Stratfor says in its article “Why Europe Won’t Shut the Door on Huawei” that though due to US warning on security in using Huawei, EU will only pressure member states to “update their security requirements for 5G partners to mitigate the potential risks”. It will let its members decide whether to use Huawei.
However, the article concludes: “(M)any countries that already use Huawei’s equipment for 4G may ultimately decide that the easiest, cheapest and fastest route is to continue using the Chinese company for their 5G networks. But even then, they’ll probably still introduce some restrictions, or at least additional controls, on the company — both to appease the United States, and to address domestic concerns about the security implications of such a crucial technology.”
Comment by Chan Kai Yee on Stratfor’s article, full text of which can be viewed at https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/why-europe-wont-shut-door-huawei
June 2019 News Navy Naval Maritime Defense Industry Posted On Thursday, 13 June 2019 15:54
The China’s maritime early warning system appears to be immune to “radar killer” missiles and is reported to be capable of detecting stealth aircraft, according to its development team led by Chinese academician Liu Yongtan.
The maritime radar system, developed by a team led by Chinese academician Liu Yongtan, can detect naval and aerial hostiles hundreds of kilometres away under any weather condition according to an interview given by the developer to Chinese media. It features high-frequency electromagnetic waves that have long wavelengths and wide beams, Liu said in an interview with the Naval and Merchant Ships magazine published this month.
While electromagnetic waves emitted by a normal radar travel in straight lines and, since the Earth is round, cannot help see what is beyond the horizon, the high-frequency ones used by Liu’s radar travel along the sea surface, and he said this makes it possible to detect and monitor vessels and aircraft beyond visual range.
The long wavelengths used by the system mean it could also detect stealth aircraft, Liu said. This is because current stealth aircraft are mainly designed to hide from microwaves and not waves of longer wavelengths, experts said. The radar can also avoid attacks from anti-radiation missiles, thanks to the waves’ wide beams because such missiles cannot carry antenna large enough (to track them), Liu said.
A land-based version of the system can detect naval and aerial hostiles hundreds of kilometres away, which helps expand China’s maritime early warning and defence depth, Liu said. Variants of the system can also be equipped on ships, providing them with early warning capabilities in the high seas with a much farther detection range, he said.
Source: Navy Recognition “Chinese new radar system immune to radar killer missiles”
Note: This is Navy Recognition’s report I post here for readers’ information. It does not mean that I agree or disagree with the report’ views.
This blogger’s comment: The CNBC report I Reblog below shows that Trump is self-contradictory as he is at a loss what to do. His Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping remains silent as he has full self-confidence. Xi’s comment that he believes that the US does not want decoupling means he is asking the US the question: Does the US want decoupling while he wants to be a friend. For friends, there have to be mutual respect and equality so that China will not accept humiliating terms. That is what makes Trump anxious.
Trump downplays possible G-20 meeting with Chinese President Xi: ‘It doesn’t matter’ if he shows up
Published Fri, Jun 14 2019 • 9:49 AM EDT|Updated an hour ago
- President Trump appears to downplay expectations about a possible meeting with Xi Jinping at the G-20 summit later this month.
- He now says “it doesn’t matter” if the Chinese president shows up or not.
- “If he shows up, good, if he doesn’t – in the meantime, we’re taking in billions of dollars a month [in tariffs] from China,” Trump tells Fox.
President Donald Trump on Friday appeared to play down expectations about a meeting with Xi Jinping at the G-20 summit later this month, saying “it doesn’t matter” if the Chinese president attends.
“If he shows up, good, if he doesn’t — in the meantime, we’re taking in billions of dollars a month [in tariffs] from China,” Trump said in a 50-minute telephone interview on Fox News’ “Fox & Friends.”
Trump’s remarks Friday morning seemed to clash with comments he made just a few days earlier on CNBC.
In that interview Monday, the president vowed to immediately slap tariffs on an additional $300 billion worth of Chinese imports if Xi didn’t attend the G-20 summit, which is scheduled for June 28-29 in Osaka, Japan.
Neither the White House nor the Council of Economic Advisors immediately responded to CNBC’s requests for comment on the president’s latest remarks.
Tariffs are typically paid by the entities that import the shipments. Tariff defenders, including White House trade advisor and China hawk Peter Navarro, argue that the exporting companies are the ones punished.
“So our people are not paying — you know there’s this big thing about tariffs, ‘Oh, our people pay’ — it’s a lot of nonsense. You know what happens, really? Companies move back,” Trump told Fox.
In May, Trump increased tariffs on Chinese imports by $200 billion after trade negotiations between the two economic superpowers fell apart.
