China’s Strategy Active Defense Not Anti-access, Area Denial


Active Defense Means Attack for Defense. The strategists of active defense regard attack as the best way of defense.

Lowyinstitute.org’s article “China’s counteroffensive in the war of ideas” on February 24, 2020 shows US strategists’ entire ignorance of China’s strategy.

China’s latest Defense White Paper makes it very clear that China’s strategy is active defense but the article still regards “anti-access, area denial” as China’s military strategy and believes that China’s offensives in the war of ideas are counteroffensives that mirror “its ‘anti-access, area denial’ military strategy”.

China held two South-South Human Rights Forums in 2017 and 2019 not for counteroffensives but for spreading the human rights it advocates among the vast number of developing countries. The Beijing Declaration approved by the participants of the 2017 forum regards the rights to subsistence and development as basic human rights different to the human rights system advocated by the West.

To advocate its one-party system, China held high-level dialogue between the Communist Party of China (CPC) and political parties from around the world from November 30 to December 3, 2017.

SCMP says in its report about the dialogue that according to Xinhua, the meeting was attended by representatives from over 300 overseas political groups mostly from Southeast Asia, Central Asia and Africa, but the Republican Party in the US and Russian ruling party United Russia also sent representatives.

Xi said in his speech to the dialogue, “We do not import foreign models, and we do not export the China model, either,” and “We will not require other countries to copy what we do.”

Xinhua says in its report, “Many speakers attributed China’s success to the choice of a path based on its own characteristics and praised its standing of ‘not exporting the Chinese model.’”

That implies that China provides an example of choosing the way of development based on a country’s own characteristics instead of importing other countries’ ways, which clearly means negation of importing Western democracy.

In addition, Xi said the Chinese Communist Party would step up communications with overseas political groups and enable 15,000 of their members to visit China for inter-party exchanges in the coming five years.

China will certainly incur lots of costs in providing accommodation, travel and other treatments to the 15,000 members of overseas political groups to convince them that Western democracy is not their only choice.

The above shows that China is making offensive instead of counteroffensive in conducting its active defense—Attack is the best way of defense.

Comment by Chan Kai Yee on lowyinstitute.org’s article, full text of which can be viewed at https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/china-s-counteroffensive-war-ideas.


China’s missile force is growing at an unprecedented rate


The nation appears to have introduced 11 new missile brigades since May 2017.

P.W. Singer and Ma Xiu

February 25, 2020

Vehicles with long-range DF-26 missiles during a military parade in Beijing, China, in September 2015.Ge jinfh

China’s long-range missiles play a central role in the country’s military plans. And, in the event of armed conflict between that nation and the US, they’re the weapon the American military worries the most about.

Despite their pivotal role in Chinese war-fighting strategy, the service responsible for those missiles, the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force (PLARF), remains perhaps the most opaque branch of Beijing’s military. While its new fleet of expanded-range missile systems—from the DF-31 and DF-41 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) to the hypersonic DF-17—have debuted in parades, there are still a number of profound changes happening in the PLARF that are relatively undisclosed.

But by tracking more subtle public announcements and news stories, it appears the number of missile brigades in the PLA has jumped from 29 to 40, an increase of more than 35 percent, in just three years.

To understand this expansion, a bit of context is necessary: The PLARF’s predecessor, the Second Artillery Force, officially formed in 1966, and by the end of the decade, it fielded roughly eight strategic missile regiments, which were later upgraded to brigades. Three more were added in the 1970s. Beginning in the late 1980s, the Second Artillery Force began fielding new short- and medium-range missile types, requiring the addition of new brigades. Four new brigades stood up between 1980 and 2001, three of which were equipped with these new missiles.

The first decade of the 2000s saw faster growth: Eleven new units stood up between 2001 and 2010, at least eight of which were equipped with the latest missiles, including the DF-31 (the PLA’s first road-mobile ICBM), the CJ-10 (its first land-attack cruise missile), and the DF-16 SRBM, as well as the improved DF-21C. Similarly, when the DF-26 intermediate-range ballistic missile began to come online in the late 2010s, two of the next three brigades may have been equipped with it.

