National Interest’s article “Why China Thinks Its Stealth Fighter is Better Than the F-35” quotes the description by Chinese defense magazine Shipboard Weapons’ article on J-20 being superior to American jets in many categories.
The article says nothing to refute the description but says, “However, the Shipboard Weapons article does gloss over a few problems. Chief among them is the J-20, an as-yet unproven design whose WS-15 engines have been plagued with reliability issues.”
The problems for the National Interest’s article is that it has nothing to prove WS-15 engines have been plagued with reliability issues. On the contrary, my post has proved that at least three batches of WS-15 have been delivered. (see my post “At Least 3 Batches of World Most Powerful WS-15 Engine Delivered” on September 1).
If WS-15 had been plagued with reliability issues, no one would have accepted delivery of at least three batches of it.
Comment by Chan Kai Yee on National Interest’s article, full text of which can be viewed at https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-china-thinks-its-stealth-fighter-better-f-35-82536.
Our Bureau 10:59 AM, September 18, 2019 15773
China will commission “Sharp Sword,” its new stealth-drone built for the country’s first indigenous aircraft carrier, the Type 001A by the end of this year.
The drone will feature on October 1 at the National Day parade in Beijing.
“The Type 001A carrier will be equipped with reconnaissance version of the Sharp Sword drone,” a source in the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) was quoted as saying by SCMP on Tuesday.
The Sharp Sword is one of two drones to grow out of Shenyang Aircraft Design Institute’s AVIC 601-S stealth UAV testbed.
“In order to reduce its weight, the reconnaissance version of the Sharp Sword would not carry weapons despite having two internal bomb bays, because it needs to fit the ski-jump take-off ramp on the Type 001A. This drone’s key mission will be gathering intelligence for ship-borne missile systems, enabling the missiles to accurately hit targets that are 300 km to 400 km away,” the PLAN source explained.
The other drone that was developed from AVIC 601-S stealth UAV testbed is the Dark Sword, touted as the world’s first sixth generation aircraft at its unveiling last year.
“China has learned the technology from the US and France. The US is developing a similar drone, the Boeing MQ-25 Stingray, and France has the experimental Dassault nEUROn carrier-based UAV,” the sources said.
Source: defenseworld.net “China to Deploy Sharp Sword Stealth Drone on Type-001A Carrier by Year-end”
Note: This is defenseworld.net’s article I post here for readers’ information. It does not mean that I agree or disagree with the article’s views.
In its article “Beyond China’s J-20 Stealth Fighter” on September 20, The Diplomat reveals that in an inerview with AVIC Times Dr. Wang Haifeng, the current chief designer of China’s Chengdu Aerospace Corporation (CAC), “states that not only has China already been conducting pre-research for a next generation fighter, but also that he predicts current efforts will progress to become weapons to ‘defend the seas and skies’ by 2035 or earlier”.
Comment by Chan Kai Yee on The Diplomat’s article, full text of which can be viewed at https://thediplomat.com/2019/09/beyond-chinas-j-20-stealth-fighter/.
PublishedSep 16, 2019, 2:36 am SGT
WASHINGTON (AFP) – Maritime operations, missile tests, landing exercises: the Pentagon has been sharply stepping up its efforts to counter China’s growing military power, seen increasingly as a threat.
On Friday an American warship approached the Paracel Islands, an island chain claimed by Beijing in the South China Sea, to affirm international “freedom of navigation” in the region.
The USS Wayne E. Meyer, a guided-missile destroyer, passed near the islands to contest Beijing’s sweeping claims to the seas around the archipelago, which is also claimed by Taiwan and Vietnam.
The Chinese claim would block “innocent passage” by other countries’ ships and is “not permitted by international law,” a US Seventh Fleet spokeswoman, Commander Reann Mommsen, said.
Friday’s was the sixth “freedom of navigation operation” – or FONOPS in naval jargon – this year, a clear acceleration in pace.
There were a total of eight in 2017 and 2018, and only six during the entire Obama presidency.
On Wednesday, the US Marine Corps announced it had conducted exercises on the Japanese islet of Tori Shima, hundreds of miles south of Tokyo, to practice landings on “hostile” shores and the seizure of landing strips.
The exercises were clearly designed to highlight the ability of the American military to invade a disputed island and establish a supply base for aerial operations.
“This type of raid gives the commanders in the Indo-Pacific region the ability to project power and conduct expeditionary operations in a potentially contested littoral environment,” one of the officers in charge, Commander Anthony Cesaro, said in a statement.
Such a forthright description, coming from a Pentagon hardly known for unguarded talk, reflects the fresh impetus Defense Secretary Mark Esper has given to the US policy of “strategic rivalry” with China and Russia.
Esper, who chose Asia for his first overseas trip only weeks after being sworn in as Pentagon chief, has made clear that the US wants to rapidly deploy new missiles in Asia – possibly within months – to counter China’s rising military power.