The possible bilateral meeting at the G-20 summit was seen by current and former Trump administration officials as a high-stakes stepping stone on the path toward regaining the ground lost with China and eventually securing a deal.
“There won’t be a deal at the G-20,” Clete Willems, a former top Trump trade advisor, said in an interview Tuesday with CNBC’s Kayla Tausche. But a Trump-Xi meeting at the summit could “catalyze a productive period of negotiations where the deal closes.”
Source: CNBC “Trump downplays possible G-20 meeting with Chinese President Xi: ‘It doesn’t matter’ if he shows up”
Note: This is CNBC’s report I post here for readers’ information. It does not mean that I agree or disagree with the report’ views.
BEIJING (Reuters) – Chinese President Xi Jinping told Iran’s president on Friday that China will promote steady development of ties with Iran no matter how the situation changes, Chinese state media said.
The official Xinhua news agency said Xi made the comment in a meeting with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan.
The United States blamed Iran for attacks on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman on Thursday that drove up oil prices and raised concerns about a new U.S.-Iranian confrontation, though Tehran has denied the allegation.
Reporting by Michael Martina; Editing by Nick Macfie
Source: Reuters “Xi says China will promote steady ties with Iran”
Note: This is Reuters’ report I post here for readers’ information. It does not mean that I agree or disagree with the report’ views.
According to White House, US President Donald Trump called former US President Jimmy Carter in April 2019 in reply of Carter’s letter to him.
There has been no information about what Carter wrote to Trump about, but as revealed by White House Trump discussed with Carter on phone about his fear of China ‘getting way ahead’ of the US, it seems now that like lots of Americans, Trump has also fallen into Thucydides trap. Then Carter must have written to Trump about China’s rise. He perhaps tried to persuade Trump not to assault China with the trade war.
Carter knows that the trade war is not about trade deficit or the fabricated China’s theft or compulsory transfer of technology but China’s rise to surpass the US.
Carter said, “The main thing that he (Trump) emphasized to me was, the main purpose of his call, was to say very frankly to me on a private line that the Chinese were getting way ahead of the United States.”
Carter was not surprised by Trump’s words and gave the explanation that China focused on its own development without fighting any war since 1979 but in that period the US is always at war to impose its values on other countries.
Now, as the US is not able to attack China militarily, it attacks China with a trade war which is not aimed at stopping China’s rise instead of imposing its values on China.
Regarding China’s rise, Carter, a devout Christian, said in church on Sunday,“As you have heard to your concern perhaps, the Chinese are likely to be number one superpower economically within the next few years.”
He then asked what being a superpower meant? According to him, it’s “not just who has the most powerful military, but who is a champion of the finer things in life”, which should include peace, the environment, human rights and equality that all Christians should believe in.
With that view, Carter is certainly unhappy that Trump has broken peace in fighting a trade war with China and has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement on global warming.
He said China is investing its resources into infrastructure projects while the US has stayed at war. Obviously, he gave Trump the advice to withdraw from war and focus US resources on construction to make US economy grow. Will Trump, deep in Thucydides trap, listen to him?
Trump knows that he has not much ammunition to subdue China with his trade war. His threat of further tariff hikes reflects his weakness. As China does not want the trade war, there may be some agreement to end the trade war, but to win votes for his relection, Trump has to maintain his hostility against China; therefore, Trump and other Americans are bound to create further trouble for China. Judging by what Trump did at the beginning of his administration, perhaps he really wants to be China’s friend in order to exploit China’s vast market, but he has to wait until being reelected. By that time there may be another honeymoon between him and President Xi Jinping Who knows!
Article by Chan Kai Yee.
By Zhang Zhouxiang |China Daily |Updated: 2019-06-12 07:36
At a news conference on Sunday, Geng Shuang, a spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, criticized US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for making false claims about Chinese telecommunications enterprise Huawei. China Daily writer Zhang Zhouxiang comments:
One remark by Geng in particular created a buzz online. He said that Huawei had obtained 46 commercial contracts for 5G networks in 30 countries worldwide by June 6, and some of the countries are allies of the United States, despite Pompeo working hard to persuade them not to use Huawei products.
Anybody with a normal mind will find it hard to understand why the world’s only superpower is so afraid of a private enterprise from China that it is intent on persuading its allies to cut all business ties with the company.
Business is business, and in business there should only be commercial factors to consider. When any country, be it in Europe or anywhere else in this world, needs 5G services, all it wants are good products, good services and good prices.
Huawei offers all these. According to a report by IPlytics, a patent big data company based in Berlin, four Chinese companies own 36 percent of the world’s patents necessary for 5G standards; Huawei alone has 1,554 of them.