New brigades are usually equipped with the PLA’s most advanced missiles. BluePath Labs

Why build so quickly recently? A review of available information on Chinese news and web sources about the 11 new brigades offers some hints as to the direction and reasons behind this expansion.

Recent brigades by date.BluePath Labs

Of these, the 644 Brigade, established in July 2017, is perhaps the most intriguing because it offers a glimpse into the kinds of new weapons that these brigades will likely carry. This unit test-fired a new missile in April 2016, and again at some point in late 2017, prior to it officially entering service. Both the DF-41 (the newest ICBM) and the DF-17 (which carries a hypersonic glide vehicle called the DF-ZF) were tested in April 2016 and late 2017. Given this timeline, and the previous pattern of new brigades being created to accommodate new missiles, this unit is likely one of the first equipped with those two new missiles.

Further, this unit was reported to have been given the unit title “New Generation 1st Dongfeng Brigade.” Such honorifics are occasionally conferred upon units that are the first to achieve a major milestone: The 1st Dongfeng Brigade was the first unit equipped with a Dongfeng missile, the 1st Conventional Brigade was the first equipped with a conventional missile, and the 1st Cruise Missile Brigade was the first to deploy a cruise missile. The deployment of the PLA’s first hypersonic missile would certainly qualify for such an honorific. On the other hand, the brigade’s location in Hanzhong, close to existing ICBM formations, may indicate a DF-41 or DF-31AG unit.

These units are likely important developments for the PLARF, and as such the public information on these brigades is limited, especially compared to the amount of information about American equivalents. However, we can say that the new units appear to be evenly distributed geographically, indicating that it is modernizing across the board, as opposed to a singular focus on a specific region.

Locations of new brigades established since 2017. BluePath Labs

Further, it appears that these brigades are continuing the trend of being equipped with the latest missile systems; there is at least one DF-26 brigade, as well as three brigades with unidentified new model missiles. Most interestingly, at least one of them appears to be equipped with a missile system that came online in the last two years, likely the DF-41, DF-17, or DF-31AG. This would indicate that the PLARF is not only growing new units rapidly but is equipping these new brigades with its most advanced weapons.

What’s more, two of the brigades are equipped with dual-use weapons systems (DF-26, DF-21C) that have both nuclear and conventional war applications, with the others likely equipped with the DF-41, DF-31AG, and DF-17, all of which are nuclear or nuclear-capable.

This fits within what China laid out in its 2019 Defense White Paper, which noted that the strategic requirements of the PLARF include “enhancing…nuclear deterrence and counterattack [and] strengthening intermediate and long-range precision strike forces.”

The new units and the evidence on the ground tells the tale of a growing force, with growing capability well beyond what is glimpsed in parades.

Ma Xiu is an analyst with BluePath Labs, a DC-based consulting company that focuses on research, analysis, disruptive technologies, and wargaming.

P.W. Singer is Strategist at New America and author of multiple best-selling and award-winning books on national security.

Source: Popular Science “China’s missile force is growing at an unprecedented rate”

Note: This is Popular Science’s article I post here for readers’ information. It does not mean that I agree or disagree with the article’s views.


Will Flying Cars Help the US Beat China? The Air Force Hopes So


By Patrick Tucker

February 25, 2020

Service officials say giving American manufacturers first-mover advantage is just as important as the military benefits of vertical-lift buses.

The U.S. Air Force wants flying cars. But more than that, it wants to give U.S. manufacturers a head start in a hot future market.

On Tuesday, service officials released a request for proposals for the Agility Prime program, which seeks a highly modular vertical-lift aircraft that could play a variety of roles. The service dubs them ORBs, for organic resupply buses.

Given their flexibility, an ORB could act as an organic resupply bus for disaster relief teams, an operational readiness bus for improved aircraft availability, and an open requirements bus for a growing diversity of missions. ORBs could enable distributed logistics, sustainment, and maneuver, with particular utility in medical evacuation, firefighting, civil and military disaster relief, installation and border security, search and rescue, and humanitarian operations,” the request said.

