China Military Watch

[Avinash R]

Russia says stolen weapons heading to China found
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... wD96IJ9I80

4 hours ago

MOSCOW (AP) — Russian news agencies are quoting a senior prosecutor as saying that his office has exposed an attempt by military officers to smuggle $18 million worth of stolen Russian weapons to China.

The agencies quoted Chief Military Prosecutor Sergei Fridinsky as saying Wednesday that some officers and businessmen shipped the weapons to the ex-Soviet republic of Tajikistan for subsequent smuggling to neighboring China.

Fridinsky said the stolen weapons included 30 anti-submarine missiles and about 200 bombs.

China has been a top customer for Russian weapons since the 1990s. But Russian authorities have also nabbed some military officers and civilians who they accuse of smuggling weapons and sensitive technologies into China.

[shiv]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGRvnPAQ ... re=related

J-10 - 2 rolls - 1.7 sec each

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLIbYdTgl2Y

LCA 2 rolls 1.5 sec each

Note the boundary layer splitter plate above the J-10 intake.

[shyamd]

China's naval surveillance capabilities

Hong Kong, China — “Anti-piracy operations” have given China’s PLA Navy the best excuse to penetrate the Indian Ocean and station forces there permanently.
As fighting piracy around the Gulf of Aden becomes a long-term mission, the PLA Navy South Sea Fleet is likely to set up a sub-fleet to handle that task – perhaps the “Indian Ocean Sub-fleet of the South Sea Fleet” – and the PLA Navy will become the new owner of the Indian Ocean.

In recent months,Chinese military publications have carried a number of articles stating that “the Indian Ocean does not belong to India.” The intent of these articles is increasingly clear.

[nitinr]

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20090225/120306823.html

Above talks about the smuggling operation unearthed by russians and this

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009 ... 490313.htm

talsk about sinking of a chinese ship by russians. Can both be related? Anybody in the know how who can shed some light on this?

[vavinash]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGRvnPAQ ... re=related

J-10 - 2 rolls - 1.7 sec each

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLIbYdTgl2Y

LCA 2 rolls 1.5 sec each

Note the boundary layer splitter plate above the J-10 intake.

Did the designer say that J-10 is a third gen plane? Very honest of them.

[Rahul M]

3rd gen according to chinese nomenclature. f-22 for example is 4th gen according to that.

[shiv]

3rd gen according to chinese nomenclature. f-22 for example is 4th gen according to that.

The JF 17 of course is 17th generation (ahead of 16th gen like F-16)

[Liu]

3rd gen according to chinese nomenclature. f-22 for example is 4th gen according to that.

chinese criterion：

1G:mig19/J6 f86

2G: mig21/J7,mg23,J8,J8II,F4

quasi 3G :Fc-1/JF17 and Yankee's F20
3G:F16,F15,F14,F18,Mig29, Su27/30/33/35,M2000,J10,rafale, EF2000,

4G:F22,F35

[Rahul M]

3rd gen according to chinese nomenclature. f-22 for example is 4th gen according to that.

The JF 17 of course is 17th generation (ahead of 16th gen like F-16)

always wondered why they named it 17.

[KrishG]

That's the reason why Pakis renamed J-10 as FC-20. Don't u understand ??
J-10 - 10th generation
FC-20 - 20th generation.

Superb!! They have got ahead 10 generations by renaming the fighter.

Now Chinks are making J-XX which is ofcourse XXX generation. Chinese are getting dirty !

[SanjibGhosh]

Folks, I was watching a Chinese media report on the India's military capabilities and a comparison with China. This was in Chinese, and translated version was also given.

Here is description of that. See waht they think about us ...

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/india ... IDURVTEC10

In military affairs, first of all look at military technology. India's missile technology rather about China in the 1970s to the 80s level, the gap in more than 20 years. India's Agni missile level of less than 1 waves China. At that time, China has missiles and nuclear submarines, and India do not have the independence to the development of these two technologies. India's development of the blue anti-aircraft missiles from its body of the former Soviet Union Sam 6, Trident missiles at low altitudes there are serious technical problems, not performance, such as the development of China's 80 red 7. At that time, China's high-altitude air defense has been the development of TMD "fight back." Aviation technology gap between China and India is the smallest in the field of military technology. China's main efforts into a missile, aviation technology into a relatively small capacity of independent missile compare some of the poor and space technology. But the technology blockade from foreign countries so that China's aviation industry was a very valuable independent development capabilities. India's aviation industry has been relying on foreign technical assistance, rely on foreign production permit the production of advanced fighter jets, so though a period of time in India than China's advanced fighters and equipment, but India has not been a complete aviation technical capabilities. Open later in the advanced foreign technology support, the last 10 years, China's aviation technology has advanced by leaps and bounds will be far behind India. This is a comprehensive national strength and comprehensive technical capabilities and industrial capacity gap. Chinese exports of technology to Pakistan's FC-1 in the past two years, continue to make use of new technology to upgrade its technology completely over India's LCA light combat aircraft, in the aerodynamic design, engine, airborne weapons, such as superior performance-based LCA as a mid-range Fighters. In the naval equipment, India is not a powerful shipbuilding industry and therefore India's naval power can only be building on the beach. India, China must rely on foreign ships to provide all the technologies, including design, materials and hull construction technology, power, weapons, radar, etc., as well as overall. Once the loss of foreign technical assistance to India totally unable to deal with immediately. If India is a nuclear submarine has always dreamed of equipment, but because of foreign nuclear non-proliferation treaty can not restrict India to provide technical assistance to India for decades had no choice but to do this, and so there is no way. Although India has produced concessions such as the Germany of advanced submarines and 209 Russian "K" level. However, India still have to rely on foreign assistance in order to create a submarine. Chinese nuclear submarine in 1971 on the water. Now China's naval vessels have the basic skills to achieve the level of Europe, over Russia. Now China impact on the level of military technology is the level of basic industries. In the Army, not to mention the more technical aspects, India still can not produce 155-mm heavy artillery, tanks engage in their own army do not want. Imports would also like to import heavy artillery shells. In a word in the low-tech weapons and equipment of the army on India is still not self-production capacity.

