Washington Watch
By John A. Tirpak, Executive Editor
China surpasses—doubles—Russia’s military spending; Taiwan in
the crosshairs; Whither stealth? ....
China’s Timetable
China will be operational with its first stealth fighter in just
seven years, will have an overall modern military in nine years,
and continues to close the window on any possible defense
of Taiwan should the mainland make a military move against
the island.
These were among the conclusions of the Pentagon’s most
recent report on China’s military power, officially known as
“Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s
Republic of China.” The annual report is required by Congress,
which mandates that it be timely, factual, and broad-based in
its assessment of China’s military capabilities.
The Obama Administration usually takes a diplomatic tone
with the report so as not to inflame relations with China, but
the latest edition was required to take note of several milestone events: J-20 stealth fighter flight tests, the beginning of
sea trials on China’s first aircraft carrier, and successful flight
testing of the DF-21D, a ballistic missile with a warhead that
can be retargeted in-flight, giving China a means to attack US
aircraft carriers more than 900 miles away.
The report also estimates that China has increased its
military spending to $160 billion, or 13 percent more than last
year, marking a continuing trend of annual double-digit growth.
China, it said, sees a “window of opportunity” in this decade
to catch up with the US, which is having trouble modernizing
its military due to the prolonged economic downturn and
continuing budget deficits. China’s military spending is about
double what France, Germany, the UK, or Russia individually
spends on defense, and is second only to the US in the size
of its military budget.
China disclosed its new J-20 fighter early this year; videos
circulated on the Internet before a formal announcement of
the aircraft was made. The Pentagon report says the J-20’s
appearance “underscores” China’s investment in advanced
defense systems, but the department doesn’t expect operational capability prior to 2018. DOD said the J-20 still has a lot
of development “hurdles” ahead of it, and that China still lacks
“mastery of high-performance jet engine production.” Though
the report downplays how soon the J-20 will be operational,
the estimate is years earlier than predicted by then-Defense
Secretary Robert M. Gates when he stated his reasons for
terminating the F-22 in 2009.
The J-20 program “highlights China’s ambition to produce
a fighter aircraft that incorporates stealth attributes, advanced
avionics, and supercruise-capable engines over the next
several years,” the Pentagon asserted. Senior USAF officials
have suggested publicly that the J-20 has benefited directly
from China’s cyber intrusions on the US and its contractors.
The aircraft bears a strong resemblance to the F-22 and F-35
in some features, notably in the nose and air intakes.
China is not neglecting air defense, long-range strike, or
command and control, either. The B-6 bomber fleet (adapted
from the Soviet Tu-16 Badger design) is being expanded with
longer range aircraft and a new cruise missile, also with longer reach. China is introducing its HQ-9 air defense system,
a knockoff of the Russian S-400, and continues adding more
12
J-20: Stealthily coming to a combat theater near you.
battalions of SA-20s. In fact, the Pentagon said China has “one
of the largest” air defense networks in the world, and is putting
tremendous resources into its anti-access capabilities. There
are “several types” of airborne warning and control systems
in development or being deployed. China also continues to
build tanker aircraft to extend the reach of its fighters and
bombers, all of which are either being built with or retrofitted
with aerial refueling gear.
Not Just Red Air
In all military sectors, China has “benefited from robust
investment in modern hardware and technology,” and will
largely be a world-class military by the early 2020s, the report
declares.
“The decade from 2011 through 2020 will prove critical to
the [People’s Liberation Army] as it attempts to integrate many
new and complex platforms, and to adopt modern operational
concepts, including joint operations and network-centric warfare,” the report says. China continues to aggressively pursue
“capabilities intended to deter, delay, or deny possible US
support for [Taiwan] in the event of conflict,” and across the
Taiwan Strait, “the balance of … military forces and capabilities continues to shift in the mainland’s favor.”
The report said China’s ballistic missiles can reach virtually
all of the territory of the US now and may soon be fitted with
multiple warheads. Defensively, China has invested heavily in
deeply buried facilities and a tunnel network “which reportedly
stretches for over 5,000 km [3,100 miles].”
In space, China’s 2007 demonstration of a destructive
anti-satellite system has been expanded to include a variety
of systems aimed at crippling, jamming, or disrupting US
satellites, the Pentagon said. These include “kinetic and
directed energy (i.e., lasers, high-powered microwave, and
particle beam weapons),” and along with other systems both
AIR FORCE Magazine / October 2011
Washington Watch
indigenous and foreign-supplied, they can “jam common
satellite communications bands and GPS [Global Positioning
System] receivers.”
In a first, the Pentagon acknowledged that Israel has “previously supplied advanced military technology to China” but has
since “reformed its export control regime.” Though China has
relied on technologies from Russia and elsewhere in the past,
“this trend is changing as China becomes more self-sufficient
in development and production.”
China has identified 16 “major special items” on which it will
focus its R&D resources, the Pentagon’s report noted. These
include “core electronic components, high-end universal chips
and operating system software, very large-scale integrated
circuit manufacturing, next generation broadband wireless
mobile communications, high-grade numerically controlled
machine tools, large aircraft, high-resolution satellites, manned
spaceflight, and lunar exploration.” A similar list of militaryspecific capabilities includes low observable technology, radar,
counterspace capabilities, and command and control and
intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance systems.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Howard
P. McKeon (R-Calif.) issued a statement about the report,
saying, “China clearly believes that it can capitalize on the
global financial crisis,” and its emphasis on systems aimed
at denying access to the US in the Pacific region should be a
cause for concern in Washington.