If European countries blindly exclude Huawei from their purchasing lists as the US requires, they would have to spend an extra 428.7 billion yuan ($61.9 billion) building their 5G networks.
Therefore, it is natural for European countries to choose Chinese companies for the construction of their 5G networks. Actually, Huawei is popular among US companies and US consumers, too. Just as Nicholas Negroponte, founder of MIT Media Lab, said in an open letter in May, by banning Huawei, US authorities will force US consumers to choose not-so-good services with higher prices.
Especially, many small telecom companies use Huawei devices in their 5G networks, and if Huawei is banned, they might not be able to benefit from the new technology. US farmers need 5G networks to analyze data of their crops, while US small businesses need them to analyze and decide their purchasing lists.
It is time the US authorities reconsidered their choice: Will they choose being connected, or being out of date simply because of their prejudice against a Chinese company?
Source: China Daily “Pompeo’s scare-mongering falls flat”
Note: This is China Daily’s article I post here for readers’ information. It does not mean that I agree or disagree with the article’s views.
By: Valerie Insinna and David B. Larter 16 hours ago
WASHINGTON — At extremely high altitudes, the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps’ versions of the F-35 jet can only fly at supersonic speeds for short bursts of time before there is a risk of structural damage and loss of stealth capability, a problem that may make it impossible for the Navy’s F-35C to conduct supersonic intercepts.
The Defense Department does not intend to field a fix for the problem, which influences not only the F-35’s airframe and the low-observable coating that keeps it stealthy, but also the myriad antennas located on the back of the plane that are currently vulnerable to damage, according to documents exclusively obtained by Defense News.
The F-35 Joint Program Office has classified the issues for the “B” and “C” models as separate category 1 deficiencies, indicating in one document that the problem presents a challenge to accomplishing one of the key missions of the fighter jet. In this scale, category 1 represents the most serious type of deficiency.
Click here for more on the hidden troubles of the F-35.
Both deficiencies were first observed in late 2011 following flutter tests where the F-35B and F-35C both flew at speeds of Mach 1.3 and Mach 1.4. During a post-flight inspection in November 2011, it was discovered the F-35B sustained “bubbling [and] blistering” of the stealth coating on both the right and left sides of the horizontal tail and the tail boom.
During similar tests of the F-35C in December 2011, “thermal damage” that compromised the structural integrity of the inboard horizontal tail and tail boom were apparent.
Vice Adm. Mat Winter, who leads the F-35 program on behalf of the Pentagon, told Defense News that the department has taken steps to mitigate the problem with an improved spray-on coating, but added that the government will not completely fix it — instead accepting additional risk.
As justification for the decision, Winter noted that the issue was documented while the jet was flying at the very edge of its flight envelope. He also said the phenomenon only occurred once for both the B and C models, despite numerous attempts to replicate the conditions that caused the problem.
“How often do we expect something like that to occur?” he said. “It’s very, very small.”
Greg Ulmer, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 program head, said there have been no cases of this problem occurring in the operational fleet and that incidents have been limited to the “highest extremes of flight testing conditions that are unlikely replicated in operational scenarios.”
Winter acknowledged that the deficiency could keep the Navy from accomplishing its supersonic intercept mission — as the documents charge — if similar issues were being experienced more widely across the F-35C inventory.
“If you had that performance on all of your fleet, then you would have a problem. That’s not the case,” he said.
“We have put into place what we believe are the appropriate technical fix to ensure that our F-35Cs have the full envelope and capability to do the high-speed mission, if needed. That’s where we are. Right now, our United States Navy and Marine Corps flying the sea agree with that,” he said.
The new coating, which was introduced in Lot 8, allows the jet to withstand hotter temperatures caused by the afterburner, the documents stated. Winter characterized the material as able to withstand “what we call the thermal shock wave,” but declined to specify how the coating works or how much protection it provides.
“It may be some future advanced materials that can withstand the pressure and the temperature,” Winter said. “Then we see that, and we go, ‘Hey, look, we’ve got this on the book,’ [and] we do a test check to see if that new material solves that problem.”
The Defense Department has also instituted time limits on the number of seconds the F-35B and F-35C can fly at speeds in excess of Mach 1.2 while at full afterburner.
However, those restrictions are somewhat complicated, and it is unclear how pilots are expected to monitor their compliance to the limits while in flight.
For example, an F-35C can only fly at Mach 1.3 in afterburner for 50 cumulative seconds, meaning that a pilot cannot clock 50 seconds at that speed, slow down for a couple seconds and then speed back up. However, the time requirements reset after the pilot operates at military power — an engine power setting that allows for less speed and thrust than afterburner — for a duration of three minutes.
