Bolen C (Page 193)

China’s cutting-edge missile defense radar and Japan’s hypersonic missile test may spark a new East Asian arms race, potentially escalating regional tensions.

The South China Morning Post reports that Chinese scientists from Tsinghua University have made an innovative radar that can track 10 missiles at Mach 20 with a mere 28-centimeter error in distance estimation and 99.7% accuracy in speed measurement.

SCMP says that this advancement, achieved through the integration of lasers, allows for light-speed information transmission and complex microwave signal processing. It notes that the radar’s capabilities, verified through ground-based simulations, include a 600-kilometer detection range and the potential to equip air-defense missiles or planes.

The source says that China’s new radar’s use of laser technology and a novel algorithm also eliminates the issue of phantom images, ensuring the radar’s reliability against false targets.

Further, Naval News reports this month that Japan’s Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Agency has released footage of the test launch of the Hyper Velocity Gliding Projectile test launch, marking a significant advancement in the country’s defense capabilities.

Naval News mentions that the HVGP, a hypersonic weapon designed for island defense, has an estimated range of 900 kilometers and will be deployed by the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force in 2026.

The publication says that amid rising military threats from China and North Korea, Japan has accelerated the HVGP’s production, with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries handling manufacturing. It notes that the test has showcased the “Early Deployment Version (Block 1)” of the projectile, with plans to develop longer-range versions by 2030.

The proliferation of hypersonic weapons among major military powers has brought to the forefront the challenges of defending against them, with legacy missile defense systems possibly ineffective for various reasons.

In a December 2023 report for the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Tom Karako and Masao Dahlgren note that defending against hypersonic weapons presents challenges in detection, tracking, cueing interceptors and sensor tradeoffs.

Karako and Dahlgren note that identifying the launch of hypersonic weapons is difficult due to their dimmer infrared signatures compared compared those of traditional ballistic missiles, especially after the boost phase.

Regarding tracking challenges, Karako and Dahlgren say that continuous tracking of hypersonic missiles requires elevated sensors with precise capabilities, as these missiles can have unpredictable maneuvers and lower flight trajectories that evade ground-based radar detection.

Karako and Dahlgren mention that providing accurate, real-time data for missile defense systems to cue interceptors is crucial. They emphasize that such demands fire control-quality tracking data, which involves synthesizing sensor measurements into reliable estimations of the missile’s position and trajectory.

They add that factors such as sensor field of view, resolution, sensitivity and the required number of satellites must be balanced to create a successful sensor architecture for tracking hypersonic threats.

Further, Tang Rong points out in a January 2022 article for the People’s Liberation Army Daily that hypersonic weapons mostly travel significantly lower than ballistic missiles at near-space altitudes. Tang says this makes them harder to detect and reduces the response time for defense systems due to the Earth’s curvature.

Moreover, he says the aero-optical effect caused by the hypersonic weapon’s flight makes it challenging for the defense system to track, identify and intercept the target accurately, as the target image detected by the interceptor weapon is offset, shaken and blurred.

Because of that, Tang says it is challenging to effectively track, identify, and locate hypersonic weapons, and the likelihood of successfully intercepting them is very low. He points out that these weapons’ high speed and unpredictable trajectory make it extremely difficult for defense systems to counter them effectively, creating a situation akin to entering a “no-man’s-land.”

In contrast to China’s advances in hypersonic missile defense, Mark Montgomery and Brad Bowman opine in a January 2024 Defense News article that the US fails to field credible defenses against hypersonic missiles for various reasons.

Montgomery and Bowman note that while the US has invested significantly in offensive hypersonic missile development, with over $8 billion spent in the past two years, defense efforts have received much less funding, with only $209 million requested for fiscal 2024 and less than $515 million for fiscal 2022 and 2023 combined.

Most tellingly, they mention that the US Department of Defense does not expect to field a hypersonic defense system until fiscal 2034, creating a significant capability gap. They say that the DOD seems to be taking longer than expected to choose a defense contractor for operational testing and development, which might result in a deployed system being functional before the decade’s end.

Montgomery and Bowman stress that US forces may face unacceptable risks without expedited efforts to develop and field hypersonic defense systems.

As for Tokyo’s pursuit of hypersonic weapons, Larissa Stünkel and Mats Engman state in a May 2020 Institute for Security and Development Policy article that such efforts are unequivocally tied to the defense of Japan’s outer islands in the face of China’s increasingly tenacious geopolitical objectives.

However, Stünkel and Engman caution that pursuing such weapons may challenge the country’s longstanding pacifist orientation and increase tensions with China.