[Liu]

two news:

1. Chinese defence budget in 2009 is 480.6 billion RMB(about 70 billion USD), about 6.29% of china's totol budget 7.63 trillion RMB(about 1.11 trillion USD).

2009全国财政预算为76300亿元，国防预算为4806亿元！
新华网3月4日报道 十一届全国人大二次会议于3月4日上午11时在人民大会堂一楼新闻发布厅举行新闻发布会，由大会发言人就会议议程和人大工作相关的问题回答中外记者的提问。

[俄罗斯通讯社记者]谢谢。我是俄罗斯通讯社的记者，我想请问您，您能否向我们透露2009年中国国防费预算的一些细节，包括向我们提供一些具体的数字。
........http://bbs.cjdby.net/viewthread.php?tid ... a=page%3D1

2.AICC(Aviation Industry Corporation of China) succeeded in borrowing 176 billion RMB(about 25.7 billion USD) from 9 banks in CHina,to develop Chinese indigenious big commerical jet.

2009年1月8日，我国授信额度最大的一次银企合作支持我国航空工业发展拉开序幕。此前，成立不久的中国航空工业集团公司（Aviation Industry Corporation of China，简称“中航工业”）是此次授信的最大受益者。

按照双方约定，工行、建行、中信将分别为中航工业提供300亿元意向性授信额度，交行提供220亿元，浦发提供200亿元，光大，招行，北京银行分别提供100亿元，民生提供90亿元，兴业提供50亿元。共十家银行提供1760亿。
http://www.ccthere.com/thread/2057408

[vsudhir]

China's jumbo rocket "carrying capacity factor" world's second largest: expert (Xinhua)

How true is this?

[Nikhil T]

China increases defence budget by 15% to $71 billion

5 March 2009, Beijing, China

China is adding $9.1 billion to its military budget bringing the total outlay for 2009 to $70.2 billion. This is far ahead of India's defence outlay of $20.6 billion for 2008-09. { DDM ? 08-09 figure was $26.5 bn and 09-10 is $32.7 bn}

Announcing the 14.9% increase in defence spending, Li Zhaoxing, the spokesman for China's parliament, said it was not aimed against any country and the is entirely for peaceful purposes. "There is no such thing as hidden military expenditure in China," Li, who was the country's foreign minister till 2007, said. China has been reporting its defence spending to the United Nations since 2007, he pointed out.

China has for long been criticised by the United States and Japan for not disclosing a lot of military spending while continuing with an extensive program of capacity building. "China's limited military powers will be solely used for the purpose of safeguarding its sovereignty and territorial integrity," he said. "This will not pose a threat to any country".

Defence expenditure now accounts for 6.3% of the government's budget and 1.41% of the country's gross national product, he said. This is much less as compared to the spending in several countries. It is 4% for the US and 2% for the UK and France, he said.

The additional spending will mainly be used to meet recent increases on salaries and amenities of the armed forces, he said.

---
As usual, China is calling its increases "modest" and the excuse given is "increases in salaries and amenities". I don't think just the increase in salaries will amount to $9.1 bn.

[Kailash]

AMAN multinational naval exercise

[soutikghosh]

THE FUTURE OF CHINESE DETERRENCE STRATEGY

Publication: China Brief Volume: 9 Issue: 5
March 4, 2009 04:34 PM Age: 1 days
Category: China Brief, Military/Security, China and the Asia-Pacific, Home Page
By: Michael S. Chase, Andrew Erickson, Christopher Yeaw

The development of China’s nuclear and conventional missile power has been among the most impressive and most closely watched aspects of Chinese military modernization over the past two decades. During the past 20 years, the Second Artillery Corps (SAC) has been transformed from a small and exclusively nuclear force to a much larger and more powerful force with a variety of roles for a growing and increasingly sophisticated arsenal of nuclear and conventional missiles. The deployment of the road-mobile DF-31 and DF-31A intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) is enhancing the striking power and survivability of China’s nuclear forces [1]. Moreover, the deployment of more than 1,000 short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs) since the SAC was given a conventional role in the 1990s gives China many options for striking targets in the region. The development of an anti-ship ballistic missile capability could deter or otherwise complicate U.S. intervention in the event of a regional crisis or conflict. In addition to these developments, the People's Liberation Army Navy's (PLAN) contribution to China’s nuclear deterrence posture is also changing with the transition from the PRC’s first-generation nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine (SSBN), which was armed with the relatively short-range JL-1 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and never conducted a deterrent patrol, to perhaps as many as five Jin-class SSBNs, each of which will be armed with 12 JL-2 SLBMs. This will diversify China’s nuclear deterrent and may further enhance its survivability [2]. Chinese analysts assess that the deployment of SSBNs and land-based mobile missiles will “fundamentally ensure the reliability and credibility of China’s nuclear force” [3]. The SAC's growing conventional ballistic missile capabilities, particularly the anti-ship ballistic missile, also suggest a growing deterrence role for these conventional forces.

Recently published Chinese sources that include previously unavailable information on nuclear and conventional missile strategy and campaigns are shedding new light on China’s evolving approach toward deterrence and Chinese views on the problems of deterrence and nuclear strategy. By drawing on some of these sources, which include a variety of Chinese language books, academic and technical journal articles, military media reports, newspapers and periodicals, and key sources from the secondary literature on the SAC, it is possible to trace the evolution of China’s deterrence strategy toward an approach that some have called “effective deterrence.”

The Evolution of China’s Nuclear Strategy

In the years following the detonation of China’s first atomic bomb in 1964, China’s nuclear strategy and doctrine were relatively immature due to the constraints imposed by Mao Zedong’s adherence to his military theories, the domestic tumult of the Cultural Revolution, and the limitations of Chinese nuclear warhead and ballistic missile technology. Mao’s dogmatic approach made it all but impossible to develop innovative ideas about nuclear strategy and doctrine. The chaos of the Cultural Revolution further inhibited consideration of key issues related to nuclear strategy and doctrine. Finally, according to some analysts, technological developments influenced China’s approach to nuclear strategy, rather than strategy driving technological requirements and program decisions [4].