TO ‘CHANGE THE GEOMETRY’
On Thursday, acting US army secretary Ryan McCarthy, speaking in a Senate confirmation hearing, defended the development of such new missiles.
He said the new medium-range conventional missiles Washington wants to develop – now that the US is no longer constrained by the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, which the Trump administration abandoned last year – would “change the geometry within Southeast Asia.”
“If we can get the appropriate partnerships, expeditionary basing rights with partners within the region,” McCarthy said, “we can change the geometry and basically reverse anti-access, area-denial capabilities that have been invested by near-peer competitors” – jargon for pushing back against sovereignty claims by China and Russia.
Last month the Pentagon chose the Pacific Ocean for its first test of a conventional medium-range missile since the end of the Cold War – effectively driving a nail into the coffin of the INF treaty, which banned the use of land-based missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500km.
And in late August, Washington formally established its Space Command, or Spacecom, a new unified command charged with ensuring US domination in space, where China has been increasingly active.
Beijing rattled US military officials in 2007 when it launched a missile that located and then destroyed a Chinese satellite, in a dramatic demonstration of China’s growing ability to militarise space.
Source: Straits Times “Pentagon steps up efforts to counter China’s rising power”
Note: This is Straits Times’ article I post here for readers’ information. It does not mean that I agree or disagree with the article’s views.
According to mil.huanqiu.com’s report on September 18, 2019, world most powerful turboshaft engine AI-136T, a product of China-Ukraine joint venture, is on display at the 18th Beijing International Airshow. The engine can satisfy the need for power of a heavy helicopter.
Source: mil.huanqiu.com “World most powerful turboshaft engine for heavy helicopter showcased at Beijing Airshow” (summary by Chan Kai Yee based on the report in Chinese).
September 17, 2019
One thing is clear: The attack revealed the limits of Saudi Arabia’s seemingly sophisticated air-defense system. Riyadh in recent years has spent billions of dollars building up six battalions of U.S.-made Patriot surface-to-air missiles and associated radars. The Patriots didn’t stop the recent attack.
by David Axe
Follow @daxe on Twitter
The missile strikes that badly damaged a key Saudi oil facility on Sept. 14, 2019 largely remain a mystery to the public.
Yemen’s Houthi rebels, who have been at war with a Saudi-Emirati coalition since 2015, claimed responsibility for the coordinated attacks on two Saudi Aramco facilities, but it’s unclear that the Houthis alone possess the capacity for long-range, precision-guided strikes.
It’s possible the attacks involved far-flying drones firing small, guided munitions. The Aramco sites are around 800 miles from the Saudi Arabia-Yemen border. Iran’s hard-line Revolutionary Guard Corps in the past has supplied the Houthis with weaponry including drones and components for ballistic missiles.
But one thing is clear. The attack revealed the limits of Saudi Arabia’s seemingly sophisticated air-defense system. Riyadh in recent years has spent billions of dollars building up six battalions of U.S.-made Patriot surface-to-air missiles and associated radars. The Patriots didn’t stop the recent attack.
And it wasn’t the first time Saudi Arabia’s Patriots have failed. At least five Patriots apparently missed, malfunctioned or otherwise failed when Saudi forces tried to intercept a barrage of rockets targeting Riyadh on March 25, 2018.
Houthi forces fired at least seven rockets at Saudi Arabia that night. The Saudi military launched Patriot Advanced Capability-2 missiles in an attempt to destroy the Houthi rockets in mid-air. The Saudis claimed seven of the Patriots struck their targets.
One man reportedly died after being struck by metal fragments. It’s unclear whether the fragments came from a malfunctioning Patriot, a successful intercept or a Houthi rockets striking the ground.
But amateur videos that appeared online in the aftermath of the missile skirmish indicate that many of the Patriots exploded in mid-air or veered off course. The errant missiles invoked memories of similar failures involving American-operated Patriots during the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
“It’s nothing but an unbroken trail of disasters with this weapon system,” said Theodore Postol, an MIT physicist and prominent critic of U.S. missile defenses.
Riyadh seems to realize it needs better missile defenses. “Saudi Arabia has been in talks to acquire the same S-400 advanced air-defense system that Turkey recently bought from Russia,” Marc Champion wrote for Bloomberg.
The Russian weapon, though little tested in combat, has technical advantages over U.S. Patriots. It has a range of 400 kilometers (250 miles), versus the Patriot’s 160 kilometers, can destroy targets moving twice as fast and can be mounted for action in five minutes, compared with an hour for a Patriot battery. …
Russia pairs its S-400s with the smaller Pantsir-S1 system, to handle low flying and short range missiles that would slip past the larger ballistic missile defense system. Though Russia has deployed S-400s in northwestern Syria, it has used the Pantsir system to counter drone strikes.
“Ideally, the Saudis need layered defenses, including short-range point defense systems like the German Skyshield or Russian Pantsir to allow rapid engagements of small threats with cheaper systems than the massively expensive Patriot,” Justin Bronk, research fellow for air power and technology at the U.K.’s Royal United Services Institute, told Champion.
