USS Fitzgerald’s recent accident US military’s serious discipline problems so that such accident may have occurred for a warship with the most advanced equipment to avoid such accident. The crew simply were not on duty or were sleeping on duty so that they were not alert enough to avoid such an accident.
Moreover, any navy that has imposed some discipline shall immediately arrest the captain and the officer in charge of navigating the warship. Some countries’ military may have them court marshaled and put to death as their negligence has caused the death of US sailors in peace time.
Their negligence in causing death of their crew members have to be punished severely but US Navy does not seem willing to do so. US Navy is conducting an investigation. For what? Even if the accident was caused by malfunction of equipment, the officers had still to be held responsible. They had their duty to find the malfunction and take remedy measures immediately. The investigation is carried out to find some excuse to protect the negligent officers! Usually officers want to protect their peers. The highest command shall have taken immediate measures to impose discipline and arrest the guilty officers. The lack of discipline is a serious problem in US troops, which proves the poorest training in a military with the best equipment. No wonder, US troops have suffered one failure after another.
Article by Chan Kai Yee
Reuters is pleased to report Japanese warship’s travel in Chinese lake within China’s nine-dash line in its report “Japanese warship takes Asian guests on cruise in defiance of China” on June 23. It regards Japan’s move as a challenge at China’s nine-dash line, but Japan dare not sail near any of Chinese artificial islands like the US did but made clear it was but carrying routine freedom of navigation operation in order not to upset China.
Japan certainly dare not do what the US has done. It sailed in Chinese lake but China has never said that it did not allow others’ warships sailing there. It even allowed others to carry naval drills there as long as the drills as declared by those who conducted the drills were not directed at China.
Reuters stressed in its report that ASEAN military officers were on board of Japanese warship, but could not mention the officers’ ranks as their ranks were not worth mentioning.
From that you can see the Japanese warship’s travel in the South China Sea is meaningless.
Comment by Chan Kai Yee on Reuters’ report, full text of which can be viewed at http://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-defence-carrier-idUSKBN19E138.
China was used to keep confidential about its submarine technology until there was possibility of war between China and the US.
To avoid US retaliation with nuclear weapons when China has sunk a US aircraft career, China took rare exceptional moves to reveal its strategic nuclear submarines on CCTV primetime news for three consecutive days. Such second-strike capabilities constitute effective deterrence to nuclear war.
Since then, China has begun to show its nuclear submarines and reveal its progress in improving its nuclear submarines. The world now knows that China is able to build nuclear submarines better than the US and has built a submarine superfactory able to build four nuclear submarines simultaneously.
What about the technology to detect submarine that is vital to submarine defense.
Previously, Western media regarded that as a mystery as there had been no information about China’s submarine detection capabilities.
SCMP says in its report “Has China developed the world’s most powerful submarine detector?” today, “The Chinese Academy of Sciences, the country’s largest research institute, said in an article on its website on Wednesday that a ‘superconductive magnetic anomaly detection array’ has been developed in Shanghai and passed inspection by an expert panel.
Shanghai scientists say that the technology can detect with unprecedented accuracy metallic objects hidden deep underground and in the water. Such technology is ideal for detecting submarines.
The Academy says that no other countries except Germany have such technology but Dr Lei Chong, an assistant researcher studying MAD (magnetic anomaly detector) technology at the Department of Micro/Nano Electronics, Shanghai Jiaotong University, has some doubt.
SCMP quotes Dr. Lei as saying, “I am surprised they made such an announcement. Usually this kind of information is not revealed to the public because of its military value.” Therefore, according to Dr. Lei, the US may have such technology but does not reveal that.
This blogger believes that China reveals it as deterrence to US nuclear attack, but the US has no need for such deterrence as China has declared that it will not be the first to use nuclear weapons.
In fact, it does not matter whether the US has the technology or not as long as China is able to detect US submarines and prevent US nuclear attack with such technology.