By the mid-1990s, however, Chinese strategists were engaging in debates about nuclear strategy and doctrine along with arms control issues. Some of these discussions centered on a potential shift from the traditional posture of “minimum deterrence” to a doctrine of “limited deterrence,” which would require corresponding changes in force modernization if adopted [5]. Chinese nuclear strategists argued that such a shift would require “sufficient counter-force and counter-value tactical, theater, and strategic nuclear forces to deter the escalation of conventional or nuclear war,” but China did not have “the operational capabilities to implement this vision of limited deterrence” [6].

By the late 1990s, China was attempting to fill this gap in its operational capabilities at the strategic level and develop its conventional missile forces with an eye toward theater war fighting missions. Indeed, it was not long before China appeared to be on the verge of reconciling the significant divergence between the SAC's once largely ambitious doctrine and its actual capabilities. Whereas Chinese strategists were once severely constrained by technological limitations, but by around 2000, they appeared to have an increasing number of choices regarding the development, deployment and use of PLA missiles. At the time, China was developing an increasingly lethal war-fighting capability for the SAC's short-range conventional ballistic missile forces; a more robust and diversified nuclear and conventional medium-range ballistic missile force at the theater level; and a more formidable and survivable intercontinental force capable of providing China with “credible minimum deterrence” at the strategic nuclear level [7].

The Transition to “Effective Deterrence”

Chinese analysts recognized that a more survivable posture was required to make deterrence credible and effective in the face of growing challenges posed by improvements in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), missile defense, and conventional precision-strike capabilities. Leaders in Beijing also calculated that more robust nuclear weapons capabilities were required to support China’s global political and diplomatic status. According to an article co-authored by General Jing Zhiyuan, the commander of the SAC and General Peng Xiaofeng, the political commissar of the SAC, China has recognized the need to develop “an elite and effective nuclear missile force that is on par with China's position as a major power" [8]. The SAC has clearly recognized that meeting this objective requires not only new hardware, but also improvements in training, institutional reforms that will provide the force with highly capable personnel, and advances in strategic and doctrinal concepts.

Chinese military media reports suggest that SAC training is also growing in realism and complexity. In particular, as part of the PLA’s broader program of training reforms, the SAC is making progress in areas such as training under more realistic combat conditions, incorporating “blue forces,” electronic warfare, nighttime training, air defense and counter-ISR tactics and more rigorous training evaluations. Building talent has been another key priority. The senior leadership of the SAC has consistently highlighted the importance of cultivating high quality officers, non-commissioned officers (NCOs), and technical personnel as the cornerstones of missile force modernization. One measure of its success is that 78.2 percent of cadres now hold a bachelor’s degree or above [9].

Newly available materials have also revealed some of the SAC's key operational principles and the contemporary doctrinal concepts behind the accompanying transition to “effective deterrence.” Among the key doctrinal concepts are the strategic-level emphasis on “gaining mastery by striking after the enemy has struck,” and the campaign-level concepts of “self-protection,” “key-point counterstrikes,” and “counter nuclear deterrence.” Overall, Chinese nuclear doctrine is increasingly focused on “sufficiency and effectiveness,” meaning that China places a high priority on ensuring its forces are capable of fulfilling deterrence and counter-coercion missions. China’s nuclear missile forces are “trying to catch up rapidly with an increasingly explicit strategy and doctrine premised on using nuclear weapons to deter nuclear aggression and to preclude nuclear coercion” [10].

Newly available Chinese language publications also appear to reflect ongoing debates about strategic and doctrinal issues. For example, recent articles in Chinese military journals have discussed the requirements associated with a wide variety of possible nuclear deterrence strategies [11]. Newly published Chinese books that focus on missile force and deterrence issues also raise the issue of Chinese views on signaling and escalation control. In his recent and extensive treatment of the subject, Zhao Xijun, SAC commander from 1996 to 2003, states that the goal of China’s deterrent missile force is to “shake the enemy psychologically, make the enemy’s war volition waver, weaken the enemy commander’s operational determination, disturb the enemy psyche and public psyche, and achieve [the objective of] 'conquering without fighting'” [12]. Additionally, however, Zhao states, “the goal of wartime deterrence is to prevent conventional war from escalating into nuclear war, and to prevent low-intensity nuclear war from further escalating” [13]. Thus conceived, deterrence imposes stringent requirements on the Chinese nuclear posture, including an adequate force size and composition, survivability, and highly reliable nuclear command and control. Moreover, Zhao states that a “flexible application” of deterrence across all levels of war, from the strategic down to the tactical, is “indispensable [for] effective and credible deterrence” [14].

Among the other issues reportedly under discussion are the merits of continuing to adhere to the “no first use” (NFU) policy. Some Chinese strategists appear to view the NFU policy as an unnecessary self-imposed strategic constraint. At least some analysts who influence the debate have already considered at least three scenarios under which Beijing would discard the traditional NFU policy. The first is retaliation for conventional strikes on strategic and/or nuclear targets and facilities. According to Zhao, “In a conventional war, when the enemy threatens to implement conventional strikes against one’s major strategic targets, such as the nuclear facilities; in order to protect the nuclear facilities, prevent nuclear leakage, and to arrest the escalation of conventional war to nuclear war, one should employ nuclear weapons to initiate active nuclear deterrence against the enemy” [15].

The second possibility is a crisis-driven change in China’s declaratory nuclear policy. Specifically, Chinese authors have suggested that Beijing could lower the nuclear threshold to deter intervention in a Taiwan crisis or conflict. According to Zhang Peimin's article in Military Art, a Chinese military journal, “When we are under the pressure of circumstances to use military force to reunify the motherland’s territory, we may even lower the threshold of using nuclear weapons to deter intervention by external enemies” [16]. The third scenario is when Chinese leaders believe that territorial integrity is at stake. Some Chinese strategists seem to hint at the possibility of first use under particularly dire circumstances, such as a scenario in which the PLA is on the verge of suffering a politically catastrophic defeat in a conventional military conflict over Taiwan.