The F-35B can fly for 80 cumulative seconds at Mach 1.2 or 40 seconds at Mach 1.3 without risking damage.
But for both the C and B models, flying at Mach 1.3 over the specified time limits poses the risk of inducing structural damage to the aircraft’s horizontal stabilizer.
It is infeasible for the Navy or Marine Corps to operate the F-35 against a near-peer threat under such restrictions, the documents acknowledge.
“Pilot observed timers are not practical/observable in operationally relevant scenarios,” one document read. Another document said that “pilots will be unable to comply with time limit in many cases due to high mission workload, resulting in lost missions due to aircraft damage.”
And when those timer violations occur, they will result in “degradation of [stealth], damage to [communications, navigation and identification] antennas, and/or significant [horizontal tail damage],” one document explained.
How significant is this problem?
The limitations on the afterburner, when combined with another deficiency pertaining to the plane’s maneuverability, could prove deadly in close-combat scenarios.
The concept of operations for the F-35 is to kill an enemy aircraft before it can detect the fighter jet, but relying on long-range kills is a perspective that, for historical and cultural reasons, naval aviation distrusts. In the Vietnam War, when air warfare began heavily relying on missiles and moved away from the forward gun, it caused a spike in air-to-air combat deaths.
The lesson naval aviation took away was to prevent the latest and greatest technology from offsetting the learning of fundamentals, and it was the impetus behind the formation of Top Gun 50 years ago, a naval strike fighter course for training and tactics development.
“The solution is: ‘Hey, we’ll just limit the afterburner to less than a minute at a time,’ ” one retired naval aviator said, when told of the issue. “Which, with what the aircraft is supposed to do and be capable of, that’s a pretty significant limitation.”
“If you want to use it on the first or second day [of a conflict], it has to be stealthy, so you can’t hang a lot of external stores, which means you have to use internal fuel and internal weapons. And that means you have to launch fairly close in and you’ve got to be close enough to do something to somebody. And that usually means you are in a contested environment,” the aviator said.
“So you’re saying that I can’t operate in a contested environment unless you can guarantee that I’m going to be however far away from the thing I’m trying to kill,” the aviator added. “If I had to maneuver to defeat a missile, maneuver to fight another aircraft, the plane could have issues moving. And if I turn around aggressively and get away from these guys and use the afterburner, it starts to melt or have issues.”
The issue is compounded for the Navy, which must operate forward for months at a time, because any significant issues with coatings or the structure of aircraft would require a depot-level repair. And so a damaged aircraft would remain damaged until its host ship return to home port, reducing the combat effectiveness of the air wing.
“We might have to be operating at sea for eight months, so if you damage something on week one, guess what? It’s damaged for the rest of the deployment. And it affects your ability to evade detection by the enemy — you just degraded that asset permanently until you can get it somewhere where it can be fixed, at great expense and time,” the aviator said.
However, a naval aviator currently in service said the afterburner problem may not be that troubling to pilots, who must frequently work around a jet’s limitations. The key, he said, is understanding how often the issue occurs.
“I think you’d do well to go back and look at all the times they used the afterburner and that didn’t happen,” he said. “We’re talking about tens of thousands of sorties at this point that this aircraft has flown.”
Other aircraft that the Navy operates also have afterburner limits, he explained.
“I think that number needs context,” he said. “It looks scary on its own, but [the Super Hornet] has afterburner limits. They’re not that restrictive, but they have them. The aircraft has an afterburner, you want it to work.
“But I would want to get context for that number: Does this represent 0.002 percent of all sorties? If that’s the case, I don’t give a sh–, and I’ll probably have 15 other things fail before that.”
Bryan Clark, previously a top aide to former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert and now an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, likened the limitation on the afterburner to similar restrictions on submarine and ship operations.
“I think the operational impact is not huge, since it only applies during a small fraction of the jet’s operational profile. In subs and ships, we have a ‘safe operating envelope’ that defines where the platform is engineered to operate reliably for a long time. We can operate outside the safe operating envelope for a short time, but there are risks to doing so. The operator or commander needs to balance those risks against the benefits,” he said.
“That is similar to this situation,” he added. “The pilot can be on afterburner as long as needed to evade a threat but has to know the risk of structural damage increases. The pilot can balance that against the risk of getting shot down because he or she didn’t evade fast enough.”
The most important piece will be how well trained the pilot is on the aircraft, he continued.
“As a submariner, I knew the risks of being outside the safe operating envelope and how those risks increased over time and would impact ship performance.”
Source: Defense News “Supersonic speeds could cause big problems for the F-35’s stealth coating”
Note: This is Defense News’ report I post here for readers’ information. It does not mean that I agree or disagree with the report’ views.