Will Roper, the service’s assistant secretary for acquisition, said last week that that program is much broader than just building a flying bus. He’s looking to create the circumstances by which the industry can take off in the United States before it swims to China.

Roper made his remarks to a handful of Pentagon reporters, but he could have been speaking to an international crowd of policy-makers and Fortune 500 CEOs in Davos or Munich. Helping to launch a flying car market in the United States is “equally” as important as acquiring them for the Air Force, he said.

DOD provides about “20 percent of the [research and development] funding in this country,” he said. “Twenty percent is not going to compete with China long-term, with a nationalized industrial base that can pick national winners.”

A January report from data analytics company Govini supports that view. Govini found that while the U.S. government and U.S. businesses are spending more on research and development than China, the pace of China’s investment is surpassing that of the United States.

Among the tech winners that China has been able to poach from the United States is the consumer drone market. Roper described it as a cautionary tale for what could happen with flying cars. “The Pentagon didn’t take a proactive stance on it and now most of that supply chain has moved to China. If we had realized that commercial trend and shown that the Pentagon is willing to pay a higher price point for a trusted supply chain drone,” the drone market would be different, and the U.S. military would be the direct beneficiary.

We probably could have kept part of the market here and not have the security issues we do now when someone wants to use a foreign-made drone at an air force or service event.”

Agility Prime is saying, ‘we’re not going to let that happen again and we’re going to be part of the global tech ecosystem.’”

The Air Force has created a venture arm, Air Force Ventures, to persuade the venture capital community to invest in projects with military relevance. Roper said that partnering with the big-money houses of Silicon Valley has already helped to bring $400 million in private investment into companies working on defense problems.

The Air Force has also introduced processes meant to get more money to companies that aren’t traditional defense contractors. In the beginning phase, there’s AFWERX, which the Air Force created in 2017 as a seed investor. AFWERX is making investments of roughly $50,000 in small companies as part of the Small Business Innovation Research, or SBIR, program. Companies that make it to phase II of the SBIR program could get $1 million. Finally, the Air Force is looking to match the investment of private venture capitalists for bigger bets.

That’s a big departure from the way defense contracting happens traditionally, with a known defense contractor snagging a big multi-year contract and then working it until it’s canceled. “We’re not going to get a new defense prime. It collapses every year through mergers and acquisitions. Trying to recreate the 20th century industrial base is a losing strategy,” Roper said.

Early-stage investments in technology that could have dual military and civilian use, Roper said, is the only way the United States is going to stay competitive with China. But the military has a lot of other assets it can bring to bear on tech innovation that the private sector can’t, such as testing ranges for experimental aircraft.

The acquisitions program for Agility Prime would feature a “challenge-based acquisition plan. We’ll have different durations of flight and payloads that have to be carried. And if you pass the hurdle, you will move further down the wickets of getting safety certified and moving onto a procurement contract. We’re working with our operators right now on what missions” that might entail, he said.

Roper hopes that certifying companies to produce flying cars for the Air Force will go a long way to convincing other federal authorities to give their stamp of approval. “The companies that are able to make it to that point are able to go to domestic certifiers and say, ‘You should trust that I am able to fly commercially,’” he said.

Peter W. Singer, a strategist at New America, said, “Pentagon leaders are putting far more thinking into supply chains than they were in the past, in both already established programs of record as well as what might be the programs 20 years from now. So I am supportive of this kind of thinking. A challenge, though, is in areas where the consumer side might take off, pun intended. The Pentagon’s buying power might be enough to aid a startup at the early stage, which is obviously valuable. But the long term prospects of a firm selling into a mostly civilian market are going to be decided outside the E-Ring.”

Paul Scharre, a senior fellow and the director of the Technology and National Security Program at the Center for a New American Security, said, “I think it’s good that DoD is thinking about supply chain security and how commercial markets evolve. Keeping a demand signal in the marketplace for trusted suppliers is important for shaping how an industry evolves.”

Stephen Rodriguez, a senior advisor at the Atlantic Council, said “China came to dominate the commercial drone market not only by investing heavily out of their federal coffers but also, and probably more importantly, coordinating their industrial policy with commercial technology developers. This enables Beijing to clearly see what technology they need to buy or build and what technology wasn’t important. We still wrestle with this paradigm. Whether we have a ‘trusted market’ or not, Washington still needs to understand what technologies are truly game-changing on an ongoing basis, and then building programs around that policy.”

