Interesting things to consider

I know I'm due to post something on the Zhuhai airshow and I will get to that this weekend along with some new 054A photos and other photos. But I read an interesting article by Pat Buchanan today and I thought I'd comment on it. For those who don't know, Pat Buchanan is a prominent conservative (the old-time fiscal conservative rather than social conservative of today). You can find the article here.

Basically, he raises some interesting points about the rise of China and fall of USA. If we really think about it, the biggest gap separating USA and China is the manufacturing capability and the technology gap. Even after years of improvement, US still leads China by decades in certain areas. I think what he stressed there that's important is that China has really been moving up the value chain in manufacturing. At the same time, US manufacturing industry has been on a steady decline and the service industry is by far the largest one now. When we shift the focus to the military side, it's clear that civilian technology/manufacturing trends are also present there. We see a vibrant shipbuilding industry in China, compared to a non-existent shipbuilding industry in America. So even though there is a technological gap between the latest PLAN and USN ships, the production is a different story. China is building many new naval ships on time and on budget, whereas USN is plagued with cost overruns. It all comes down to the fact that China has the manufacturing capacity here, whereas US does not.

Automaking is an industry that is the foundation of manufacturing. US became the manufacturing center of the world due to its car making prowess. The entire concept of assembly line and mass production was started by Ford. Make no mistake, even with the big 3 in trouble, US will still be the largest card producer in the world due to the fact that all foreign automakers are building their cars in America now. At the same time, you see that China is still having trouble breaking into European/North American market due to the safety and emission requirements in these markets. However, you are finally seeing different private and public automakers in China really expanding their operations and mass producing cars. So, there is a technological gap, but the manufacturing gap is almost irrelevant here. Both countries have the manufacturing capability to produce the trucks, vehicles and tanks needed for combat operation.

If we shift our focus to aerospace, it's a totally different story. In this area, US has a huge technological edge in material science, engine technology, stealth, aerodynamics and sensor. However, US has retained its manufacturing capability here, whereas China has a very low-end aerospace industry. As a result, we see that China has to rely on Russia for engines until WS-10A can be ramped up. We see that China has to cooperate with the Russians and Europeans on advanced helicopter designs. We also see that China has to cooperate with Ukrainians and copy IL-76 in order to get its own military transport. Even after it successfully develops an aircraft, it cannot produce them at the same rate as Boeing or Airbus or Sukhoi. Just look at how much trouble SAC is having in just produce 10+ J-11Bs. At the same time, we see that it simply does not have the work force, technology and expertise to mass produce larger aircraft like Y-8, MA-60 or ARJ-21. I don't really call producing 30 ARJ-21s a year mass production. However, you see that China is really attempting to catch up in this area the same way it has in shipbuilding and automaking. It is getting an assembly plant for Airbus 320 in Tianjin on top of the assembly plant for ERJ-45 and also trying to develop its own airliner. At the same time, it has ready become a major supplier for both Airbus and Boeing. And in the recent Zhuhai airshow, we heard news that China is buying a Western aviation firm.

It's been a general Chinese practice to start by producing the simpler parts and then slowly move up the value chain while advancing technologically. Eventually, it will be able to first copy and then eventually design its own machinery. It has already happened in shipbuilding and automaking. I think it will also get there in a decade in aerospace. There really isn't much Western companies can do here. China has managed to capitalize on the competition between advanced Western companies for the Chinese market by getting them to transfer technology in certain cases, do joint venture in other cases and source parts in other cases. Unless everyone refuses to sell to China, a nation that is devoting this much resources to advance technologically will succeed. And you can also see this happening in other major industries like nuclear power plant, renewable energy and space technology (to a less degree). And I think the best point that Pat made is this one.

With her immense trade surpluses, China's reserves have surged from $200 billion in 2002 to $2 trillion. Awash in dollars, Beijing now waits patiently, writes McMillion, to cherry-pick the crown jewels of America's industrial empire—"patents, talents, natural resources, brands"—at fire-sale prices in the global crash.

It's scary that he is mentioning this, because that's exactly what I read China is trying to do in the recent years. It has already bought out Western companies in automaking, CNC machinery for their technology rather than their business value. It's a luxury that most Western countries don't have. With a huge account deficit in most G-7 countries, they really don't have the money or the public support to rescue every company that has advanced civilian technology. Remember, China is trying to improve its overall technological and manufacturing prowess. Military industry will only be helped by advancement in civilian areas as clearly shown in shipbuilding.