Conclusion

China’s nuclear modernization is focused on improving the ability of its forces to survive an adversary's first strike and making its nuclear deterrence posture more credible, tasks that have taken on increased urgency as a result of growing concerns regarding U.S. nuclear preeminence, missile defense plans and conventional precision strike capabilities [17]. China is moving toward a much more survivable and thus more credible, strategic nuclear posture with the development of the road-mobile DF-31 and DF-31A ICBMs and the JL-2 SLBM. Beijing is also expanding its conventional missile capabilities, to include not only an increasingly potent SRBM force but also medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs) that could threaten U.S. aircraft carriers. According to General Jing Zhiyuan and General Peng Xiaofeng, Commander and Political Commissar of the SAC, the SAC has “achieved the great leap in development from a single core unit to a nuclear and conventional entity which gives equal attention to both” [18]. Further improvements are still required, according to General Jing and General Peng, but as a result of the advances that have already been made, China’s "strategic deterrence and actual combat capabilities have been vastly improved" [19].

Indeed, the introduction of road-mobile strategic missiles and SSBNs will allow China to achieve a posture of “effective deterrence.” The modernization of Chinese nuclear forces and the transition from silo-based to road-mobile nuclear missiles and SSBNs might thus enhance strategic deterrence stability. Indeed, deterrence theory suggests that a more secure second-strike capability should enhance stability by causing both the United States and China to behave much more cautiously.

There are a number of reasons, however, to be concerned that the transition to a more secure second strike capability will not necessarily translate immediately or automatically into greater strategic stability. Indeed, it is entirely possible that these developments could in fact decrease crisis stability under certain circumstances, particularly if China’s growing nuclear and missile capability tempts Beijing to behave more assertively or planners and decision-makers in either country fail to consider the potential implications of certain actions. Instability may also result if the undersea environment becomes a place of uncomfortably close approach between U.S. attack submarines and Chinese SSBNs, changes in force posture or technological developments result in heightened insecurity, or the alerting and de-alerting of strategic forces creates a temporary state of increased vulnerability.

Consequently, as China continues to modernize its nuclear and missile forces, problems of strategic stability appear poised to become much more important aspects of the U.S.-China security relationship in the coming years. Although China’s nuclear and missile force modernization may contribute to greater strategic stability in the long run, neither China nor the United States should assume that this outcome will result automatically from China’s deployment of a relatively secure second strike capability. Indeed, successfully managing what could become a potentially dangerous balancing act will require much of both parties. The United States will need to exercise considerable self-restraint given the asymmetries that will continue to characterize the U.S.-China nuclear balance despite China’s recent enhancement of its nuclear and conventional missile capabilities. Planners and decision-makers in the United States will also need to have an in-depth understanding of Chinese views on strategic signaling, crisis management and escalation control, particularly in the context of a conflict over Taiwan. In addition, Chinese planners and decision-makers will need to have a similarly realistic understanding of U.S. views and motivations.

This emerging dynamic underscores the need for greater U.S.-China dialogue and engagement on strategic issues, which in turn will require Beijing to deal with a dilemma in which continued lack of Chinese transparency of nuclear weapons and missile developments may complicate China’s own deterrence strategy. Indeed, as China continues to improve its conventional and nuclear missile capabilities, it will almost certainly need to become at least somewhat more transparent in order to help safeguard shared interests in regional security and strategic stability.

[The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors alone. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Naval War College, Department of the Navy, or Department of Defense.]

Notes

1. Office of the Secretary of Defense, Annual Report to Congress, Military Power of the People’s Republic of China 2008 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense, 2008).
2. “Seapower Questions on the Chinese Submarine Force,” U.S. Navy, Office of Naval Intelligence, 20 December 2006, www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/ONI2006.pdf.
3. Wang Zhongchun, “Nuclear Challenges and China’s Choices,” China Security (Winter 2007), p. 62.
4. John Wilson Lewis and Xue Litai, China Builds the Bomb, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1988.
5. Alistair Iain Johnston, “China’s New ‘Old Thinking’: The Concept of Limited Deterrence,” International Security, vol. 20, no. 3, winter 1995/96.
6. Ibid., p. 6.
7. Bates Gill, James Mulvenon, and Mark Stokes, “The Chinese Second Artillery Corps: Transition to Credible Deterrence,” in James C. Mulvenon and Andrew Yang, eds., The People’s Liberation Army as Organization, Reference Volume v1.0 (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2002).
8. Jing Zhiyuan and Peng Xiaofeng, “Jianshe Zhongguo tese zhanlue daodan budui” (Building a Strategic Missile Force with Chinese Characteristics), Qiushi (Seeking Truth), no. 3, February 2009, www.qsjournal.com.cn/qs/20090201/GB/qs^496^0^19.htm.
9. Ibid.
10. Evan S. Medeiros, “‘Minding the Gap’: Assessing the Trajectory of the PLA’s Second Artillery,” in Roy Kamphausen and Andrew Scobell, ed., Right-Sizing the People’s Liberation Army: Exploring the Contours of China’s Military, Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute, 2007, pp. 143-190.
11. See, for example, Lieutenant Colonel Li Shaohui and Major Tao Yongqiang, “The Force Foundations and Strategic Space of Nuclear Deterrence,” Junshi Xueshu (Military Art), 2006, No. 6, pp. 55-57.
12. See, for example, Zhao Xijun, ed., Coercive Deterrence Warfare: A Comprehensive Discussion on Missile Deterrence (Beijing: National Defense University Press, May 2005), p. 47.
13. Ibid., p. 47.
14. Ibid., p. 78.
15. Ibid., p. 173.
16. Zhang Peimin, “How to Develop the Means of Strategic Deterrence,” Junshi Xueshu (Military Art), February 2004, p. 34.
17. Dennis C. Blair, Director of National Intelligence, “Annual Threat Assessment of the Intelligence Community for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence,” February 12, 2009, www.dni.gov/testimonies/20090212_testimony.pdf.
18. Jing and Peng, “Jianshe Zhongguo tese zhanlue daodan budui” (Building a Strategic Missile Force with Chinese Characteristics).
19. Ibid.

http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_...ash=c9ccb7c4b4

[Philip]

Chinese miliatry ambitions rising fast.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/a ... rcID=44529

As China Boosts Military Spending Again, Experts Mull Significance of Naval Mission
Thursday, March 05, 2009
By Patrick Goodenough, International Editor

China’s rubber-stamp parliament, the National People’s Congress, opens its annual session in Beijing’s Great Hall of the People on Thursday, March 5, 2009. (AP Photo)
(CNSNews.com) – As Beijing announced yet another double-digit increase in defense spending, a U.S. congressional panel Wednesday heard expert testimony on China’s military buildup and activities, including the significant and unprecedented naval mission in the Gulf of Aden region.

