China makes military strides as Iraq fight rages

 

By Eric Talmadge - The Associated Press

Posted : Saturday Sep 29, 2007 9:04:46 EDT

 

KADENA AIR BASE, Japan — While the U.S. has been tied up in Iraq, China is modernizing its military and its air defenses are now nearly impenetrable to all but the newest of American fighters, the senior U.S. military official in Japan said.

 

Lt. Gen. Bruce Wright, commander of the roughly 50,000 U.S. forces in Japan, Washington’s biggest ally in Asia, said in an interview with The Associated Press this week that the Iraq war is reducing the availability of U.S. troops and equipment to meet other contingencies.

 

It’s also eating funds that could go toward replacing or upgrading planes that are being pushed to their operational limits, he said.

 

China, meanwhile, is rapidly filling the skies with newer, Russian-made Sukhoi Su-27 “Flankers” and Su-30s, along with the domestically built J-10, a state-of-the-art fighter that Beijing just rolled out in January.

 

China has also improved its ballistic missile defenses and its ability to take the fight into space — as it proved in January by shooting down an old weather satellite at an orbital height similar to that used by the U.S. military.

 

Wright stressed he is “positive” about the current efforts to increase diplomatic and political engagement with Beijing. But he said the Chinese military buildup is disconcerting.

 

China says spending for its People’s Liberation Army, the world’s largest standing army with 2.3 million members, grew 17.8 percent this year to nearly $45 billion.

 

The Pentagon estimates China’s actual defense spending may be much higher, because the official budget does not include money for high-priced weapons systems and some other items.

 

In the U.S., the Senate is wrapping up debate on a $672 billion defense policy bill that would authorize more than a half trillion dollars in annual defense spending and $150 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

“Are we in trouble? It depends on the scenario,” Wright said Thursday. “But you have to be concerned about the small number of our forces and the age of our forces.”

 

Wright noted the Air Force’s fleet is older than ever before.

 

The average age of the F-15 fighters, for example, is about 24 years, while that of the KC-135 Stratotanker, a mid-air refueling plane that is a key element in the Air Force’s ability to conduct long-range missions, is 46 years.

 

Wright, who was at this air base on Japan’s southern island of Okinawa to meet with local commanding officers, said the improvement in Chinese air defenses has made China’s airspace “difficult if not impossible” to penetrate with the kind of U.S. fighters — F-15s and F-16s — now deployed in Japan.

 

Doing so would require the F-22 or the Joint Strike Fighter, which both have stealth capabilities. The Air Force sent a dozen F-22s to Japan earlier this year, but only for a temporary deployment. It has no plans to bring more here permanently.

 

The Joint Strike Fighter, or F-35, is not yet combat-ready.

 

“Our planes are much older than the planes they would be matched against,” Wright said. “For the first time in history, we are seeing another nation, in this case China, with newer fighters than we have. We know that they continue to invest at a level that is unprecedented. We need to be watchful of Chinese military capabilities.”

 

He said the demands of supporting ground troops in Iraq has pushed the Air Force to draw on its fighters from virtually anywhere they can be found. Two U.S. F-16 fighter squadrons from the northern Japan base of Misawa are currently rotating in and out of Iraq.

 

“The question is how much more are they going to need,” he said. “They are already pulling them out of Misawa, so where else are they going to come from?”

 

Wright noted Beijing is also at an advantage because it is not now at war, and can thus devote more of its resources to building up new capabilities.

 

“China is not engaged in a tough ground war in southwest Asia so they have the freedom to maneuver to modernize forces that are not current,” he said.

 

Air Force officials have sent up alarms recently regarding funding.

 

Although the Army and Marines are increasing their troop levels by 92,000, the Air Force had announced plans to cut its costs by reducing 40,000 personnel. That plan had to be scaled back, however, because of the need for support for the larger number of ground troops.

 

In May, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne said drastic action was needed.

 

“I’m concerned for the future,” he said. “We’re simply not funded to maintain and do everything that everyone wants us to do.”

 

Wright, who is also commander of the 5th Air Force, which is based just outside of Tokyo, said the crunch is being felt in the Pacific.