Congradulations to Barack Obama

I will try to keep this a rare thing. I normally don't post my political views on my blog, but I thought this is simply too big to ignore. Those who know me personally know that I've been an Obama supporter for a long time. In fact, I've been a supporter since 2006 when he announced his candidacy. Personally speaking, I don't agree with a lot of his policies, but I've always supported him. I believe that the leader of America should be a truly unique person with strong leadership qualities. The policies are formulated by the advisers and other members of the party. I will never find a candidate whose policies I agree 100% with. However, true leaders have something different. They have the ability to inspire the nation to do greater things. They have the ability to get the young people to believe in themselves and believe in the nation. They have the ability to give vision to the people, so that they can have hope and optimism. It's like in sports. The best leaders may not happen to be the best player/athlete, but their leadership inspires team mates to be better than they could ever be alone. That's what I always saw in Obama. He inspires a lot of people (including myself) to work hard for the greater good of the world. He gives me hope that this present quagmire will be over. Somtimes, having confidence in life is the only placibo we need to achieve greater things. Maybe all this inspiration and enthusiasm will not succeed (and it is hard to with the current economic situation), but he can't be any worse than George Bush. We will have at least a president that is respected by the rest of the world, an intelligent man at the helm and change the way the world thinks about America. Just by the virtual of having a black man elected, it tells the world that America is not just ruled by a bunch of old white man. But that it really is a land where anyone can do anything. That alone would change and has changed the way that the rest of the world thinks about America. This really is something no other candidate can do.

And when he was making his acceptance speech, I felt like crying. When I first came to North America and learning about the culture here, my first hero was Martin Luther King. I remember that goosebumps I had when I first heard the "I have a dream" speech. So, when Obama went back on the civil rights movement back in the days, it was almost too much for me to bear. It was amazing for not only the fulfillment of an old dream, but the start of a new one. Even though Obama is black and I am Chinese, I've always felt that I could relate to him. I related to him as someone who was born into a situation without much expectations, but managed to do well in life with the support of a loving family. When he spelt out a dream, he was not only doing it for black people, mixed-racial people or single parent people, but also for those who on the surface do not seem to share a life story with him. I'm a Canadian living in America, so I'm caught in the economic downfall like everyone else is. I wish that the change he speaks of will become beneficial to people in America and the rest of the world.

As for his policies, I personally don't support a lot of them. I'm very fiscally conservative and also believe that offshore drilling should be allowed and nuclear power should be the largest part of a clean air initiative. I like Ron Paul the most. I personally think that his economic policies would've been the most positive for America, but they are too radical for the main stream media and the public. Basically, I like the old school conservatism that believed in small government, pragmatic foreign policy and low taxes (which no one can label the present day Republicans). So despite having such a leaning, I never looked away from Barack's character, leadership and intelligence. These are qualities that I did not see to the same degree in any other candidates.

252 is launched

One of the members on SDF asked me last night if the 2nd F-22P was launched and I just answered no. Of course, I didn't get a chance to check the military forums, because of the Halloween stuff. When I checked it this morning, it was a little embarrassing that I was wrong about it. Anyhow, here are some of the photos from 252 launching.





Also, we saw a new video + photos of the new CAC UAV that came out recently. I'm convinced this thing is not going to be a major part of PLA, because they normally keep new systems tightly under the wrap. Only export items like JF-17 and L-15 get shown right from the start.





Also, some additional news:

• Venezuela reduced the order of K-8s from 24 to 18
• Harbin received an order for 4 Z-9s from Kenya
• China will get help from Russia in its goal of building a heavy helicopter with maximum start-off weight of around 30 tons
• They have also purchased 4 Mi-26s from Russia

Next week is the Zhuhai airshow, so we will get plenty of news coming out, stay tuned.

The RAND study on PLAAF vs USAF in 2020

I recently read the RAND analysis on possible encounters between China and Taiwan/USA in 2020. You can find it here. I have to say that after some initial prejudice toward their analysis, I became fairly impressed by the different scenarios they talked about. I think one must look at this as a good starting point rather than a realistic study. I've always found Taiwan scenario to be too complicated to be discussed on a military forum, so I try not to get into such debate. So the following is an attempt to ask more questions, trying to think of more possibilities rather than answering what is and is not going to be successful.