A senior Defense Department official, newly returned from talks with the Chinese military, cited longstanding concerns about opaque expenditure and other issues, but also spoke of China’s apparent new willingness to cooperate with other countries in some areas, including anti-piracy efforts.

Since the beginning of the year, two People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) guided missile destroyers and a supply vessel have been patrolling the waters off northeast Africa, protecting Chinese-flagged ships against pirates operating from Somalia.

The Obama administration has praised China’s contribution to the U.N.-backed multinational anti-piracy mission.

Experts testifying before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC) Wednesday discussed the historic nature and importance of the Chinese deployment.

National War College professor Bernard Cole pointed out that the mission marked a number of “firsts” for China, including the first time PLAN ships had conducted combat operations so far from China’s immediate waters – more than 3,000 nautical miles from their homeport at Hainan Island, south of the Chinese mainland.


President Hu Jintao, second left, and Premier Wen Jiabao, second right, sing the national anthem during the opening session of China’s rubber-stamp parliament, the National People’s Congress, in Beijing on Thursday, March 5, 2009. (AP Photo)
It was also the first time the Chinese Navy had operated for an extended period so far from home. While PLAN vessels have sailed the world – to ports as far afield as Western Europe – “previous long-range deployments have been set cruises, with ships steaming from port to port on a predetermined schedule,” he noted.

The Gulf of Aden mission is due to last for three months, and China has announced that a second taskforce will replace the current one at that point.

In his opening remarks, USCC vice-chairman Larry Wortzel said it was vital for the U.S. government and military to analyze the impact of the Gulf of Aden deployment “on U.S. interests and our ability to protect them, and on the development of China’s military capabilities and the consequent implications for U.S. security.”

Cole – whose views were described as his own and not those of the U.S. government or military – said the mission would enhance the capabilities of PLAN ships and personnel.

“These deployments are contributing to the transformation of the PLAN from a coastal defense force to one capable of operating effectively at long ranges from home base.”

“This [mission] requires a level of operational, logistical, and communications sophistication in a potentially hostile environment that the PLA Navy has lacked until now,” Michael Auslin, resident scholar in foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, told the hearing.

“The experiences gained on this operational deployment will undoubtedly help the navy plan even larger, more complex international and regional missions in coming years.”

Overall, Cole said he believed Beijing views the military “as not merely an instrument to be used to defend Chinese borders or as the force of last resort for subduing domestic unrest, but rather as an instrument of foreign policy and military force, to be employed to strengthen Chinese interests or to protect them when threatened.”

Chin-Hao Huang, a researcher in the China and Global Security Program of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) told the hearing that China has in recent years made an effort to become more responsive to international expectations through contributions to global peace and security.

“Positive engagement with the outside world helps China to project a more benign and ‘harmonious’ image beyond its borders, to reassure neighbors about its peaceful intentions, and to softly balance U.S. and Western influence while gradually but more firmly establishing China’s acceptance as a great power,” Huang said.

Increase ‘not modest’

During a visit to Beijing last week, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense David Sedney welcomed China’s contribution to the anti-piracy efforts, telling a briefing at the U.S. Embassy the work had been professional, effective and “very well coordinated with the United States and the other navies that are working there.”

Testifying before the USCC Wednesday, Sedney said in his talks with the Chinese he had seen signs that military leaders were “grappling with the issue of how does China work together with the United States, and others, to address common problems.”

Alongside the positive assessment, he reiterated concerns about the military threat to Taiwan – which China considers a rebel province – Chinese arms sales to Iran and the lack of transparency in defense spending.


A graph depicts the growth in China’s defense spending between 1996 and 2007, in 2007 U.S. dollars. The yellow columns represent declared military spending; the blue and red columns show the Pentagon’s low and high estimates of the actual spending. (Grapic: Dept. of Defense)
China earlier Wednesday announced it would increase military spending this year by 14.9 percent, a rise a top official described as “modest,” taking into account the size of China’s territory and population.

While smaller than last year’s 17.6 percent increase, it nonetheless takes declared spending up to $70.2 billion, more than twice as much as the $29.9 billion it reported in 2000, and almost four times as much as the $17.6 billion reported in 2001.

“Fifteen percent is not a modest increase, and it is surprising that they have continued double-digit increases in defence spending in a period of economic crisis,” Rory Medcalf, program director for international security at the Lowy Institute for International Policy in Sydney, said Thursday. “There are much more effective ways to pump prime an economy than military spending.”

Beijing is widely believed to significantly underreport the amount it spends to maintain and develop the world’s biggest military. Medcalf put it now at “almost certainly more than $100 billion.”

In its last annual report to Congress on Chinese military power, the Pentagon estimated that actual military-related spending for 2007 fell somewhere between $97 billion and $139 billion, compared to its declared $46 billion.

Estimating actual spending was hampered by a lack of accounting transparency, it said. China’s declared budget excludes categories such as foreign acquisitions and military-related research and development.

SIPRI, using purchasing power parity data, estimates that China in 2007 spent some $140 billion, making it the second biggest military spender. (The U.S. spent $547 billion, and in third and fourth place were Russia at $78.8 billion and India at 72.7 billion).

The new figures were announced at a briefing by Li Zhaoxing, spokesman for the National People’s Congress – China’s rubber-stamp parliament – which opened its annual session on Thursday.

Li, a former foreign minister, denied that real defense spending was much higher, saying “there is no such thing as so-called hidden military expenditure in China.”

He said the increase would improve the living standards of PLA personnel, upgrade technology and enhance its ability to take part in disaster response and anti-terror missions.

Medcalf said it was understandable and legitimate for China to expand its military capabilities in line with its growing wealth and expanding international interests, such as its dependence on energy imports.