Dr. Lei points out two factors that make the technology exceptionally sensitive to signals: It consists of an array to detect signals and it uses superconductive computer chip cooled by liquid nitrogen.
Comment by Chan Kai Yee on SCMP’s report, full text of which can be found at http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2099640/has-china-developed-worlds-most-powerful-submarine-detector.
I had a post yesterday titled “China’s Space Era Strategy Overwhelmingly Superior to US Air-Sea Battle” on China’s wisdom in developing spaceplane to obtain weapon superiority.
Some people question Chinese President Xi Jinping’s wisdom in stressing development of integrated space and air capabilities for both attack and defense. They argue that having lagged much behind the US in space technology, China is not practical in pursuing such capabilities as it will not be able to tackle lots of tricky technologies for the development of a spaceplane.
They, however, seem ignorant that the technology is not quite new. The US developed its space shuttle in 1981 and put it in operation in 1982. Space shuttle is in fact a kind of spaceplane. It was vertically launched, but landed horizontally.
Xi, however, has the vision to see the tremendous potential of spaceplane as a formidable weapon and the confidence in Chinese scientists and engineers’ ability to master the technology.
US military lacks the vision to see the fierce military capabilities of spaceplane; therefore, they have given up instead of making efforts to further improve their space shuttles. Otherwise, the US would have much more advanced spaceplanes than China now.
From this we can see the vital importance of weapon strategy. The US has a much greater military budget but is losing in its arms race with China due to its military poor weapon strategy.
One thing really absurd is US military experts’ repeated description of China’s A2/AD and US anti-A2/AD weapons and measures to break China’s A2/AD.
They have kept on doing so despite Chinese military has made clear to US military that A2/AD is not China’s strategy. In addition, China has published a white paper on China’s strategy of active defense.
Is US military so strategy illiterate as not being able to distinguish between A2/AD and active defense?
World War II has already taught military strategists the importance of weapon strategy, but US strategy illiterates seem to have not learnt from the lessons.
Before World War II Germany saw the potential of the new weapons of tanks and warplanes and adopted advanced technology to make its army mechanized and its warplanes dominate the sky. It has thus made Britain and the Soviet Union suffer seriously at the beginning of the war.
Ignorant of the importance of air force, a British battleship was sunk by Japan’s aircrafts at the beginning of the Pacific War.
At that time, the US realized the importance of aircraft carrier and won the war against Japan with its air-sea battle strategy.
Now, like Britain before the beginning of World War II, the US fails to realize the importance of adopting the most advanced technology of our space era to develop integrated space and air capabilities. Its space competition with the Soviet Union was a waste of huge resources for a show of technical superiority. When it has won the competition, it neglects space and transfer its resources to pursue near-term weapon superiority.
China’s space program is not for show. It aims at obtaining technology for weapon development and exploiting space resources.
China’s aerospace bomber with space era technology will destroy US best aircraft carriers just like the destruction of British battleship by Japanese aircrafts in World War II.
Article by Chan Kai Yee.
By Matthias Blamont and Victoria Bryan | PARIS Thu Jun 22, 2017 | 2:08pm EDT
This year’s Paris Air Show was dominated by the annual order battle between Airbus (AIR.PA) and Boeing (BA.N), but industry executives said the duopoly will be forced to share the stage at future shows as newcomers from Russia, China and Japan muscle into the passenger plane market.
Japan’s Mitsubishi Aircraft Corp (7011.T) brought its MRJ regional jet to Europe for the first time during the air show. China and Russia carried out maiden flights of new narrow-body aircraft last month in their bids to enter the $100 billion-plus annual aerospace market.
The two countries have also set up a joint venture to build wide-body jets to challenge incumbents.
Consultants Alix Partners estimates that of the current order backlog of around 13,000 planes, about 7-8 percent are for planes from new entrants, among them Russia, China and Japan.