 

“It’s not just boots on the ground that’s fighting the war right now,” he said. “There’s a funding top line for the Department of Defense, and the Air Force needs more of it.”

 

Find Marine Corps Times article here.

Now what do you really think?

 

I think Iraq and Afghanistan are good excuses for the Air Force to whine about money. There aren't many people I know who aren't CEOs who think they're getting the resources they need to best do their jobs. People don't get paid what they are worth, certainly don't get the other resources (multiple monitors, fancy data analysis tools and training, ...).

 

Another argument, when we aren't at war the people at war always sound good, they are getting battlefield experience that no amount of money can buy in peacetime. When people are at war, it is the current mantra, there isn't enough money in R&D, acquisition, pool parties. Now I'd rather not be at war but that just isn't the reality, maybe it is time for a war bond drive if money is needed. I'm no fan of deficit spending, long term stupidity for short term gain. I'd rather go the bond route with short term stupidity for longterm gain.

 

Third argument, China was coming on strong before we infiltrated Afghanistan, and nobody (except perhaps India? or Russia?) could possibly keep pace. My point on this argument, long before war, the stage was set for the decline of US military dominance, funding the wars has just steepened the pace of relative decline a bit.

 

4th rant, It isn't called a little crappy ship for nothing, nor are 4 copies of a hugely expensive destroyer going to help that, nor were those same two programs going to help before the wars. How many nice little European hotrods could we have purchased with the same funds, I'd bet a whole lot more and they'd even have mission modules! I'd love to point a big finger at the acquisition process but frankly I don't know squat about it except it is awfully strange that a country can buy at least four modern Flankers for the price of one Raptor... Even scarier is seeing my friends deployed to Iraq and they go to the local sporting goods stores to properly outfit themselves, something is very very wrong.

 

I guess I just needed to rant a bit

More rants ! More rants !

My short rant

 

I, Like Tony, would rather not be at war. To me War is an acedemic exercize in the mind that should be avoided if at all possible. However my wanting to avoid it does not mean I am against it. (Confusing huh? You should see how it plays in my head!)

 

I just love the statement "for the first time in history our opponent has newer aircraft than we do" So, World War I didn't happen? You know, the war that we had to BORROW aircraft from France because our planes were TOO OLD, and our production capability was just not up to par even though the airplane was "invented" here in the US.

 

I love idiots who spout such things without realy knowing.

 

Are the Planes in the US getting older? Certainly. Who's fault is that? SIMPLE the IDIOTS that think EVERY damn aircraft in the US combat forces should be 100% Stealth!

 

Does a stealthy aircraft have major advantages over a non stealthy aircraft? Heck yes! Is it worth the cost? To me, NOT on the scale we are spending for it today.

 

The BIGGEST area where the US could SAVE money is by cutting about 90% of the UAV/UCAV programs. Most all of the money invested into these programs has been ridiculous wastes on things you just KNEW were non starters from the get-go. Dark-Star anyone? Hello! an aircraft that is a flying saucer with a wing attached at the extreme REAR is GOING to be TOTALY unstable and nigh Impossible to control! DUH! There went a Billion +

 

Right now there are only two UAV programs worth ANY sort of investment, Predetor and PredetorB/M the Global Hawk needs to be completely RE-DESIGNED from the ground up. No way are you going to take an experimental aircraft that was NOT designed for any sort of payload and make it into a long flying recon aircraft with a large (2000lb class) payload and NOT have problems. How many Global Hawks have crashed so far? Nearly HALF of all production to the start of 2007!?!?!?!

 

The F-15 Production line is STILL open USAF. Throw together a contest for "Air Superority Fighter program" a DESIGNATED BACKUP to your much vaunted "Air Dominance Fighter" (F-22) Put the F-15 Back into production for USAF TFWs! Give them an aircraft with AESA, two seats, modern countermeasures and coatings. And you will have a Fighter aircraft that CAN take on those Su-27/Su-27PUMKK (aka Su-30MKK) better than the current generation F-15C. Oh and since the airframe is that of the F-15E you get a Long life, Better engines (hello F110-GE-132!) and oh yeah a Yeoman Air to ground fighter as well!