“The problem is that Chinese power projection capabilities, such as submarines, ballistic missiles and prospective future aircraft carriers, will make other countries in the region uneasy, especially Japan, India, Vietnam and Australia,” he said.

ashika1009 at 03:13 PM - March 05, 2009

China is definitely NOT to be trusted by any means. China is no friend of the US and is most interested in pursuing its own agenda.Certainly help with piracy (blame adherents to Islam for that one--See Somalia) is welcome, but help TO Iran (Islamo-fascist, anti-Semitic, and rabid in general) in any form is not. In a related note, think of all of the Chinese products tainted by a variety of toxins that China seems almost bent on exporting.Yet, surprisingly little criticism is offered by the US government concerning these important trade-related issues. The US should be less timid in its criticism of China. The Bush Administration was timid and no doubt the Obama version will be at least if not more timid!

[Nayak]

China must build aircraft carrier 'soon' military says

The Telegraph ^ | 3/6/2009 | Peter Foster in Beijing

Posted on 03/06/2009 2:21:39 PM PST by bruinbirdman

China must build an aircraft carrier "soon" if it wants to be taken seriously as a global superpower

Speaking on the fringes of the National People's Congress, China's rubber stamp parliament, the official added that China now had the technology to build an indigenous carrier and should use it.

"Building aircraft carriers is a symbol of an important nation. It is very necessary," said Admiral Hu Yanlin in an article published in the government-sanctioned China Daily newspaper bearing the headline "Build aircraft carriers soon".

"China has the capability to build aircraft carriers and should do so," he added in remarks that will fuel speculation that, after two decades of research, China is ready commission its first carrier.

The comments come two days after China announced a 14.9 per cent increase in defence spending for 2009, a rise that will have seen total Chinese military spending increase by more than 50 per cent since 2006.

The Chinese navy has been lobbying for permission to build an aircraft carrier since the 1980s, but analysts say it has been over-ruled by the country's Central Military Commission anxious that China's rise should not appear to upset regional security balances.

However remarks last December by a spokesman for China's National Defence Ministry that aircraft carriers were "a reflection of a nation's comprehensive power" and were needed to meet the demands of a modern navy were seen as an indication that China would build a carrier soon.

The Chinese government is highly sensitive to claims that its increased military spending will have a potentially destabilizing effect in the Asia-Pacific region.

Earlier this week Li Zhaoxing, the official spokesman at the National People's Congress, bristled at suggestions that China's increased military spending was grounds for concern.

"China's limited military force is mainly for safeguarding our sovereignty and

(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...

[Nayak]

China readies military space station – launch coincides with shuttle phaseout BY

China is aggressively accelerating the pace of its manned space program by developing a 17,000 lb. man-tended military space laboratory planned for launch by late 2010. The mission will coincide with a halt in U.S. manned flight with phase-out of the shuttle.

The project is being led by the General Armaments Department of the People's Liberation Army, and gives the Chinese two separate station development programs.

Shenzhou 8, the first mission to the outpost in early 2011 will be flown unmanned to test robotic docking systems. Subsequent missions will be manned to utilize the new pressurized module capabilities of the Tiangong outpost.

(Excerpt) Read more at spaceflightnow.com ...

[Avinash R]

Great exchange of gifts between taller than mountains and deeper than ocean friends.
You give me nuke bombs, i give you human bombs.
China official sees risk of northwest attacks
http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/200 ... NJIANG.php

[Kartik]

seems like the Su-33 will eventually be used on the PLAN's aircraft carriers. Russians are now getting wise to the Chinese plans to copy the Su-33, since they've already copied the Su-27.

China plans to buy Russian carrier-based fighters, deal in snag+

BEIJING, March 9 (AP) - (Kyodo)—China has been negotiating a deal with Russia to buy aircraft carrier-borne fighters but talks have hit a snag over the minimum number of aircraft to be sold, according to a Hong Kong-based defense magazine.

The Kanwa Defense Review says in an article published this month that China wants to acquire 14 Sukhoi-33 multi-role fighters but Russia has baulked at the idea.

The magazine quoted a Russian defense industry source as saying that Beijing told Russia that it would buy up to 50 Su-33 for use on "several" aircraft carriers and wanted to initially acquire two aircraft as "samples."

Russia reportedly turned down the Chinese proposal, wary that the Chinese might use the aircraft to copy the technology.

China increased its offer to 14 aircraft but the Russians still said no, arguing that selling Su-33 to China would involve fitting the aircraft to Chinese specifications and selling just 14 aircraft would not cover the extra costs.

To build a customized assembly line would require a minimum order of about 24 aircraft, the magazine quoted the source as saying.

The magazine says China is launching a project this year to build two aircraft carriers.

The Chinese, it says, plan to ultimately deploy Jian-11 fighters, a multi-role fighter now under development in China, and other Chinese- built aircraft on their future carrier fleet.

They are negotiating an aircraft-purchase deal with Russia apparently as a stop-gap measure, the magazine said.

There are online media reports that China plans to build a full-size, 93,000-ton nuclear-powered carrier by 2020 and complete the construction of a mid-size, 48,000-ton non-nuclear carrier next year.

[parshuram]

.Can Anybody Please update that what is status of border road construction along chinese borders . After 26/11 all the atention that North East deserves seem to be smoked away and this is not helping us anyway

here are few subscripts form a interview of arunachal 's MP that kind of old but raises serious questions

The Chinese have built a new airport in Nyintri district in Tibet, just north of the McMahon line.

This airport is very close to Arunachal. On the belt along the Brahmaputra (Tsangpo) river, towards Arunachal, particularly from Tsona (north of Tawang) to the Yunnan province (of China), the Chinese have built adequate infrastructure with many airports. Further, the Golmund-Lhasa railway line will be soon extended till Shigatse (Southern Tibet), it should be completed next year.

They announced it for 2010?

But Chinese are always able to complete their projects before schedule. They will reach Shigatse in 2009 and then, turn eastwards following the Tsangpo basin towards Tsona. Once it reaches Tsona, we will have a massive deployment of military hardware, right on the Arunachal border.

There is already a full deployment in Tibet, including nuclear weapons. In fact till 2005, they could not move heavy military equipment due to bad roads. The railway connectivity has dramatically changed the geopolitics of Tibet.