Delegates at the show said mounting a proper challenge will take Russia and China at least a decade. The newcomers face headwinds including proving their technology, and gaining customer confidence by deploying and maintaining a quality aircraft maintenance and support network.
“Overall, there are big steps not only on the product side but on the support and services side for the airlines to feel confident that they can go in and order those aircraft,” Pascal Fabre, managing director at Alix Partners in Paris, said.
However, China and Russia are large enough markets that orders from their home countries alone could propel the respective airliner ventures.
Among COMAC’s first customers for its C919 was China Eastern, which has ordered up to 20 planes from the Chinese manufacturer, while Aeroflot is due to take the Russian MS21.
COMAC said this week total orders for the C919 stood at 600 from 24 customers.
Giorgio Callegari, strategy and alliances director at Russian carrier Aeroflot (AFLT.MM), said people he met at the air show showed great interest in the MS21 and the Russian-China wide-body cooperation. Aeroflot is set to lease 50 MS21 planes from state defense conglomerate Rostec.
“If maybe in the past, Russian airplanes were discarded as a non-factor, they are now taken much more seriously and people can see that they are potentially a serious competitor,” he told Reuters.
The chief executive of Qatar Airways, Akbar Al Baker, said he would not have a problem buying jets from Chinese or Russian manufacturers, provided they met operational and performance requirements.
BATTLE FOR THIRD SPOT
Some executives at the airshow said the marketplace would eventually settle on three major manufacturers and placed their bets on China’s COMAC to win that third spot.
“Twenty years from now, I think there’ll be the big three manufacturers of Airbus, Boeing and China,” said Airbus sales chief John Leahy.
However, Leahy said it would be hard for countries to make billions of dollars of investments over decades to get the product line and support network up to scratch.
Cedric Goubet, vice president of commercial engines at Safran (SAF.PA), said he too is betting on the Chinese.
“My feeling is that it will be the Chinese. They have the resources, the skills, the national ambitions and a huge domestic market,” he said, while adding that it was also crucial to get export orders.
Dang Thiehong, deputy head of marketing at China’s COMAC, told Reuters the aircraft market was big enough to share. “We hope to provide our services and products to the market no matter in which part of the world,” he said.
China is crucial to the growth prospects of all the major airliner manufacturers.
Randy Tinseth, vice president of marketing and sales at Boeing’s commercial aircraft division, cautioned against the dangers of underestimating new rivals, “Never sell your competition short.”
Japan’s Mitsubishi has set its sights on the regional jet market instead of going head to head with the larger planes sold by Airbus and Boeing or rising Chinese and Russian rivals.
Yugo Fukuhara, vice president sales and marketing at Mitsubishi, told Reuters, “Our vision of this business is to become one of two major regional plane makers. We don’t compete with China and Russia.”
(Additional reporting by Tim Hepher, Andrea Shalal, Giulia Segreti, Cyril Altmeyer, Mike Stone; Editing by Adrian Croft)
Source: Reuters “Beyond air show, newcomers challenge Airbus-Boeing duopoly”
Note: This is Reuters’ report I post here for readers’ information. It does not mean that I agree or disagree with the report’ views.
There is no denial that the US regards China as its top potential enemy. Obama made it very clear that his Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was directed at China.
Obama’s pivot to Asia, in spite of his claim that it was not directed at China, was directed at China. That was clear to everybody.
The US is obsessed with military solution. That is why it maintains an excessive military budget in spite of its shortage of funds for its people’s welfare and its essential but dilapidated infrastructures. Obama’s major approach for his pivot to Asia was to deploy 60% of US military in Asia.
China follows its gifted strategist Sun Tzu’s teachings: Subdue the enemy with strategy is the best of best, with diplomacy the next best, with fighting the third option while with attacking enemy cities the last choice. China’s approaches now are first of all strategy, the strategy of weapon development to achieve military superiority and the strategy to exploit its geographical advantages.
It first built seven artificial islands to fully exploit its geographical advantages to prevent US attack of its homeland.