They say that while Japan’s hypersonic weapons are limited to a maximum range of 300 to 500 kilometers due to legal constraints, especially concerning Article 9 of the Japanese constitution, advancements in technology may eventually override the political commitment to maintain this limit.

Stünkel and Engman state that despite the Japanese government’s assurance that the introduction of such weapons will be solely for national defense, this is unlikely to reassure the Japanese public or neighboring countries.

They say that the speed and maneuverability of hypersonic weapons could outpace current defense systems, potentially escalating crises in a region already fraught with volatility and strained relations, particularly with China.

To mitigate these risks, Stünkel and Engman say that Japan’s continuation of its hypersonic program should ideally be accompanied by bilateral or multilateral discussions to regulate development and deployment, preventing unnecessary tensions and preserving opportunities for reconciliation.

Further, Masashi Murano mentions in a March 2024 United States Studies Center article that Japan faces hurdles in extending the range of missiles, developing guidance systems, and creating effective warheads for different target types, including moving maritime and ground-based mobile targets.

Murano says that Japan needs to develop its counterstrike capabilities more urgently due to China’s and North Korea’s rapid development of theater-range strike capabilities.

He adds that there is a need for Japan to balance the technical difficulty of strike operations with political decision-making, considering the potential for escalation and the lack of experience in deep strike operations among Japanese political leaders.

Continue Reading

As diplomatic defence agreements become more common throughout the Indo-Pacific, the region is quickly re-militarized.

That contrasts dramatically with most of the post-Cold War time, when the country’s focus shifted toward financial prosperity and a degree of de-militarization, including in the case of the Philippines, seen in the closure of big Cold War-era American military bases.

On the other hand, over the past few weeks and months, a complex web of inter- and intra-regional links has been established or strengthened across this great land and coastal area.

This is occurring as a result of the US, its NATO allies, and its regional partners fighting for control and influence in response to the rise of rising powers like China, Russia, and other local states, which the West sees as potential proper or dangerous rivals.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s ( NATO ) expansion into the area is the most recent example of re-militarization. Although NATO does not, as yet, have a physical existence anywhere in the Indo-Pacific, the transatlantic firm is forging relationships in new circles with its main partners it, including Japan, Australia, South Korea and New Zealand. &nbsp,

At its annual summit in Washington, DC, the group came to an agreement on several new initiatives, including improving interoperability, tackling hybrid threats, and strengthening general defense cooperation. &nbsp,

It’s not just the Indo-Pacific’s most advanced economies that are forming military partnerships: The Philippines is foremost among the region’s developing economies to launch a series of new defense deals. &nbsp,

The most recent and notable was its security pact with Japan, which was symbolically signed on the eve of the NATO summit.

The agreement facilitates the deployment of each other’s forces on their respective territories for joint drills, which was partially motivated by growing concerns over Manila’s recent clashes with China in the South China Sea.

Since the end of World War II and the former’s brutal occupation of many regional nations, including the Philippines, have Japan and another Asian nation signed their first defense agreements. Similar Visiting Forces Agreements had already been signed with Australia, as has Japan in fact.

The Philippines ‘ Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement ( EDCA ) was one of the most contentious military pacts the country has ever signed.

Former late-president Benigno Aquino founded the EDCA a decade earlier. Some members of the general public and the media in particular are concerned about the expansion of Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. this year.

Marcos has grown from the five bases that first housed the “rotational” US forces to four more on coastal areas facing Taiwan and the South China Sea.

According to the US Department of Defense, their stated goal was to “address a range of shared challenges in the Indo-Pacific region.”

Other notable military cooperation agreements include Japan’s ten-year mutual security agreement signed in June 2024. While non-binding, it provides for the supply of non-lethal assistance to Ukraine.

A similar cooperation agreement is being considered by South Korea. However, Yoon Suk Yeol, the president, announced last month that he would reconsider supplying Ukraine with lethal weapons after declining to do so the previous month. &nbsp,

Putin hits back with new defense agreements

Yoon may have reconsidered after Kim Jong Un, the leader of North Korea, and Vladimir Putin’s defense agreement, agreed on his trip to Pyongyang in June 2024.

In the event that either state is the subject of an armed invasion from a third nation, the agreement provides for mutual military assistance.

In June, in another regional trip that irked Washington, Putin traveled to Vietnam. Since the Cold War, Russia has been Vietnam’s primary supplier of weapons. Under the condition that it is” not directed against any third country,” the two sides agreed to improve their mutual defense and security cooperation.