 

JSF a great program should be cut/reduced from the USAF side. US Navy needs a real fighter plane. USAF has the F-22 and F-15. Sorry Navy and Marine peeps, The F/A-18 is NOT a plane I want to fly WVR Air to Air Combat (something that is more likely with CHina than most other countries) The Plane is not all that agile and more to the point does not have the RANGE needed to perform a good fighter sweep. Give the Navy increased importance on the JSF program to leverage the USAF's draw down in the program. US Navy NEEDs some stealth. JSF should be the DOMINANT fighter plane on Carrier decks. (well the F-14 in a new form SHOULD be but we can not all have what we wish for and Dick C has more power than me... His wish won out... THIS TIME. ) On that subject the US Navy needs to DRAW DOWN production of the sub-standard F/A-18E/F Super hornet NOW. I have NO problems with all the current production E/Fs being changed over to EF-18G "Growler" EW warfare is going to be big in the future. BUT STOP the "fighter" versions (yes that is in quotes. A plane that can not maintain Ps as well as a F-4 Phantom should NOT be in MODERN US service! Stupid people thinking the robot missile is better than a good aircraft! They thought that with the F6D Missiler, They thought that with the F-111B, they thought that with the F/A-18A. USAF has routinely chosen a more manoverable aircraft over one with extra bells and wistles (F-22 vs F-23 comes to mind as the LATEST such choice.) US Navy has stedily chosen REDUCED maneuverability aircraft since the F-14 (and it was a Blip in this trend only) The Last truly maneuverable US Naval Fighter was the F8U/F8U-3 Crusdader family. The F8U-3 could have ALSO gotten the US-Navy a Mach 3 fighter plane! In Disimilar Air combat (wtih F110 Engines, NOT with TF30s) the F-14 could hold it's own against a F8U manoverability class aircraft (IE it wasn't as good but the differnce could EASILY be made up with a smarter/more aware pilot) F/A-18A-D Hornets can hold their own vs the F-14. F/A-18E/F CAN NOT HOLD IT'S OWN VS a F/A-18A-D!!!!!!! TELLING!

 

So let me say this. (Before a bunch of Navy and Marines try to kill me for offending them) The F/A-18E/F is probably the Best tactical BOMBERS in US service (It is MILES above what the current Standard F-15E can due in terms of mission types, precision delivery and flexibility.) It just isn't a Fighter. The Designation should revert to the ORIGONAL designation of the F/A-18 Hornet. A-18 as in Attack aircraft Number 18 (out of sequence but that was the designation given) All Squadron equiped with the A-18E/F should be re-designated as VA (for A-18E) and VAH (for A-18F)

 

 

Ok Off my soap box without all my ranting thoughts vented yet. have to get to work PDQ here!

 

Craig P

Hi Craig, Tony and Brad

 

I usually look at this from the surface ship perspective. In that case stealth is way over-rated. What's the point of adding stealth to a barn to reduce the RCS to a barn door? IR and ECCM are much more important aspects to naval warfare than stealth.

 

This doesn't mean to say that stealth doesn't have it's place. I do agree with Craig that it's being over used on platforms....well...rather it's being spent on the wrong types of platforms. F-22s at 80 mill (or is it down to 60 now?) a copy with limited payloads to preserve stealth characteristics are nothing more than a Glorified F-117. SDB is promising but with the advent of broad band jammers to block GPS then they are going to rely more and more on a dual seeker solution. Mind that other services are falling behind because of the USAF holding the JSF program hostage so they could get the F-22 numbers they wanted. And 185 aircraft or so isn't really going to cut it.

 

So what's the solution?

 

When you get down to it, the Air Force is merely the airborne support arm of the ground forces. The Navy is another support arm but they have the greater responsibility of protecting the supply line (does anyone think that we're going to be scrapping it out in North America anytime soon?). Once the Air Force gets over that and realizes they are still trying to win WW2 by air power alone then maybe we can get somewhere with aircraft procurement. Taking back Kuwait and invading Iraq were pushovers because the people the other side was too centralized and insulated from the reality to adapt to the situation.