Chinese President Xi Jinping’s stress on development of integrated space and air capabilities for both attack and defense is the space era strategy that requires the development of technology for space travel. It is difficult but formidable. When China has succeeded in building an aerospace bomber so fast as capable to chase an ICBM, the US will have not even the ability to defend its homeland, let alone the capability to attack China.
However, US politicians and military, being strategy illiterate, adopts their air-sea battle strategy with which it won World War II when computer has not been invented yet. Now, they stick to the outdated strategy in spite of their failures in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Their new aircraft carrier is indeed very advanced but will be easy prey of an aerospace bomber.
I have just had a post that compares US and Chinese hypersonic flying vehicles based on a Popular Science’s article. It shows how ambitious Chinese are compared with US unmanned models with limited military capabilities.
China will certainly subdue the US with its superior strategy. It is only a matter of time.
Strategy illiterates have not learnt from the lessons from World War II. That is America’s major problem.
Germany adopted advanced technology to develop best tanks, lots of warplanes and rockets and made Britain and the Soviet Union suffer seriously.
British battleship was sunk by Japan’s aircrafts as it fails to realize the importance of air force. Like Britain, the US fails now to realize the importance of integrated space and air capabilities. Its space competition with the Soviet Union was a waste of huge resources for a show of technical superiority. When It has won the competition, it neglects space and transfers its resources to pursue near-term weapon superiority.
China’s space program is not for a show. It aims at obtaining technology for weapon development and exploiting space resources.
It is very clear the US is repeating Britain’s failure. US best aircraft carriers will be destroyed by aerospace bombers like Britain’s battleships by bomber aircrafts.
Article by Chan Kai Yee
Popular Science publishes Jeffrey Lin and P.W. Singer’s June-17 article titled “American and Chinese aircraft could be flying 4,000 miles per hour by 2030: How China and the United States compare in the hypersonic arms race”
The following comparison shows that China’s are developed by state-owned enterprises with abundant government financial support due to Chinese President Xi Jinping’s strategy on the development of integrated space and air capabilities for both attack and defense. Therefore, China’s are larger, manned and faster than America’s. US models are small and unmanned. As they have not yet been funded by US government, developers will not make great investment for fear of incurring heavy losses if they fail to receive orders for their planned products.
Lockheed Martin’s SR-72 Scramjet Hypersonic airplane
Turbine rocket combined cycle (TRCC) engine
Not a spaceplane
Speed: Mach 6
Altitudes: 18 and 62 miles
test flight by 2030
Boeing’s XS-1 DARPA Phantom Express
Duel-state-to-orbit (DSTO) two-stage spaceplane
hypersonic plane powered by liquid fueled rockets. Once the XS-1 is in near space Altitude: 18- to 62-mile, stage two leaves stage one to go to space.
Stage two (to replace satellite):
Weight: 1.5 ton
CASIC (the Chinese Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation)’s Teng Yun
DSTO two-stage spaceplane
Payload: 10-15 tons
For fast, global reconnaissance and strike
Manned or as launch rocket
Send five taikonauts or 2 ton cargo to Chinese space station.
To be delivered by 2030
Funds: $16 billion
CASC (Chinese Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation)’s spaceplane
A true spaceplane that can depart from and reenter orbit on multiple occasions during the same flight, traveling at greater speed compared to a near-space-only hypersonic aircraft such as SR-72.
SSTO (single-stage-to-orbit), a true spaceplane with only one stage
TRRE (The turbo-aided rocket-augmented ram/scramjet engine) paving the way for hypersonic near space planes and single-stage space launchers. The engine is to be developed by Beijing Power Machinery Research Institute to fly in 2025.
Manned for space travel
To fly with people on board by 2030
Comment by Chan Kai Yee on Popular Science’s article, full text of which can be viewed at http://www.popsci.com/hypersonic-arms-race-china-united-states#page-5