Nonetheless, the big regional elephant in the room was Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Moscow, his first since the Ukraine conflict began. Given that it took place during the opening days of the NATO Summit in Washington, the Indian government downplayed the timing of the trip. &nbsp,

Both leaders agreed to expand their military cooperation with an emphasis on the joint production of advanced technology and systems, aside from the eminently renowned Putin-Modi bonhomie on display at their meeting.

These include establishing new joint ventures to produce military equipment and parts in accordance with the” Make in India” initiative, which is supported by Russian-led exports to “friendly” third countries and technological transfer transfers.

Ukraine’s weakening positions

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky heavily criticized Modi’s Moscow visit, calling it a “huge disappointment and devastating blow to peace efforts”.

Zelensky’s response may also reflect how Ukraine’s war effort is failing and how unlikely it is to eject Russia from its territorial gains, which Zelensky’s visit may also reflect. &nbsp,

NATO’s support for Ukraine is largely confined to rhetoric and a limited amount of military and economic support, though. There are no authorized NATO “boots on the ground.”

The current Ukrainian position’s military weakness is obvious. The military’s potential manpower is greatly hampered by the army’s lack of young men in their 20s. The average age of Ukraine’s frontline soldiers is 43.

Ukraine’s economy is weak, though growth has been higher than anticipated in 2023. Nonetheless, under recent scenarios, it is unlikely to recover its GDP level until the late 2020s. The Russian missile attacks on Ukraine’s power grid and rail network, which are both destructive and persistent, are further deteriorating the economy.

The rhetoric of NATO and Ukraine that aims to retake all of the territory that Russia has occupied since the invasion and that the Russians have held in Crimea before the invasion is blatantly unrealistic.

More of the same rhetoric and constrained commitments of additional support are what are emerging from the NATO summit. Whether these promises will actually be fulfilled will depend on how far the conflict goes on the battlefield.

Russia does n’t appear to be bucking its military or economic woes, despite NATO’s claims to the contrary. According to the World Bank’s revised measurements this year, the fourth largest economy in the world is often overlooked because, in purchasing power parity terms, it is the fourth largest economy in the world.

According to the US, Ukraine should have a clear “bridge to NATO membership.” What this would entail in practice is meaningless. Moreover, it cannot guarantee membership. All NATO members are required to consent before becoming a member. Additionally, until the conflict is resolved, entry into NATO cannot happen.

Overdue Ukraine armistice

Resolution of the conflict is most likely to occur, at some point, via an armistice. It should be noted that an armistice allows both parties to agree to end hostilities over the current border positions, with Russia retaining the four oblasts it effectively controls plus Crimea, without either party giving a consensual victory.

The conflict then becomes frozen, with a military-free zone at the border. This was the way the Korean War came to an end. It is hoped that an armistice will be reached later this year, before another winter sets in, if only to put an end to the suffering of the Ukrainian people.

Ironically, a situation like this could lead to Ukraine joining NATO and preventing NATO troops or military installations from stationing close to the border after several hundred miles.

A similar situation exists in Norway, a long-standing member of NATO, where no NATO installations or troops are stationed north of Trondelag, which is far south of the border with Russia.

Finally, it is important to mention that China should play a role in any successful resolution of the conflict. Given its influence on Russia, it is the only nation that can guarantee the existence of an armistice.

Chinese President Xi Jinping demanded a ceasefire agreement from Russia and Ukraine as well as from other major powers to create a dialogue-friendly environment while speaking with Hungary’s Prime Minister Victor Orban. A ceasefire only occurs when all major powers “project positive energy rather than negative energy,” Xi said on CCTV.

Continue Reading

NATO is the&nbsp, North Atlantic&nbsp, Treaty Organization. The title should have been changed a long time ago as NATO’s operations moved north and east. NATO is shifting once more, most significantly by extending its account without any serious thought about how to safe its new wings.

Outgoing NATO Chief&nbsp, &nbsp, Jens Stoltenberg&nbsp, said last month that China may face effects for its aid of Russia. He was n’t specific. ” It’s too early for me to suggest exactly”, he said. ” My concept is that … it’s no responsible and sustainable that&nbsp, China continues to fuel the biggest security risks …&nbsp, for NATO allies, especially in Europe”.

Adding China, perhaps technically, to the concerns of the Atlantic Alliance is a very big step and it widens the list of countries looking for NATO security.