But all kinds of traditional air-defenses could struggle to keep up with small, inexpensive drones firing even smaller, cheaper precision munitions.
“Here’s a cold hard reality that most people just don’t understand, including many defense-sector pundits—air defense systems, no matter how advanced and deeply integrated, aren’t magic,” Tyler Rogoway wrote at The War Zone. “They have major limitations, especially considering most primarily rely on ground-based sensors.”
We live in an age where everyone has access to high-resolution satellite imagery of nearly any point on the globe. This is something that was unthinkable even following the end of the Cold War. A single individual now has the capabilities that entire government intelligence agencies were built to produce, all on their smartphone or laptop computer. And it’s entirely free!
GPS is even more of a revolutionary capability. It’s incredible pinpoint accuracy really has become more concerning since the hobby drone industry exploded and now components to control drones via GPS are somewhat off-the-shelf in nature and are supplied from manufacturers around the globe. With these two things combined, a bad actor has both the targeting intelligence and the precision targeting capabilities available for a minuscule fraction of what they cost in the past and without any major barriers of entry.
These types of strikes don’t have to originate beyond a border, they can even originate from anywhere, including right here in the U.S. against U.S. targets. We must change our way of thinking when it comes to precision munitions and drones, and especially the imaginary line that still seems to separate them. In addition, confronting this issue just won’t be about fielding near and very costly military gear, it will also be about implementing, regulations, working with the global community and a lot of intelligence gathering. The best and cheapest way to stop any attack is to do so before they start.
David Axe serves as Defense Editor of the National Interest. He is the author of the graphic novels War Fix, War Is Boring and Machete Squad.
Source: National Interest “Did U.S. Missile Defenses Fail During Saudi Oil Attack?”
Note: This is National Interest’s article I post here for readers’ information. It does not mean that I agree or disagree with the article’s views.
Washington Free Beacon’s article “FBI Arrests Chinese Official for Visa Fraud” tries to exploit a suspected single visa fraud as propaganda about China’s theft of US technology.
The visa was obtained by alleged fraud for a Chinese scholar to work in the US to help the US develop high technology. It is common cultural exchange. No contract has been signed between the scholar and the US party to forbid the scholar to bring back what he has learned in the course of development. That is common for Chinese scholars working in the US. If the US party had wanted to have Chineses scholar signed such contracts, most probably, the Chinese scholars would not have signed it. That is why China has got the technology and know-how brought back by such scholars.
However, the article reflects US government’s witch hunt about China’s theft of US technology. China has got US technology lawfully. It recruits Chinese, Chinese American and foreign scholars lawfully through its Thousand Talents Plan. The scholars go to China willingly and lawfully. The US is unhappy that they provide China with their own intellectual property developed in the US with no restriction to their transfer to China.
The article said that the alleged visa fraud was linked to a Chinese government-funded Confucius Institute at a U.S. university. It exploites the case to say, “The more than 100 Confucius Institutes have become a major focus of several members of Congress who have sought to have the institutes shut down in response to their role in furthering pro-Beijing propaganda activities.”
What the institutes have done is but to clarify the truth to refute US media’s demonizing of China. If US media regards that as propaganda of lies it can simply use the truth it has found to expose those institutes’ lies and make them lose credibility. Then China will be wasting its funds in setting up and maintaining those institutes. There is no need to shut down them as advocated by several US Congress members.
The article quote a White House report as saying, “”Chinese government sources claim over 44,000 highly skilled Chinese personnel have returned to China since 2009 through talent plans.” “As noted by China Daily, which is owned by the Chinese Communist Party: ‘China has more than 300 entrepreneurial parks for students returned from overseas. More than 24,500 enterprises have been set up in the parks by over 67,000 overseas returnees.'”
However those Chinese returnees have been attracted back to China lawfully by China’s attractive incentives instead of being kidnapped by Chinese government. What is wrong with that? If the US is unhappy, it can simply ban Chinese students’ and scholars’ entry into the US.
However, the US is unwilling to do so. Instead the article quotes Assistant Attorney General John C. Demers, head of the National Security Section, as saying that the United States welcomes foreign students and researchers”. Why? Chinese researchers have played a major role in US research and development of high technology and lots of Chinese students trained in the US will become such researchers to benefit the US.
US problems are that Chinese students and researchers are indispensable for US scientific and technological research and development but the US is unable to prevent them from bringing back to China what they have learned in the research and development.
The US can only resort to witch hunts and propaganda of China’s theft of US technology. The alleged visa fraud was able to get Chinese scholar’s entry into the US only proves how the US is thirsty for Chinese talent.
Comment by Chan Kai Yee on Washington Free Beacon’s article, full text of which can be viewed at https://freebeacon.com/national-security/fbi-arrests-chinese-official-for-visa-fraud/?utm_source=Freedom+Mail&utm_campaign=8ab05e870a-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_09_16_09_40_COPY_242&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b5e6e0e9ea-8ab05e870a-46069085.