I think an interesting part that they went over are the number of air bases available to both side in this scenario. The important part is pointing out that Kadena is basically the only USAF base close enough to Taiwan strait and Anderson is the only other base close to there. It also showed the possible and the number of other possible air bases available to America in the area from Japan and South Korea + give some thoughts into areas that would be considered safe for the US carrier and would that would mean to this scenario. So, I think the important questions they raised include the following:

1. Can China take Kadena out of the picture with missile strike and if so how long can they keep it out of commission? In order to answer this question, I would have to know the kind of air defense available at the beginning of the conflict (assuming that USN cannot get there in time to support with its Aegis umbrella). If it is taken out, how fast can it be repaired? If it's repaired, how fast can it be re-supplied? If does have USN protection after being repaired/re-supplied, will it be taken out again by further strikes of ballistic missile, KD-88s and PGMs? So basically, will USAF be able keep this air base open and maintain adequate sortie rate? Even if this can be accomplished, will USAF risk placing any advanced units there?

2. In any Taiwan/China scenario, with South Korea and/or Japan get involved? I think South Korea would unlikely be involved, but will Japan help out Taiwan by sending its navy? Or will it let USAF use its air bases? I certainly the latter case is likely, because Japan has been very vocal about its commitment to USA alliance and its problems with China. There will obviously be some logistical issues of USAF using Japanese bases, so the question would be how long it would take for these bases to be useful? And if Japan allows its bases to be used by USA, will China also be targeting those bases? And if China does target those bases, we are looking at a much larger conflict.

3. The Andersen air base is the only other air base that's within operational range of Taiwan strait. Will this air base remain unscathed in possible conflicts. One thing that has been brought up is that we will likely see B-2 going into Chinese territory to attack Chinese air bases and SAM sites. On the flip side, what about Chinese bombers carrying LACMs against Andersen air base? It is certainly within the range of a H-6K carrying 6 long range LACMs. The report states that 34 missiles would in effect cripple Kadena air base? How many tomahawk LACMs would put Andersen out of commission? And even if Andersen is not taken out, can they significantly reduce the number of sorties launched from there? Similar to point 1, would the risk of getting hit in the hangar prevent USAF from placing a valued asset like F-22 there?

4. What about air bases in China? It's certainly inconceivable that USAF would leave these air bases and SAMs alone in any kind of war scenario. I could imagine that B-2s would be sent in to hit bases that are close to Taiwan and also field elite units. And when USN carrier groups get in there, you can guarantee that many Tomahawk missiles will be sent to Chinese SAMs, GCI sites, long range radar stations and air bases to reduce PLAAF's readiness and sorties. Even if we believe in the invincibility of B-2 and conjecture it can come, drop off the bombs and leave unscathed, how many of its bombs/missiles and Tomahawks from USN ships will not be intercepted? If the air bases get damaged, oil depots get hit, how long will it take for these bases to be fixed and re-supplied? And if China's inland bases are hit, what kind of retaliation can be expected? One would imagine all US military bases in surrounding regions could possibly be targeted. The most vulnerable one would be in Afghanistan due to the number of troops there and relatively lack of air defense against terrain hugging cruise missiles. Consider that Chinese missiles can Afghanistan flying through Kashmir and Pakistan, I don't think it would get any serious objections to such an attack And if we consider Iraq, it is another possible hit location, although the Chinese missiles might not have the range to go that far.

5. What about the general logistics for PLA? We can assume that USAF and USN would not have any problem with all of its experiences recently. Can PLA keep all of its bases supplied? More importantly, can it ensure that its fighters will get jet fuel needed in an extended conflict? With USN guaranteed of choking China's supply lines (either by itself or through its allies), how long can China keep on going? It has 30 days of strategic supply right now. Even if we assume increased domestic production + increased supply from Russia and Iran in the event of a war, how long can it really last? It's no wonder that Chinese plans all involve quick victory over Taiwan.