The only positive thing about the NATO summit is that it truly acknowledges its weaknesses. In the event that NATO goes to war, the strategy is to raise costs and significantly increase the number of troops that can be deployed. &nbsp,

According to the inner program, NATO needs to increase its troop size when it is deployed or transportable by 35 to 50 regiments. The NATO command will need to persuade its members to expand their forces, teach them, and have the transport and supply resources to support them on the ground.

The US also has around 100, 000 soldiers in Europe, with around 20, 000 helping beach up NATO’s battlegroups. &nbsp, NATO’s army development is on top of the US army presence.

A regiment in NATO is 3-5, 000 soldiers, meaning that NATO may be small up to 250, 000 forces in full. It may also be difficult to raise and train a sizable number of soldiers in NATO states. &nbsp,

In most of Europe and&nbsp, in the United States, defense interviewing is also below where it should be. In the US, &nbsp, just the Marine Corps and Space Command&nbsp, met their recruiting targets – the Army, Navy and Air Force fell small. The&nbsp, British&nbsp, and&nbsp, Germans&nbsp, missed their goals by wide margins.

Germany, which could again become a front line target if there is a war in Europe, has an army of&nbsp, 184, 000 military personnel and 80, 000 civilian personnel&nbsp, made up of&nbsp, Professional soldiers ( 57, 365 ), &nbsp, Contract soldiers ( 114, 243 ) and&nbsp, Voluntary military personnel (9, 748 ), there is no conscription. Quite recently, the proposed European security budget&nbsp, was reduced by 5 billion Dollars. &nbsp, For Germany to cooperate with NATO’s strategy it would have to double its defense budget and establish recruitment.

Large chance.

At current NATO does not have regiments – it has battlegroups, each of which has about 1, 000 men. Eight battlegroups are currently in place, and NATO is attempting to increase four more. In addition to forming 35 to 50 new divisions, it would also need to split its eight battlegroups into regiments. &nbsp, But far, at least, there is no arrangement on how to do so.

By supplying four new Patriot air defence batteries and extra F-16s ( six of them ) from Norway, fresh agreements have been made at the NATO Summit to shore up Ukraine.

Some NATO people are now also talking about shipping” squadron” of F-16s to Ukraine, but that may be advertising. ( There is a good chance the&nbsp, US will end up paying for the Patriots. ) The reason is simple: NATO knows that its grand enhancement plans are not going to happen, but it needs Ukraine as a cushion to Russia. &nbsp, As long as Russia is tied down, NATO can prevent contact of its deficiencies.

In the Pacific

Democratic allies in the Pacific are seeking a NATO umbrella while NATO is rumors about its plans for a broader participation and its capabilities and taking notice of Beijing’s individual behaviour. &nbsp,

Australia is attending the Summit, wanting to take advantage of NATO martial know-how. &nbsp, New Zealand – which wants to encourage the US, as the leading NATO part, to protect it from China – has sent its primary secretary to the meeting. &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp,

Japan’s prime minister and South Korea’s leader are there, seemingly buying into NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s perception that NATO has fight both Russia and China.

Japan has longstanding, unresolved issues over the Northern Territories ( the Kuril Islands ), occupied by the USSR at the end of World War II. The bigger issue is China, which Japan concerns will shortly” solve” the Taiwan issue, which places Taiwan in the chain’s center. China has regional says on Japanese-administered islands, &nbsp, largely the&nbsp, Senkaku Islands– which China calls the Diaoyu Islands. &nbsp, China even claims Okinawa, which is physically important to the United States.

The US and Japan and the US and Korea have defense treaties ( the 1960 Japan-US treaty was &nbsp, recently updated ). &nbsp, The US maintains major presence in both states.

In Japan there are 54, 000 US military personnel and another 8, 000 contractors ( plus another 25, 000 Japanese workers ). A nuclear aircraft carrier is housed at the US home base in Japan, and there are also important naval and air forces forces there.

In Korea, the US has 28, 500 soldiers, mostly Army, stationed mainly at Camp Humphreys. In Korea, the US maintains proper weapon threats.

South Korea has mandatory military service for all guys starting at the age of 18, producing a huge army with 500, 000 effective soldiers and 3, 100, 000 servicemen. Its main attack, North Korea, has an even larger effective army, then numbering 1, 320, 000 effective soldiers and a supply of 560, 000. &nbsp, Unlike North Korea, which has nuclear arms, South Korea relies on the British “nuclear awning” for protection from its north cousin.

Japan, however, does not have recruitment and&nbsp, has missed its Self Defense Force interviewing goal&nbsp, by more than 50 %. Young people in Japan today may find good jobs that pay also. The Self Defense Force is a poor choice for a job, and it pays badly.