Source: Defense One “Will Flying Cars Help the US Beat China? The Air Force Hopes So”

Note: This is Defense One’s article I post here for readers’ information. It does not mean that I agree or disagree with the article’s views.


China says WSJ admitted mistakes after its reporters expelled


February 26, 2020 / 4:08 PM / Updated 34 minutes ago

BEIJING (Reuters) – China’s foreign ministry said on Wednesday the Wall Street Journal had been in touch with the Chinese government over a February column that Beijing says carried a racist headline, and had admitted its mistakes.

Toby Doman, spokesman for Wall Street Journal’s publisher Dow Jones & Co, declined to comment on the matter when contacted by Reuters.

Foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian told reporters that the newspaper had not formally apologised.

China last week ordered three journalists with the Wall Street Journal’s Beijing bureau to leave the country after the newspaper declined to apologise for a column with a headline calling China the “real sick man of Asia.”

Reporting by Cate Cadell and Brenda Goh; writing by Se Young Lee; Editing by Shri Navaratnam

Source: Reuters “China says WSJ admitted mistakes after its reporters expelled”

Note: This is Reuters’ report I post here for readers’ information. It does not mean that I agree or disagree with the report’ views.


New Chinese billionaires outpace U.S. by 3 to 1: Hurun


February 26, 2020 / 4:26 PM / Updated an hour ago

BEIJING (Reuters) – China minted three times as many new billionaires than the United States in the past year, with fortunes made in drugs and online entertainment after a mini-boom from the coronavirus outbreak, a ranking of the world’s wealthiest people shows.

The Greater China region, including Hong Kong and Taiwan, created 182 new billionaires in the year to Jan. 31, taking its total to 799, according to the 2020 Hurun Global Rich List released on Wednesday. That compares with 59 new U.S. billionaires.

While the outbreak of a new coronavirus in China has hammered the world’s second-biggest economy, it has also driven up stock valuations of Chinese companies in online education, online games and vaccinations, the report said.

With much of China stuck at home due to quarantines and travel restrictions, demand for online services has surged, lining the pockets of billionaire founders such as Robin Li of Baidu (BIDU.O), owner of popular online video platform iQiyi.

Healthcare entrepreneurs specializing in vaccinations did well, including An Kang of Hualan Biological Engineering (002007.SZ) and Jiang Rensheng of Zhifei Biological Products (300122.SZ).

China today has more billionaires than the U.S. and India combined,” said Rupert Hoogewerf, founder and chairman of the Hurun Report, which counted 629 U.S. billionaires and 137 in India.

New Chinese entrants include Cheng Xianfeng of drug maker Yifan Xinfu Pharmaceutical (002019.SZ) and Shen Ya of online discount retailer Vipshop (VIPS.N).

In the past year to end-January, tech stocks in China .CSIINT surged 77% and Chinese pharma companies .CSI300HC gained 37%, beating a 16% rise in world stocks .MIWD00000PUS.

A boom in tech valuations and strong stockmarkets across the U.S., India and China propelled the billionaires to record heights,” said the British accountant, who began publishing the list in 1999.

U.S. tycoons still led the list, with Amazon.com (AMZN.O) founder Jeff Bezos retaining the top spot for a third year with a $140 billion fortune.

Jack Ma of Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba Group (BABA.N) topped China’s billionaires with $45 billion and came in No. 21 overall, but he was overtaken by Elon Musk from Tesla (TSLA.O) due to soaring shares in the U.S. electric carmaker.

Technology was followed by property, manufacturing, capital and retail as a major source of wealth in the past year.

Despite the U.S.-China trade war, Ren Zhengfei, founder of Shenzhen-based telecoms giant Huwei Technologies, blacklisted by the U.S. government, saw his personal wealth grow 7% to $3 billion, roughly on par with that of U.S. President Donald Trump.