India's plan to counter this move is not enough. The recent package for a trans-Arunachal road which will cost Rs 6,000 crore or Rs 7,000 crore only connects the lower districts of Arunachal. Nowhere will this touch the McMahon Line.

I have written to the prime minister asking him to make sure that the road connectivity touches all the border areas. Otherwise, it will not serve the (defence) purpose. From the package announced by the prime minister, all border points will be five or six days by foot.

How can military personnel take care of our borders when they have to walk five or six days with arms and ammunition? I am honestly admitting that we are not prepared.

url

...

[parshuram]

AMAN multinational naval exercise

Really amazed by the fact that Pakistani navy sailors actually waving flags of china like school kids ... ..

BTW some more pics

look for chinese heli landing on british ship

url

[sum]

Really amazed by the fact that Pakistani navy sailors actually waving flags of china like school kids ... ..

What else to expect the PN to do when their mai-baap to do(given that relations with Unkil going downhill)?

Thank god that the Chinese guy didn't ask them to roll over and fetch a stick he throws!!!!!

[Dmurphy]

Russia blocks China’s copycat efforts

Russia has refused to sell to China deck-based SU-33 fighters over fears of losing military secrets if China copies the fighter, according to Kanwa Defense Review.

China has been negotiating the purchase of SU-33s for quite a time. At first it was said that China needs 50 carrier-based fighters for future aircraft carriers to be built for the Chinese Navy. China insisted that before buying all 50 fighters it needed only two to give it a “try”.


J-11, a China's modified format of the Russian Su-27 two-seater combat fighter

Naturally, Russia refused to do so. Then Beijing raised the quantity of fighters to be bought to 14. Still, besides the data leakage, it was not acceptable because, as Russian experts put it, no less than 24 planes must be built to recoup the production.

Now it looks like the dead-locked negotiations will be dropped altogether.

The article also says...

These moves will come at a serious price, as Russian deck-based fighters are significantly cheaper then any similar models, such as the French Rafale M or American F-35C or the F/A-22N Sea Raptor.

As if they would have got the F-22s and Rafales!

[ajay_ijn]

Russia blocks China’s copycat efforts

It would be advantage India if russia blocks sales of their most advanced technology weapons to China.

[namit k]

AMAN multinational naval exercise

Really amazed by the fact that Pakistani navy sailors actually waving flags of china like school kids ... ..

BTW some more pics

look for chinese heli landing on british ship

url

^^that site has bugs and trojans

[dorai]

Russia blocks China’s copycat efforts

It would be advantage India if russia blocks sales of their most advanced technology weapons to China.

But that will also mean China will move faster with its own projects and in the long term it could be something negative as opposed to importing equipment that Russia perhaps had source codes and skills for. The west blocking arms deals for the Chinese single-engine fighters only led them to design and export J-10/F-20 and FC-1/JF-17.

But I guess Russia had no choice either way!

[namit k]

Chinese and US naval warships have a face-off
BEIJING: The Chinese and US naval warships had a major face-off in the South China sea, with Beijing telling Washington to stop what it called
"illegal activities" in the area.

The face-off came when the Chinese warships surrounded and reportedly harassed a US naval mapping ship 'USNS Impeccable' in international waters in South China sea on Sunday.

At one point, the US Defence department said Chinese warship were within 10 metres of the US boat, throwing debris on its path.

But Beijing has taken a strong view of the incident, with the foreign ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu saying that the US naval vessel had conducted illegal activities in China's Special Economic Zone (SEZ) in the South China sea and violated international and Chinese laws.

"China has lodged a solemn representation to the US as the USNS Impeccable conducted activities in China's SEZ without China's permission," Xinhua quoted the spokesman as saying.

"We demand that the US put an immediate stop to such activities and take effective measures to prevent similar acts from happening," Ma said.

The Chinese spokesman dismissed as "totally inaccurate and wrong" Washington's claims of harassment of the ship.

The incident took place in international waters in the South China sea about 120 kilometres south of Hainan Island, where the Chinese have a major nuclear submarine base.

As it was surrounded by the Chinese warship, USNS Impeccable, a surveillance ship sprayed water on the Chinese vessels to force it away.

Despite the impact of the water, Chinese crew members stripped tot heir underwear and continued closing in.

The US naval ship is specifically designed and has capability to listen underwater giving it submarine detection capabilities.

China views the South China sea as its territory and which has put it at loggerheads with some other nations like Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Taiwan, which share the coastline to the sea, where large scale gas and oil exploration is being undertake.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/New ... 249674.cms

it seems that the us ship was somewhere close to a submarine nest or was chasing some chinese sub
article shows that they desperately stopped it from moving an inch further

since past 2-3 yrs there had been at least half a dozen such incidents when a chinese sub had sprung up near to a us ship in pacific
since then the pacific command has ordered increased reconn of chinese subs and its ASW ships are now fitted with latest RAP and MAD sensors, which could have made a difference , specially against the chinks AIP subs

but this could be a chinese fantasy as they are searching for ideas to blame others and expand their navy's activity

[ashi]

China's Pipe Dream
http://theasiandefence.blogspot.com/200 ... ngine.html

[Liu]

Chinese and US naval warships have a face-off
BEIJING: The Chinese and US naval warships had a major face-off in the South China sea, with Beijing telling Washington to stop what it called
"illegal activities" in the area.

The face-off came when the Chinese warships surrounded and reportedly harassed a US naval mapping ship 'USNS Impeccable' in international waters in South China sea on Sunday.

At one point, the US Defence department said Chinese warship were within 10 metres of the US boat, throwing debris on its path.

But Beijing has taken a strong view of the incident, with the foreign ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu saying that the US naval vessel had conducted illegal activities in China's Special Economic Zone (SEZ) in the South China sea and violated international and Chinese laws.

"China has lodged a solemn representation to the US as the USNS Impeccable conducted activities in China's SEZ without China's permission," Xinhua quoted the spokesman as saying.

"We demand that the US put an immediate stop to such activities and take effective measures to prevent similar acts from happening," Ma said.