Who advantages?

What do Japan or South Korea get from a partnership with NATO, if not account there? It’s difficult to see how NATO could actually help either country, and it could make US-Japanese and US-South Asian relations worse by adding a third control complex between them and their British sponsor.

Similar to that, it is worthwhile to inquire what NATO would get from working with significant US consumers in Asia. NATO does not have any ability to project power toward Asia. There is not much else that NATO can do to really matter to either Japan or Korea, aside from politicians.

In truth, it can be argued that some European “prestige” initiatives have squandered reasonable efforts to strengthen regular land, air and naval forces. &nbsp,

Social winds

NATO even faces some considerable political winds. &nbsp,

One comes from former US President Donald Trump. &nbsp, As senator, Trump noisily demanded that the NATO partners&nbsp, raise their defence spending. Just eight of the 29 friends at the time were spending the NATO target of 2 percentage, compared to the US’s 3.57 percentage in 2018. Some of the friends moved ahead, some did not.

Maybe more alarming, past Trump aides have suggested that&nbsp, Ukraine is a Western problem, not an American one. &nbsp, Stories that NATO&nbsp, wants to” Trump-proof” itself&nbsp, are all around, as European politicians fear that Trump wo n’t favor a continuous&nbsp, war with Russia. &nbsp,

What is obvious is that Trump’s impulse is to discuss with Russia– anything that Europe, apart from Hungary, rejects firmly. &nbsp, &nbsp,

There likewise are critical and essential economic&nbsp, problems. &nbsp, May French President Emmanuel Macron&nbsp, make concessions to the left, &nbsp, it will be terrible. &nbsp, The departed wants a&nbsp, 90 % “wealth tax”&nbsp, and much greater social spending. (” Wealth” is already leaving France. ) &nbsp, France cannot do that and also put billion into Ukraine. Recent arsenals are severely underused, but actual funding for the future will have to be made available from current operating budgets. With the new Labor government in place, France is on an economical death loop that could lead to another.

NATO’s Imperial Programs are generally smoking, and if Eastern countries have frequent feel they will not tie&nbsp, themselves to NATO.

Shoshana Bryen is the senior director of the Hebrew Policy Center, while Stephen D. Bryen is a former US Defense Department standard. This content was first published on the Weapons and Strategy Substack for the first time.

Continue Reading

With the rapid deployment of advanced fifth-generation soldiers, China could possibly transform its airpower in the face of adversaries like the US and India.

This month, Nikkei reported that China’s new cunning fight plane, the J-31B, is expected to be deployed on its second aircraft ship, the Fujian. Nikkei mentions that the fifth-generation fighter jet, revealed by Shenyang Aircraft Industry Group in late June, is designed for aircraft carrier use and will enhance the People’s Liberation Army’s ( PLA ) air and sea strategies.

According to the report, the J-31B represents a significant improvement over the latest fourth-generation Shenyang J-15 because it is more difficult to detect by transponders and worthy of coordinating with drones.

It says that the Fujian, China’s largest aviation ship, is equipped with an electric rocket, allowing jets to have more energy and weapons, so expanding their functional area and combat capabilities.

Nikkei points out that the J-31B is seen as a knock-off of the US F-35 Lightning II and is a component of China’s continued efforts to increase its use of fifth-generation warrior jets, including the Chengdu J-20.

Janes reported last month that the PLA Air Force ( PLA-AF ) has significantly bolstered its fleet with the advanced Chengdu J-20″ Mighty Dragon” fifth-generation stealth fighters. Janes says that over 11 months leading up to July 2023, the PLA-AF incorporated over 70 J-20s, bringing the total to around 195 airplane.

It points out that this development has made it possible to switch between different air divisions and replace older fourth-generation soldiers like the Shenyang J-11s and Sukhoi Su-27SK/UKBs. Additionally, according to the report, the PLA-AF was in charge of 12 heat brigades with J-20s in May 2024, with three having the cunning fighter fully operational.

Jane’s notes that the J-20’s enhanced features, such as airborne early warning and control ( AEW&amp, C), underscore its growing importance within the PLA-AF.

The Janes review makes it clear that China’s proper use of the J-20s is in line with its goal of strengthening both its five drama commands. According to the report, current satellite imagery indicates that J-20s are stationed in Eastern, Western, and Southern Theater Commands, with Eastern Theater Commands carrying out aerial maneuvers around Taiwan and projecting heat authority over the East China Sea.

