Posted on 04/01/2007 4:53:51 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Beijing's modern war machine is closing rapidly on its 2050 target
By David Eimer in Beijing, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:23am BST 01/04/2007
When China unveiled its new, home-grown Jian-10 fighter jet in January, it was hailed in Beijing as proof that the country could now match the achievements of America and Russia in aerospace technology.
A week after the Jian-10 made its first public appearance, China underlined its growing confidence as a military power by destroying one of its orbiting satellites, using a ground-launched ballistic missile. For rival powers it represented a dangerous step towards the militarisation of space.
But for China it showed that the world's most populous nation is ahead of schedule in its drive to transform the world's largest military into a hi-tech force, able to project its power far beyond its borders.
In December, the government in Beijing outlined a three-step programme culminating in the strategic goal of building a computerised military capable of winning modern wars by 2050. The revamp of the 2.3 million-strong People's Liberation Army (PLA), which includes the navy and air force, began in the 1990s.
Since then, defence spending has been rising in double-digit percentage figures each year. This year's defence budget of nearly £23 billion is £9 billion less than Britain spends and represents a lower share of national income, too.
But those figures do not include purchases of military hardware from overseas or the budget for the People's Armed Police, a reserve force of 660,000.
The US defence secretary, Robert Gates, has argued that China's real defence spending is three times higher than the official figure and represents around 4.5 per cent of its GDP, more than twice what Britain spends. This year many PLA soldiers will see their salaries double as Beijing seeks to improve the morale and efficiency of its armed forces.
December's defence paper highlighted one of the reasons for China's rapid upgrading of the PLA. "Security issues related to energy, resources, finance, information and international shipping routes are mounting," it warned.
With China increasingly reliant on Africa, the Middle East and South America for the resources to fuel the world's fastest-growing economy, the need for a military that can fight far from its borders is becoming apparent.
For the past five years China has been building links with countries along the key oil route, funding a listening station in Pakistan, a container port in Bangladesh and maintaining close ties with the military regime in Burma.
As a consequence, China's navy has been one of the main beneficiaries of increased defence spending. Submarines and destroyers have been bought from Russia, while there are persistent rumours that China is to start building an aircraft carrier.
That would give it vital air support for far-flung operations, while marking another step in China's efforts to match America's military might. US support for Taiwan, which China regards as a rogue province that is part of the motherland, is another factor driving China's military build-up.
The destruction of one of its own ageing satellites is evidence of Chinese progress and sent a warning that American satellites, which provide vital military intelligence, would be vulnerable in any conflict involving Taiwan or in the Asia/Pacific region.
Lenin underestimated capitalists. We're not just selling China the rope, we're helping them set up their own rope industry.
Do you think they are worried about Global Warming?
Perhaps hailed by the Chinese, but the Jian-10 appears to be a copy of an early block F-16 that the Pakis gave them, with slightly less capability.
So the Chinese would appear capable of copying thirty year old, single engine, fourth generation aircraft. As they had been producing copies of thirty year old, single engine, third generation aircraft, this should be no big surprise.
Red China Military Build-Up Ping!
It would probably be safe to assume that it is superior to the Block 15 F-16s the Pakis have with newer air to air & air to ground weaponry.You'd probably have to rate it below the Block 50 standard,but that's cold comfort.The Taiwanese F-16s are modified Block 20 standards.
If the Europeans start selling upgrades to the Chicoms,things may look very different.There are several AESA radars & electronic warfare systems on offer from European firms which won't be purchased by European nations.
The Taiwanese need Partriot, F-35's, some surplus S-3Bs, and about 500 ballistic missiles. But none of that is going to happen.
Most Westerners seem to forget that China has been around for so many generations that they have mastered the art of long-term planning.
It is heavier,but has a hefty engine & canards,so that can help out.But I'd leave that for the future.
About Taiwan's wishlist,if they got 6 or more diesel-electric subs,a lot of things would fall into place.China's mighty navy wouldn't appear as intimidating & those subs would be an ideal platform for cruise missiles.There is virtually no chance of Taiwan getting subs,though.
I'm more worried about their SU-30's than their F-16 knock-offs. Wouldn't you concur?
Yes,but things seem to be coming to a situation where their J-10s are to their SU-30s what the USAF F-16 is to the Eagle.You need both.The J-10 would probably be built in considerable numbers & is almost certainly cheaper than the SU-27/30 while yet offering a level of commonality,which is a big asset.
Another headache is that once they develop their indegnious turbofan,they can hawk it to anyone from Pakistan to Iran to North Korea.Such sales are in line with China's wider ambitions.
Concur.
I think they will be ready to take on the USA and win well before 2050.
Nope, and neither are they concerned about gay marriage.
The objectives of the US with regards to our space program seem to the goal of sending up astronauts based on the color of their skin or their gender ~ China's goals with regards to space are domination.
Duncan Hunter:
"Well, whichever side of this debate one is on, everyone here has to concede American dollars are arming Communist China today. Let us look at what they have done with the $350 billion that they have amassed in trade surplus over the last 8 years. The Sovrenny class missile destroyers, straight from the Russians, designed for one purpose, to kill American aircraft carriers, were purchased with American trade dollars. The SU-27 fighter aircraft, high performance aircraft, capable of effective warfare against America's top line fighters, were purchased with American trade dollars. On top of that, kilo class submarines, AWACS aircraft, air-to-air refueling capability, sophisticated communications equipment, all purchased with American trade dollars, and compounding the danger, China's own sales to nations like Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria and North Korea of components for weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Speaker, we have just left the bloodiest century in the history of the world. In a way it is a century of triumph for America. The story of the 20th century is the story of a great Democrat President, FDR, who stood with Winston Churchill against Germany's Hitler. It is the story of a great Republican President, Ronald Reagan, who faced down the Soviet empire and disassembled Soviet Union.
But it is also a story of tragedy, because 617,000 Americans lie in cemeteries across this country and in the oceans of the world and the battlefields of the world as people who were killed in action saving the world for freedom in this last century.
Many of them fought in wars for which we were unprepared; that is a tragedy of the 20th century. But the greater tragedy, which could be the tragedy of the 21st century, could happen if this country, having fought and bled and sacrificed to dissolve the Soviet empire, through a massive infusion of cash produces, by our own hand, another military superpower, and if the cemeteries of this country one day hold the bodies of Americans in uniform killed with weapons purchased by American trade dollars. That will be the greatest tragedy of this new 21st century.
Mr. Speaker, let us avoid that tragedy. Vote no on PNTR".
http://www.house.gov/hunter/news_prior_2006/PNTR-flrspch.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.