The Pentagon reiterated the now-common refrain that it
earnestly wishes for China to show “more transparency” in
what it spends on its military and what forces it is developing,
but that so far, there have only been “modest, but incremental
improvements in the transparency of its military and security
affairs. … There remains uncertainty about how China will use
its growing capabilities.”
Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), chair of the HASC readiness
panel, issued his own statement about the report, saying,
“There is no question that China is rapidly closing the technology gap” with the US.
“There is a question, though, of whether the United States
will simply cede its global and military leadership role to a
nation with uncertain intentions, but known disregard for
human rights, basic freedoms, and democratic institutions,”
Forbes asserted.
China made its usual prompt rebuttal to the report, this time
in a speech by Gen. Chen Bingde, chief of the general staff of
the PLA, during a visit to the National Defense University in
Washington, D.C. Chen said China “never intends to challenge
the US,” and despite China’s technological military gains, there
remains “a gaping gap between you and us.” Still, Chen warned
of dire consequences if the US continues to sell advanced
weapons to Taiwan, which China maintains is a breakaway
province and a matter of internal Chinese politics. The severity of the impact on US-China relations “will depend on the
nature of the weapons sold to Taiwan,” he said.
Talking ’Bout Next Generation
It was inevitable that the Pentagon’s hurried strategy review,
meant to find $400 billion-plus in savings from the next 12
years of defense budgets, would pit program constituencies
against each other in a less-than-zero-sum game. With one
of the largest requirements for funding, air superiority has
become a central battleground.
A recent shot was fired in an Aug. 31 letter from Sen. Saxby
Chambliss (R-Ga.) to Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta.
Chambliss wrote to express his concern that the Pentagon is
buying more fourth generation F/A-18s for the Navy instead
of devoting those funds to the fifth generation F-35. Lockheed
Martin builds a portion of the F-35 in Georgia.
14
Describing the F-35 as the “cornerstone” of future American
air superiority, Chambliss urged Panetta not to let “arithmetic
targets mandated by a draconian budget-cutting exercise”
cause the Pentagon to lose sight of the need to control the
air in any conflict.
Chambliss insisted that any aircraft-buying decisions “reflect actual threat-based warfighting requirements and real
economies that can be achieved through modernization of
selected assets.” Without the F-35 in the specified numbers,
he contended, “we run the certain risk of ceding tactical air
superiority in future conflicts to foes who are developing
and fielding fifth generation aircraft and defensive systems.”
The F/A-18E/F, as a fourth generation fighter, “will be
of limited to no value in any future threat scenario, and
will only drain scarce budgetary resources from systems
designed to keep us ahead of our adversaries,” Chambliss
wrote. He urged Panetta to “fully commit to the expeditious
fielding of the F-35 and forego procuring any additional
fourth generation fighter.”
Chambliss’ missive wasn’t the first shot in this particular
duel, however. Christopher M. Chadwick, Boeing military
systems president, held a press conference at the Paris
Air Show in June, partly to challenge the notion of the
“generations” debate. He said the idea of fifth vs. fourth
generation is “meaningless,” and that the Super Hornet will
be just as effective as the F-35 because it will be protected
by sophisticated electronic warfare methods rather than
all-up stealth. He also challenged Lockheed assertions that
the F-35, because its price includes the radar, targeting
systems, internal fuel, and other capabilities that are “sold
separately” with the F/A-18, will actually cost less than the
Super Hornet in the long run.
For its part, the Navy requested additional F/A-18s in order
to have enough aircraft to fill out its carrier decks. It agreed
to extend the service lives of some of its older F/A-18s but
insisted that others have to be replaced because of the structural fatigue of too many carrier landings.
The Air Force has similar structural and age issues with its
F-16s, but the current Chief of Staff, Gen. Norton A. Schwartz,
and his two predecessors have all insisted on spending any
available procurement money on the next generation of aircraft.
Schwartz has pointed out that any newly bought nonstealthy
aircraft will have a life of 30 or more years—well past the
point where they will be able to survive against current and
emerging air defense threats. The Air Force, Schwartz has
said, would have to retire such newly purchased aircraft prematurely, wasting service life, or keep them in service in less
demanding roles. If the latter, it would require extension of the
logistics pipeline for those aircraft, an expensive proposition.
The Air Force approach has been to Band-Aid the F-16 force
with structural stiffeners and a new suite of sensors to keep
them credible until F-35s can be delivered to replace them.
Nevertheless, the budget cuts are unavoidable, and senior
USAF leaders have talked unceasingly of “tough choices”
ahead. Senior USAF officials have privately mentioned pressure within the Pentagon to consider buying some fourth
generation F-15Es to make up inventory shortfalls until the
F-35 arrives. Also, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has chafed
at the notion that there seems to be “no alternative” to the
F-35, which he has said gives Lockheed Martin little incentive to keep the program on track and on budget. McCain,
ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee,
signaled his willingness to fund such an alternative.
Chambliss closed his letter by saying he looked forward to
discussing the issue with Ashton B. Carter (then undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology, and logistics)
at Senate confirmation hearings that would make Carter
the No. 2 leader at the Pentagon.
n
AIR FORCE Magazine / October 2011