Janes also points out that the increasing number of J-20s close to India, as seen at Tibet’s Shigatse Peace Airport, suggests a tactical change in China’s military posture.

The J-31B perhaps remove China’s carrier aviation mainstay, the J-15. Asia Times reported in November 2022 that the aircraft’s low variety and weapons cargo have mocked its use of the term “flopping fish” in Chinese media.

The J-15 you only go 120 kilometers away from the ski-ramp ship when carrying heavy weapons, according to the flight tests on the Liaoning ski-ramp. Also, if the J-15 is loaded with energy, it can only take up to 2 loads of weapons, even though its potential is 12 tons.

Without the use of more powerful engines, the design of the Targets and Shandong aircraft carriers ‘ mountain ramps poses a significant problem for launching plane weighing over 26 tons. Implementing the electromagnetic aircraft launch system ( EMALS ) on China’s third aircraft carrier, the Fujian, may allow it to use newer aircraft types such as the J-31B.

On capability, the South China Morning Post (SCMP ) mentioned this month that in addition to stealth, the J-31B features weapons bays on both sides, noting that such a feature could significantly increase its combat capabilities.

SCMP says that each weapons sea can take two missiles, distinguishing the J-31B from the US F-22 and China’s J-20, which have area tool bays but can have just one missile in each. It points out that the J-31B’s expanded weapons payload can improve its close-range combat capabilities.

As for armaments, Brandon Weichert notes in an article this month for The National Interest ( TNI ) that the J-31B has an active electronically scanned array ( AESA ) radar, an electro-optical targeting system and a helmet-mounted display system.

Weichert mentions that the J-31B can carry an assortment of munitions, such as the PL-10 and PL-15 air-to-air missiles ( AAM ), various guided bombs, and air-to-ground missiles ( AGM ). He claims that the aircraft may be a passable replacement for the US F-35 despite many disputing China’s claims regarding the J-31B.

Regarding the J-20, a February 2017 China Power report states that opinions differ between the aircraft’s role, from long-range interceptors for aerial engagements to long-range strike aircraft designed to penetrate enemy air defenses and destroy critical infrastructure.

The report says that the J-20 could target intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance ( ISR ) aircraft and aerial tankers with long-range AAMs in an interceptor role. In a strike role, it says that possible targets could include airfields, command centers, and other military installations.

Additionally, the report notes that the J-20’s stealth and range could pose a threat to US warships and that maritime strike J-20s may pose a greater threat than short-range air superiority fighters.

In an article published last month, Newsweek noted that China’s use of J-20 fighters and H-6 bombers at Shigatse and Hotan in the Taklamakan Desert raises a threat to India in its Sikkim-Arunachal Pradesh region.

While the Newsweek report says that India’s S-400 surface-to-air missiles ( SAM ) and Rafale fighters can challenge China’s J-20, the J-20’s stealth capabilities must be factored into its air threat wargames.

Despite China’s advancements in fifth-generation fighters, these advancements may be overrated and China may still face significant difficulties in developing such cutting-edge aircraft.

In a 2020 Journal of Indo-Pacific Affairs article, Owen Sirrs claims that China is not the only country that can flaunt sophisticated military equipment for prestige reasons and that alarmist conclusions about the J-31B should n’t be based on sporadic observations.

According to Sirrs, China has made significant advances in the design of fighter jets, but it is still insufficiently advanced in crucial technologies like jet engines.

In line with that analysis, Alex Hollings says in a February 2024 TNI article that a stealth fighter’s performance relies heavily on its engine’s power, and only the US can build high-end jet engines in quantities enough to equip a high-end fighter fleet.

Hollings points out that while China and Russia are producing new jet engines like the WS-15 and AL-51, new US innovations like adaptive cycle engines made of advanced composites and ceramics may maintain the country’s lead in jet engine production.

Sirrs also points out that a modern fighter integrates avionics, weapons systems, electronic countermeasures, radar, and other systems, not just one piece of cutting-edge technology.

Finally, Sirrs claims that the J-20 and J-31B in China may have obsolescence issues because of US technology that was developed more than 20 years ago. He adds that advances in aviation technology, such as sensors and combat drones, could render China’s stealth fighters obsolete in a war scenario.

Continue Reading

Japan has the funds to purchase all of its F35s and long-range and fast missiles. It even has the honor of putting together a few “aircraft ships.” But so what?

It’s not that hardware does n’t matter. However, purchasing shiny, expensive equipment matters little until Tokyo pays more attention to the people who actually serve in the Japan Self-Defense Force ( JSDF).

