapons -- such as teams able to defuse a nuclear bomb. But it makes relatively minor adjustments in key weapons systems, with the biggest programs such as the Joint Strike Fighter and the Army's Future Combat Systems escaping virtually unscathed. This leaves less room for investments in innovative programs and forces to address the types of problems that the QDR identifies, analysts say.

For months, now, word has been leaking out about the Pentagon's every-four-years master plan, the Quadrennial Defense Review.

Finally, we’re starting to see some excerpts from the big document itself, thanks to Inside Defense. My quick, subject-to-instant-revision first impression: Rumsfeld & Co. are focusing more on China than they are on Osama.

Very roughly speaking, there are two factions jockeying for control in the Pentagon. One thinks that the U.S. military is going to spend a big chunk of the next twenty years hunting down terrorists and stabilizing screwed-up states. The other believes that China has to be smacked down, before it bulks up to superpower status.

The first group gets the rhetoric. “[P]repar[ing] for wider asymmetric challenges” is one of the “fundamental imperatives for the Department of Defense.” We’re in the middle of a “Long War,” according to the QDR. Iraq and Afghanistan are just part of it.

There’s organizational and personnel help, to go along with the lofty words. The Combatant Commanders – the guys in charge today of the boots on the ground – will get more of a say in how future weapons are bought. The QDR boosts Special Operations Forces by 15% and “increase[s] the number of Special Forces Battalions by one-third.

U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) will establish the Marine Corps Special Operations Command. The Air Force will establish stand up an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Squadron under USSOCOM. The Navy will support a USSOCOM increase in SEAL Team manning and will develop a riverine warfare capability. The Department will also expand Psychological Operations and Civil Affairs units by 3,700 personnel, a 33% increase. Multipurpose Army and Marine Corps ground forces will increase their capabilities and capacity to conduct irregular warfare missions.

These changes are not insignificant. They’ll require billions to back them up. But the China-watchers, on the other hand, get the kind of gold-plated new hardware that costs tens, even hundreds, of billions to make. As Inside Defense notes, the QDR “leaves intact all of the military services’ most prized weapon system programs. In fact, some programs will see significant increases.

Many involved in the review believed at the outset that the QDR might call for a resource shift between the departments -- specifically from the Air Force and Navy to the Army -- that did not materialize.

The Air Force, which set as its highest goal for the QDR the protection of the F-22A fighter, managed to extend production two years beyond 2008, which means it can work [on] going beyond the planned 183-aircraft buy.

Similarly, the Navy in late November was granted permission to move ahead with its next-generation DD(X) destroyer program, which will consume a big chunk of the service’s shipbuilding account as the QDR-directed enhanced submarine procurement is set to kick in.

…As for the Army, the QDR confirms the service has protected its top priority, the Future Combat Systems program…

…The QDR also leaves intact the Marine Corps’ top priorities, including the V-22 Osprey and its Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle…

“What they’ve done, in effect, is say, ‘Yeah, Rummy, we’ll make all these promises. Of course, you’re not going to be around to hold us to them. In the meantime, we will sustain our programs and build program momentum with Congress and industry,’” said a source familiar with the QDR findings.

The China crowd also gets what looks to be some big-time new, as of yet undefined, weapons programs. That includes a new, long bomber of hypersonic drone that can conduct “global strike” missions against unruly states.

“The United States' experience in the Cold War still profoundly influences the way that the Department of Defense is organized and executes its mission,” the QDR notes. “But, the Cold War was a struggle between nation-states, requiring state-based responses to most political problems and kinetic responses to most military problems. The Department was optimized for conventional, large-scale warfighting against the regular, uniformed armed forces of hostile states… [Today] many of the United Slates' principal adversaries are informal networks that are less vulnerable to Cold War-Style approaches... Defeating unconventional enemies requires unconventional approaches.”

But it does not require, apparently, a wholesale change of direction. Terrorist-type threats will get some new attention. But the Defense Department isn’t about to optimize for that threat, the way it did for the Soviet Union. Big money will continue to be spent on fighter jets designed to duel with the Soviets and destroyers designed for large-scale ground assaults. Grunts on the ground won’t get much more than they do now. The war on terror may be “long.” But, apparently, it’s not important enough to make really big shifts.

UPDATE 3:56 PM: The QDR was "toned down by a year of deliberation and not a single signature weapon system has been terminated," ubiquituous military analyst Loren Thompson tells Defense News. “That tells you that Rumsfeld’s team is not so clear about what to do about this new environment."

UPDATE 01/24/06 10:36 AM: The WaPo puts the QDR on page one, and emphasizes the growing numbers of Special Forces. Meanwhile, the LA Times (via Laura) says the QDR's direction means that Iraq was a "one-off."

The U.S. military has long been accused of always planning to fight its last war. But as the Pentagon assesses threats to national security over the next four years, a major blueprint being completed in the shadow of the Iraq war will do largely the opposite...

For more than two years, Army officials have been fending off questions about whether they have enough troops to complete their mission in Iraq and racing to get armor plates bolted onto Humvees and supply trucks to defend against homemade bombs.

But in the Pentagon blueprint, officials are once again talking about a futuristic force of robots, networked computers and drone aircraft. And they are planning no significant shift in resources to bulk up ground forces strained by the lengthy occupation of Iraq...

Yet some experts say that failure to draw broader lessons from Iraq is dangerous, especially if the U.S. military suddenly faces a new war in a hot spot such as North Korea or Iran that it has no choice but to fight.

"There is a logical disconnect between the lessons learned from Iraq and the conclusions that we can live with a smaller ground force," said Michele Flournoy, a defense policy expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former top Pentagon official.

UPDATE 11:59 AM: On his website, Thompson adds:

There are several decisions coming out of the QDR that are hard to square with what the Pentagon says about future challenges. For example, if the global war on terror really is a "long war" as the QDR report contends, why is the administration eliminating brigades from an overextended Army? And if mobility is so critical to military success, why is it proposing to shut down both the C-130J and C-17 lines -- the only airlifters in production?

Maybe it doesn't matter -- Rumsfeld will be gone soon, and Capitol Hill has ceased caring what he wants anyway. Congress will probably add money for the lost brigades and airlifters, just as it will reject other bad proposals like the idea of creating a monopoly for fighter engines. But with the clock ticking down on Donald Rumsfeld's tenure, it's a little hard to say what he has achieved in the way of a lasting, positive legacy.

UPDATE 3:24 PM: There's a nice little debate going on about this over at Kevin Drum's place.