 

Israel has probably the best armed forces in the Middle East. They certainly did not win last year because the other side fought asymmetrically using data gained from careful observation of their enemy. They knew what to expect and they planned for that. Israel was kind enough not to realize that this might not be a pushover. Hate can be a big motivator.

 

The US would be heeding this experience for future conflicts. We hear all this rumbling about Iran and nukes and despite for all the rumblings of the current administration there is probably little they can do to prevent Iran from getting nukes except extending their nuclear umbrella over Israel. Not as if the US is going to win the PR game among the Arab Bloc.

 

This is where the LCS can be useful. It's amusing to see people decry the 'Little Crappy Ship' when it hasn't even seen service yet. I think it's important to note that while the LCS may look like a frigate that doesn't mean she's going to function like a frigate. Both the 57mm Mk3 and RAM are fine weapons. I'm not too sure about NLOS but a TOW looking missile with a 40nm range kind of explains the function of the LCS to begin with. Much like Flight IIA Burkes the ship will probably be fitted for, but not with Harpoon missiles. Mk141 is plug and play anyway. A camel is still a camel but camels can still be useful. Even if they are meant to support special forces and operate with carrier groups at the same time.

 

A Mk41 set, even 2 sets for 8 cells would silence alot of critics. Is it necessary? I'm not sure yet to be honest. Time will tell. But bolting on a set isn't all that hard. Canadian Halifax and Dutch M class frigates use Mk48 which is basically bolted on to the deck of the ship. I suppose another option is Mk57 PVLS but I suspect that's major surgery to install.

 

So let's get another aircraft in the pipeline. One where weapons carriage is a priority over stealth, US operations need to learn to take into account asymmetric thinking. The alternative is to price the Air Force out of existance, a frigate that can't really do anything, and an Army that's engaged and bogged down in the mountains of Iran where the death toll will make Iraq look like a picnic.

 

Later

D

Are the Planes in the US getting older? Certainly. Who's fault is that? SIMPLE the IDIOTS that think EVERY damn aircraft in the US combat forces should be 100% Stealth! Does a stealthy aircraft have major advantages over a non stealthy aircraft? Heck yes! Is it worth the cost? To me, NOT on the scale we are spending for it today.

 

I can't disagree with this. Stealth is not an unbeatable technology. Blind faith in the stealth "edge" is setting oneself up for a rude awakening. There was a time when we thought tanks were the unbeatable weapons of the battlefield too.

 

The BIGGEST area where the US could SAVE money is by cutting about 90% of the UAV/UCAV programs ...

 

Another area where E-Ring thinkers are giddy over the latest "buzz word". Agreed.

 

Right now there are only two UAV programs worth ANY sort of investment, Predetor and PredetorB/M ...

 

I think Fire Scout or some other similar VTOL UAV program is worth investment.

 

On that subject the US Navy needs to DRAW DOWN production of the sub-standard F/A-18E/F Super hornet NOW. I have NO problems with all the current production E/Fs being changed over to EF-18G "Growler" EW warfare is going to be big in the future. BUT STOP the "fighter" versions (yes that is in quotes.

 

Whoa, lemme guess .. not a fan of the Super Bug, huh ?

 

So let me say this. (Before a bunch of Navy and Marines try to kill me for offending them) The F/A-18E/F is probably the Best tactical BOMBERS in US service (It is MILES above what the current Standard F-15E can due in terms of mission types, precision delivery and flexibility.) It just isn't a Fighter. The Designation should revert to the ORIGONAL designation of the F/A-18 Hornet. A-18 as in Attack aircraft Number 18 (out of sequence but that was the designation given) All Squadron equiped with the A-18E/F should be re-designated as VA (for A-18E) and VAH (for A-18F)

 

So your opinion of a mixed air wing of F/A-18E/F and JSF would be ... ?