The JSDF not actually engaged in combat, but it lost decisively next year, falling 50 % short of its recruitment goals. &nbsp, The year before it was a 35 % lose. &nbsp, And for centuries it has had 20 % deficits. &nbsp, So, JSDF is anything an old, understaffed and overworked force.

The factors– or, much said, the apologies– are: Japan’s shrinking population, opposition from the private market, and a series of staff scandals. &nbsp,

However, real blame lies with Japan’s politicians, representatives, researchers and particular media outles that have spent the past six years ignoring, underfunding, hamstringing, belittling and humiliating the JSDF.

When was the last time a dominant Japanese politician addressed the people directly about the significance of the Japanese Self Defense Force and its members, and therefore kept repeating the message?

Has there ever been a JSDF production that resembled a Major Gun video?

Everything needs to change, or Japan might as well slam dang loud when the Taiwanese arrive.

Making company in the JSDF a respected career and an appealing career choice for more recent Japanese is crucial. To the lasting disgrace of the Chinese ruling elite, it is not now both of those things. It speaks for itself for JSDF employees that they are still afraid to wear uniforms in common.

Not surprisingly, the Japan Self-Defense Force ca n’t attract enough recruits.

Obviously, the JSDF may sell itself better. Generally speaking, yakuza offices are as loving as gang offices, and they are uninsightly. Would be good with some expert advertising. However, they may even receive a sale from the Japanese government.

The fact that the terms of service are not very nice is a large part of the issue. &nbsp, Wages are small and living conditions are unstable third-world for both individual and married&nbsp, jieikan&nbsp, ( members of the JSDF). Because they ca n’t afford it, many families do n’t use their air conditioners in the summer. And when JSDF people are transferred, they usually end up paying out of pocket to walk.

Retirement? Nothing can be giddy on. Nobody would function in the United States military if you applied for a similar pension plan in America.

However, some Chinese are aware of this because too few of them— particularly at ruling-class rates — have actually met an enlisted&nbsp, r.

While I was serving as the US Marine liaison officer to the Japanese Army, a middle-aged Japanese civilian asked me,” Where do they ]jiekan] ] come from”? I heard this frequently.

Following the earthquake and tsunami in Northeast Japan in 2011, self-defense forces’ people value increased. During Operation Tomodachi, the JSDF — specifically the Ground Self-Defense Force — performed the majority of the pleasure work, including saving lives, offering comfort, and taking on the terrible process of recovering thousands of dead bodies, all of which they did with philosophical respect. &nbsp,

Their praise from a glad region? A give cut, along with all other legal employees.

Jiekan&nbsp, are merely civil workers, it was argued. Well, not really.

Consider a fatal underwater cat-and-mouse game in which a crew of a submarine is tracking a PLA underwater. This is not particularly close to the nearby hospital office functionary who ensures that canine licenses are paid up.

Being executed for the sake of the Japanese is a completely different level of government services than fighting for it. It’s about time for more Asian people to acknowledge this.

However, the Self-Defense Force is as ready as it is, which is a testament to the innate value of JSDF staff. After all, it has endured decades of improper treatment and inadequate money, as well as occasionally illegal scorn.

Invest in the SDF members.

Here’s what the state needs to accomplish:

• Take the necessary steps to ensure that fresh Chinese, both male and female, see military service as a wise career choice in comparison to the private sector. In Japan that’s not as a strong a market as one might think, given the boring, low-paid crush of salaryman lifestyle. &nbsp,
• Make JSDF service well-paying, offer decent living conditions ( no more dilapidated quarters ) and look after military families.
• Focus on professional development for company users both while they are serving and afterwards. &nbsp,
• Apply the equivalent of America’s GI Bill providing longtime benefits, such as post-service learning support, housing loans, healthcare and good, stable pensions for long-serving personnel.

The lesson is that you must spend money and treat them well in order to attract good people from a broader candidate pool who otherwise wo n’t consider joining the military. Although it is not exactly rocket science, it demonstrates how much the country values military services.

Do all of this, and former III Marine Expeditionary Force chief Wallace” Device” Gregson, retired USMC Lieutenant General, will lead the right kind of people, and you’ll set out to advance their careers.

Getting priorities straight

Most administrators, politicians, and others have been blind of the crisis on the JSDF staff before. &nbsp, Fancy wonder weapons and equipment are seen as more significant.

However, well-cared-for and well-trained forces with great confidence make for a better performing power. In reality, they are a necessity to an effective force. This should be popular feeling.