The next question is what kind of forces will be available on both side. Seeing how there will be a maximum of 183 F-22s overall, it will hard to see USAF being able to commit more than 4 squadrons (96 aircrafts) in the theatre (Andersen and Kadena air bases). And let's use the number 72 + 90 = 162 F-35A from Kadena and Japan air bases (I think we can rule out F-35A from Andersen due to its range). So, I'm guessing we will see a maximum of 96 F-22s and 160 F-35s at the disposal of USAF. If we take Kadena totally out of the picture, we might be looking at 48 F-22s and 72 F-35As. Remember, these are just hypothetical number I'm throwing out, without actually knowing the full capacity of the two air bases and also the number of tankers supporting them. If we use the commonly accepted figure of 2 USN Carrier groups in action and the air wing as described by Galrahn here:
24 super hornets, 24 hornets, 4 EA-6B, 4 E-2C, 6 SH-60.
Replacing them with planes we are likely to see in 2020, we will likely see a total of:
48 JSF, 48 super hornets, 8 E-2D, 8-12 EA-18G? and 12 SH-60

USAF/USN will also be supported by possibly 200 F-16s + a good number of M2Ks and IDF from ROCAF. The problem with Taiwan is the same with Kadena air base and Chinese air bases. Taiwan will likely see a steady bombardment from DF-11/15s, LACMs, WS-2, ASM and PGMs in the initial part of the conflict. The aim is obviously to take out the SAM sites, air bases and radar/communication sites. At this point, it's hard to say how this would affect ROCAF's sortie rate. I don't really have any data on the strategic jet fuel supply for Taiwan, the pace of repair work, the ability to keep foreign planes flying during high intensity situations or alternative lift-off options (flying off highways?). So, it's really hard to say how much ROCAF will be able to help US in the air after the first couple of days.

As for PLA, it's just as cloudy what kind of forces it will have at that time. One thing I can say is that RAND's vision of PLA fighters is really off base. I cannot imagine under the current scenario that Chinese flankers will be like su-35, but rather something domestic (as I have talked about in the past). And even aside from that, one would imagine that in 2020, PLAAF will be a force with mainly J-10 of different variants, about 300 JH-7 series fighters, about 300-400 flankers of different variants and a small number of 5th generation fighters. And one can imagine that plenty of buffer planes in the mode of JF-17 and J-8F in action also. We've seen from RAND example of all the air bases around Taiwan. We certainly can't expect all of their fighters to be used in this theatre. We also can expect a portion of the air bases to be out of commission from US missile strikes. Knowing that, it's also hard to know which air bases are equipped to handle the more "advanced" fighters. For example, would an air base usually accommodating JF-17 be able to handle J-10B fighters operating from there? How well would they handle small non-military air strips? If their air base is destroyed or too far away, would they be able to use remote civilian air strips? And for the elite units that are stationed further away from Taiwan, they would need tankers to get there. At the moment, China only has a limited number of H-6U and not much experience with them. In 12 years, how much would the Chinese refueling capability increase and how would that affect the number of sorties performed by these units? There are far too many unknowns to figure out the amount of sorties generated by PLAAF over Taiwan. And I don't expect each sortie to have the same airplanes. That will obviously change with different missions.

Also, the aerial warfare is only part of the overall battle. With the numerical advantage of ROC army over the invading PLA, one could argue that PLA would need absolute air dominance over all of its missions. And it would need to maintain air supremacy to accomplish any of its missions. In that case, all USAF would need is to prevent that to keep PLA from accomplishing its goals. However, that's outside of the scope of this discussion and I am really not knowledgeable enough to go there. So, this piece is just to raise some interesting questions on the RAND analysis.

The new naval ship for China

The type 920 medical ship was given the number 866 a while back and officially joined the navy on the 23rd. You can find articles about it on Sinodefence and on Global Security.

This is the article that talked about its entry into PLAN.

本报讯 (记者/陶达嫔通讯员/陈佳楠)由我国自行研制的全球首艘专门设计的海上医院船，23日在广州完工交船。
　　据悉,这艘海上医院船由广州造船企业、广船国际研发制造。该船的交付使用，将使我国成为世界上少数具有 远海医疗救护能力的国家之一。
　　据介绍，这艘排水量超万吨的医院船配有数百张病床和先进的医疗保障系统及消防、救生设施,每个病房舱室 都设有一个护士站，诊疗条件达到三甲医院的水平。
　　大型医院船是现代海军的重要标志之一。目前，包括美国等先进国家的海上医疗船均系民船改装而成。23日交付的该船，其排水量之大在同类船舶中堪称“亚洲第一”。据悉，在战时，该船可为作战部队伤病员提供海上早期治疗和部分专科治疗，或为舰艇部队提供卫勤支援等；在平时，则可执行海上医疗救护训练任务，也可以为舰艇编队和驻岛礁等边远地区部队提供医疗服务等。

It said that China's first indigenously designed global medical ship has been handed from Guangzhou shipyard to the navy on the 23rd of this month.