This is where the LCS can be useful. It's amusing to see people decry the 'Little Crappy Ship' when it hasn't even seen service yet. I think it's important to note that while the LCS may look like a frigate that doesn't mean she's going to function like a frigate. Both the 57mm Mk3 and RAM are fine weapons. I'm not too sure about NLOS but a TOW looking missile with a 40nm range kind of explains the function of the LCS to begin with. Much like Flight IIA Burkes the ship will probably be fitted for, but not with Harpoon missiles. Mk141 is plug and play anyway. A camel is still a camel but camels can still be useful. Even if they are meant to support special forces and operate with carrier groups at the same time.

 

I'm with you on this, Dale. LCS is an easy target, so people like to jump on the bandwagon of denigrating it. You have to keep in mind the role and purpose of the LCS. I'm not saying it will be the best thing since sliced bread, but I'm not ready to join the angry, torch bearing mob just yet.

 

A Mk41 set, even 2 sets for 8 cells would silence alot of critics. Is it necessary? I'm not sure yet to be honest. Time will tell. But bolting on a set isn't all that hard. Canadian Halifax and Dutch M class frigates use Mk48 which is basically bolted on to the deck of the ship. I suppose another option is Mk57 PVLS but I suspect that's major surgery to install.

 

Yeah, this is where I think the LCS concept (maybe not the particular design, but the concept .. it remains to be seen) of modularity could prove its worth. Should the USN have invested in an existing modular warship design ? Perhaps.

Right now there are only two UAV programs worth ANY sort of investment, Predetor and PredetorB/M ...

 

I think Fire Scout or some other similar VTOL UAV program is worth investment.

 

Fire Scout has it's own problems. Many UAVs are going after, yep you guessed it STEALTH. Firescout is no exception. How do you make a HELICOPTER stealthy? YOU CAN NOT, JUST GIVE IT UP ALREADY! Stealth killed the Comanche, and is killing the USAF.

 

On that subject the US Navy needs to DRAW DOWN production of the sub-standard F/A-18E/F Super hornet NOW. I have NO problems with all the current production E/Fs being changed over to EF-18G "Growler" EW warfare is going to be big in the future. BUT STOP the "fighter" versions (yes that is in quotes.

 

Whoa, lemme guess .. not a fan of the Super Bug, huh ?

 

 

If it was half as good as the Bug I would be more appreciative. I will take a USMC F/A-18D(NA) over a F/A-18F any day of the week. The only advantage the F gives over the D is a slight (and I do mean SLIGHT) increase in range and a better radar. Woopie! Oh yeah there is the "bringback" and extra weapon pylons. I could give a flying beep about either of those.

 

The plane is a DOG in the air compared to the F/A-18C/D (heck a F-14 Tomcat with 4 Phoenix missiles is more maneuverable in the merge!)

 

If the calculator thumping buerocrats are right the AMRAAM makes the merge a non issue in Air to air combat. Those same people also said the F4H-1 should not have a gun and promptly pulled the 4 20mm cannons from it's requirement. The F4H-1 is more commonly known today as F-4 Phantom II!

 

So let me say this. (Before a bunch of Navy and Marines try to kill me for offending them) The F/A-18E/F is probably the Best tactical BOMBERS in US service (It is MILES above what the current Standard F-15E can due in terms of mission types, precision delivery and flexibility.) It just isn't a Fighter. The Designation should revert to the ORIGONAL designation of the F/A-18 Hornet. A-18 as in Attack aircraft Number 18 (out of sequence but that was the designation given) All Squadron equiped with the A-18E/F should be re-designated as VA (for A-18E) and VAH (for A-18F)

 

So your opinion of a mixed air wing of F/A-18E/F and JSF would be ... ?

 

Fighter is the JSF, Attack plane is the F/A-18. I could care about stealth but then again the JSF CAN carry wing pylons!

 

JSF also performs SEAD/Ironhand role. EA-18G or EF-18G (whatever the designation is today) performs SEAD/Ironhand roll while including the role of mini-rivet joint (each CVV should have a minimum of 6 or 8 of these birds rather than the 4 EA-6Bs in current CVVs!)

 

I will not say the F/A-18 Super Bug is not useful. It is just not useful in it's proported role in my opinion.

 

 

Craig P