Beijing is the world’s billionaire capital for the fifth year, with 110 billionaires, against 98 in New York. Shanghai overtook Hong Kong to claim third spot.

Reporting by Stella Qiu and Ryan Woo; Additional reporting by Luoyan Liu in Shanghai; editing by Richard Pullin

Source: Reuters “New Chinese billionaires outpace U.S. by 3 to 1: Hurun”

Note: This is Reuters’ report I post here for readers’ information. It does not mean that I agree or disagree with the report’ views.


US Helpless in Killing Huawei as Europe Refuses to Cooperate


CNBC says in its article “Trump official compares Huawei to ‘the Mafia’ as White House works on 5G battle plan” yesterday that as a senior US official denounced China’s Huawei as “the Mafia”, CNBC believes that White House has ratcheted up its war of words against Huawei. However as the official was not willing to disclose his name, it is difficult to determine whether what the article says is authentic.

However, the article is believable about Trump’s angry phone call with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson in the wake of the U.K.’s announcement that it would allow Huawei products in its 5G networks.

CNBC’s article is also believable about US New acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell’s suggestion that “the United States would cut off intelligence cooperation with Germany if that country doesn’t keep Huawei out of its telecommunications network.”

The war of words against Huawei seems formidable but is not effective as US allies would not do as the US tells it to.

Sorry, the US does not seem powerful enough to kill Huawei.

Comment by Chan Kai Yee on CNBC’s article, full text of which can be viewed at https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/25/trump-official-calls-huawei-mafia-as-white-house-works-on-5g-battle-plan.html.


Photo Shows That U.S. Submarines Still Have Stealth Problems


H I Sutton Contributor Feb 24, 2020, 07:50am

One of the U.S. Navy’s latest fast attack submarines, the USS Colorado, recently returned from its maiden deployment. Homecoming photos show that large sections of the stealth coating have come off.

This issue is not new. Last September a whistleblower accused a U.S. shipbuilder of falsifying quality tests on the stealth coating. Whether or not quality control is an issue, the coatings are evidently still falling off.

This official photo of the USS Colorado (SSN 788) returning to Groton on February 20 clearly shows … [+] H I Sutton (original photo US Navy)

USS Colorado (SSN 788) is the 15th Virginia Class submarine, and the fifth of the enhanced Block-III model. She was launched on March 17, 2018, so she is still considered new. And this was her first deployment. Significantly, she was built at a different shipyard than the one in the whistleblower case. This shows that problems with the coating are wider than that one complaint.

A certain amount of understanding is needed on this topic. The stealth coatings, known as anechoic coatings or as Special Hull Treatment in the U.S. Navy, are an engineering challenge. They work by absorbing sound waves from sonar, which is one way submarines are detected and tracked. But the coatings need to stay attached in some of the most challenging environments on earth. The hull of the submarine, despite being made of super-strong steel, flexes as the submarine goes deep. And the coating is exposed to temperature changes.

The U.S. Navy sends its submarines on longer patrols and in harsher conditions than most navies so the problem is exacerbated. According to an official press release, the Colorado steamed approximately 39,000 nautical miles during the deployment. That is roughly equal to sailing twice around the world.

We know that she has been in harsh northern waters. Although her exact route and activities are classified, it was reported that she crossed into the Arctic Circle. And she conducted port visits to Haakonsvern in Norway and Faslane in Scotland.

Based on open sources I have seen, when she pulled in to Faslane on January 10, most of the visible holes in the coating were already there. But at least one small section has come off since leaving Scotland.

The U.S. Navy is not alone in having challenges with its stealth coatings. The Royal Navy, which deploys in similar patterns, often has parts of the coating come off. And the Russian Navy, which operates in the harsh Arctic, faces similar problems. Their challenges are further exacerbated by the titanium hulls of some of its submarines, which appears to be even harder to stick the coating to.

So next time you see a submarine with visible scars where the coating has come off, realize that it is a common problem which reflects the hard operating conditions. A fix may be in the works.

Source: Forbes “Photo Shows That U.S. Submarines Still Have Stealth Problems”

Note: This is Forbes’ article I post here for readers’ information. It does not mean that I agree or disagree with the article’s views.