This is designed and built by the Guangzhou Shipyard International Company Limited and makes China one of the very few countries in the world to far long range medical rescue capability. This ship's displacements is in tens of thousands and has hundreds of bed, advanced disinfectant and life saving instruments. Each sick room has a nursing station, it reaches level 3A hospital standard. Large hospital ship is an important sign of modern navy. US and many advanced world's hospital ships are converted from civilian ship. This is the largest ship of its class in Asia. It says that in wartime, ship ship provides early medical treatment for injuries on sea and part of the specified treatment, can also support other ships. In peace time, it can be used for medical training on sea and can provide medical treatment for the fleet and distant islands.

Aside from their commentary, we can probably add humanitarian missions to the list of its duties also. Galrahn actually commented on this ship a while back on its humanitarian values. I think this ship will probably end up in SSF, so it can serve in Taiwan scenario, helping those islands in South China Sea and be part of the growing sea-projection part of SSF.

Jiangwei and F-22P

F-22P in many ways are based on Jiangwei. Of course, it took bits and pieces from 054 series, but its basic hulls and weaponry are more similar to Jiangwei than anything else in PLAN. I thought I'd do a little comparison between the two class of ships.
The first sample is 527, which is one of the 2 ships that were built after the first pair of 054. In a way, they are the final and best installment of the Jiangweis. The pictures below show the ship operating with a Z-9C helicopter.




The next photo shows 524, an earlier Jiangwei completed in 1999, operating in the sea.


Comparing the two, their weapons fit is exactly the same. They both use HH-7, type 79 main gun, YJ-83 and four 37 mm AA gun. The sensors are mostly the same, except that the FCR for the 37mm is clearly different on 527. You can see that with the one installed on top of the hangar. And the FCR for the Type 79 is also different, if you look at the foremast. It appears that 527 is using the one we see on 054 series (Type 344?).
And finally, how does it compare to the F-22P? The final photos show 251, the first of the F-22P class, sitting in HD shipyard getting fitted out.




Obviously, the hulls are different, with F-22P showing more of a stealthy design (adopting some concept from 054A). At the same time, the main gun and AA guns for it are completely different from the Jiangweis. You can also see that the sensors used for them are upgraded due to the newer guns being used. There is one additional search radar and possibly an ELOP tracker to guide the 30 mm. A lot of this is hard to tell until we get more detailed photos with the covers on the sensors taken off. The SAM and the SSM fit is mirror images of what you saw on Jiangwei. I would say that a hull with F-22P's size probably can't handle any other kind of missile system. The changes seen on F-22P are basically changes that can be quickly applied from a Jiangwei ship without dramatic changes. These things are relatively safe and would not require the much added sea worthy test for a new hull.

CAC

Recently, CAC is celebrating its 50th anniversary by displaying the J-10S prototype 02 outside. Generally speaking the second prototypes for any Chinese airplane project is used for static testing. It is also the case with this J-10 two-seater.






What I find interesting about this display is that they put all the export items on it. Instead of PL-12, you see the MRAAM saying "AMRAAM-10" (I guess that's the name they are using for SD-10). Instead of PL-8B, you see PL-9C on the launch rail. Instead of LS-500J, you see LT-2 as the name of the LGB. It also hangs the Blue Sky pod, which is used for low altitude navigation and targeting, and another pod that looks like the pod used to provide targeting for LT-2. With a live model like this outside with full weapons load + IFR, it would be interesting if someone can finally measure it accurately. I can't imagine these numbers will be withheld for much longer.

We also have an article about the export deals for K-8/JF-17. I think what's interesting to note about this article is that it basically says that PLAAF with be ordering JF-17. K-8 continues to be the export star of China's aerospace industry. Just this past week, we received news that the 100th K-8E was delivered to the Egyptian Air Force.