The Chinese spokesman dismissed as "totally inaccurate and wrong" Washington's claims of harassment of the ship.

The incident took place in international waters in the South China sea about 120 kilometres south of Hainan Island, where the Chinese have a major nuclear submarine base.

As it was surrounded by the Chinese warship, USNS Impeccable, a surveillance ship sprayed water on the Chinese vessels to force it away.

Despite the impact of the water, Chinese crew members stripped tot heir underwear and continued closing in.

The US naval ship is specifically designed and has capability to listen underwater giving it submarine detection capabilities.

China views the South China sea as its territory and which has put it at loggerheads with some other nations like Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Taiwan, which share the coastline to the sea, where large scale gas and oil exploration is being undertake.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/New ... 249674.cms

it seems that the us ship was somewhere close to a submarine nest or was chasing some chinese sub
article shows that they desperately stopped it from moving an inch further

since past 2-3 yrs there had been at least half a dozen such incidents when a chinese sub had sprung up near to a us ship in pacific
since then the pacific command has ordered increased reconn of chinese subs and its ASW ships are now fitted with latest RAP and MAD sensors, which could have made a difference , specially against the chinks AIP subs

but this could be a chinese fantasy as they are searching for ideas to blame others and expand their navy's activity

in fact, such incidents often happened,and both alway kept silent at such incidents.

this time Yankees felt annoyed just because they perhaps lost somethings important.... and ..at the same time , CHinese ships happened to "salvage" somthing beside the US ships....

[ticky]

in fact, such incidents often happened,and both alway kept silent at such incidents.

this time Yankees felt annoyed just because they perhaps lost somethings important.... and ..at the same time , CHinese ships happened to "salvage" somthing beside the US ships....

And yet you seem to know about them, that makes you the Oracle at Delphi incarnate eh!

[Kailash]

China's Pipe Dream
http://theasiandefence.blogspot.com/200 ... ngine.html

At least they have a dream, and are not reluctant to spend on it. I would like to see such definite and far-sighted roadmaps from GTRE, ADA etc.

[k prasad]

China's Pipe Dream
http://theasiandefence.blogspot.com/200 ... ngine.html

At least they have a dream, and are not reluctant to spend on it. I would like to see such definite and far-sighted roadmaps from GTRE, ADA etc.

Kailash, Perhaps you'd care to explain that in the engine thread??

What made you think that GTRE and ADA do not have roadmaps? You need to factor in the political support, financial support and our scientific support before dissing these two organizations -

China has been able to get where they are because their leaders are willing to pull all stops, spend all the money, buy the people required, steal the technology needed and do everything to get these projects running in double speed - and yet, they do not have a working engine of their own (and dont tell me about random dragon whatever engines that are cheap imitations of russian powerplants).

Please tell me what exactly is the fault of GTRE and ADA and DRDO in this? Perhaps the blame needs to be laid at the right door.

[Philip]

Yes,finally the buck must stop with the political leadership,who are the custodians,trustees of the country and its assets.Therefore by that yardstick,the GOI is the client and the one who should be the most interested in nationally sensitive and critical projects.The PRC on the other hand are a military/poliitical dictatorship who need answer to no one and whose priorities come first.Henc ethe massive and rapid modernisation by the ORC of its military in recent years and the sheer scale of production of new contemporary weapon systems.

[ramana]

Nightwatch 3/10/09


See the detailed explanation of the PRC incident.

[sum]

Ramana sir,
What exactly is Nightwatch? what is its credibility and how does it get hold of such detailed inside info from all regions?

(Asking since you quote a lot from Nightwatch and introduced it to BR)...


Edit:

From above report:

Old hands could have told him that the Chinese, like the North Koreans, the Indians and the Soviets, maintain positive control of fishing fleets which come under military supervision in a crisis.

Does the IN maintain fishing boats with plain clothes IN sailors operating them(like the Chinese trawlers harassing the USN ship)?

[Kailash]

Kailash, Perhaps you'd care to explain that in the engine thread??

What made you think that GTRE and ADA do not have roadmaps? You need to factor in the political support, financial support and our scientific support before dissing these two organizations -
.......

Please tell me what exactly is the fault of GTRE and ADA and DRDO in this? Perhaps the blame needs to be laid at the right door.

Well I meant exactly what you imply here. Due to all the above reasons, a road map can not exist. What is a road map which does not have govt funding and support? Past successes are crucial for a viable roadmap to work. Timely and successful delivery. But no one person is to blame here - time delays by research bodies (due to technical or finacial reasons), leads to less support from customers, leads to lesser money allocated for further research by govt. Each party is having lower confidence than the other....leading to a downward spiral.

I would be happy to be proven wrong. How many variants and offshoots of Kaveri/Kabini are planned for next 10-15 years? Any clear plans for improved thrust ratings, engines for UAVs, definite research to develop a dual mode ram/scram jet engines?

***Not sure how to move this to the engines thread, can someone help?

[Liu]

Kailash, Perhaps you'd care to explain that in the engine thread??

What made you think that GTRE and ADA do not have roadmaps? You need to factor in the political support, financial support and our scientific support before dissing these two organizations -
.......

Please tell me what exactly is the fault of GTRE and ADA and DRDO in this? Perhaps the blame needs to be laid at the right door.

Well I meant exactly what you imply here. Due to all the above reasons, a road map can not exist. What is a road map which does not have govt funding and support? Past successes are crucial for a viable roadmap to work. Timely and successful delivery. But no one person is to blame here - time delays by research bodies (due to technical or finacial reasons), leads to less support from customers, leads to lesser money allocated for further research by govt. Each party is having lower confidence than the other....leading to a downward spiral.

I would be happy to be proven wrong. How many variants and offshoots of Kaveri/Kabini are planned for next 10-15 years? Any clear plans for improved thrust ratings, engines for UAVs, definite research to develop a dual mode ram/scram jet engines?

***Not sure how to move this to the engines thread, can someone help?

the lack of a road map is the biggest lesson which Chinese engine-developer has got.

[k prasad]

Shall we move the discussion to the kaveri thread??

Kailash, I'll respond to ur post there...

to move a post, just open a post reply window on the engine thread, and take (cut and paste) the required quote onto that post... thats it.