And the money is in Japan. This is evident in the government’s commitment to spend billions on hardware and its plans to increase protection spending over the next four or so years.

Spend lots of it on the jiekan.

Provide JSDF some regard

And it’s not just funds. It is equally essential to praise the JSDF and its members and show them some value. &nbsp, This was, in fact, a large portion of Ronald Reagan’s victory in fixing the demoralized US defense in the early 1980’s.

Additionally, the Japanese government should take the necessary steps to rewrite the Constitution to publicly justify the JSDF. Beyond the assistant spiritual boost, there is the basic decency of expressing gratitude for the tiny minority of Japan’s population who defends its citizens in an East Asian neighborhood that is becoming more and more dangerous.

One more thing is that Japan’s military highlights the stark contrast between the People’s Republic of China and its authoritarian regime.

A reputable and well-funded JSDF supports the idea that each person’s freedom, liberty, and lawful rule is for protecting from a rebellious and angry neighbor. And that’s what the JSDF is on.

I brushed arms with Japan’s wealthy political figures while working as a minister at the US embassy in Tokyo. They were generally clever people, albeit occasionally dripping with pride, at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Trade and Industry, and Ministry of Finance.

But were they Japan’s best and brightest, as they anointed themselves? &nbsp, No. I’ve lived 25 times in Japan, and out of all the Chinese I am most satisfied with the&nbsp, jiekan.

Therefore, give the JSDF some regard and treat them better. In this way, Japan will do more to defend itself than if it purchases all of the US’s Tomahawk missile products and 1000 F35s.

Former US minister and previous US Marine official Grant Newsham. He is the creator of the book&nbsp, When China Attacks: A Warning To America. Following him on X @NewshamGrant.

Continue Reading

The 1975-founded Pacific Forum, a research academy for foreign legislation in Honolulu, was the first to publish this article.

Picture this: US-China tensions over Taiwan escalate to the boiling stage. The US senator engages regional and global allies and partners to discuss next steps after a Taiwanese missile attack on Hawaii. US officials in Brussels ask clarity as to whether NATO did trigger&nbsp, Article V. The solitude is deafening.

Worse still, it is questionable whether some NATO member states will even begin commerce with China or declare war, aside from rapid affirmations from a few usually close allies like the United Kingdom and Netherlands. Some people take notice that Hawaii is exempt from Article VI’s automated set.

Almost instantly, the empire is thrown into one of the deepest problems of its past.

While this situation is, in many ways, at the extreme end of the probable, it yet illustrates a possible crisis-in-waiting for the empire. As friends convene in Washington DC this week for the &nbsp, NATO Summit, they should take into account cases of this nature. They ought to consider the effects of a US-China fight over Taiwan and what the empire can and should do right away to better hinder and, if deterrent fails, to better respond to a conflict.

In a recent&nbsp, talk, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg noted that “NATO’s key business” is that of punishment. His next design was Ukraine, and his second strengthening international collaborations, “especially in the Indo-Pacific” due to the relationship between the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific.

Explicitly noting the invitations to the” IP4″ ( Indo-Pacific Four: Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea ), the secretary general raised strategic linkages between the alliance’s adversaries, such as Chinese and North Korean support for Russia’s war machine.

Given these elements – punishment and the importance of the Indo-Pacific– it is amazing that Hawaii’s ( or Guam’s ) isolation from the NATO Treaty is never, at a minimum, an agenda item at the conference. Given that both are essential to the United States ‘ deterrent technique in the Indo-Pacific, their isolation, a historic remnant of the Cold War, is amazing.

But, how did we get here? The friends saw little danger from China’s maritime or air force at the signing. Fast forward to 2024, when China began one of the largest military expansions since World War II, and NATO is now at a disadvantage because it could be attacked in the Indo-Pacific and NATO could only sit back and do less.

If that transpired, it may possibly cause a significant problems for the alliance as well as a second chance to deter a Chinese attack on Taiwan altogether.

There are plenty of arguments to modify this shattered ally, so it’s time to take action now.

Second, the inclusion of Hawaii and Guam, which are crucial nodes in the US’s ability to defend Taiwan, had de facto enhance US deterrence efforts overall.

Next, NATO is not only a military professional. It is also a major power across the DIME ( diplomacy, information, military, economy ). Case in point: its total monetary weight is a combined GDP of$ 39.6 trillion, with half of the top 10 economy as member states. This has a significant pre-conflict punishment value for a China that wants to maintain economic development for the sake of inner security.

Third, NATO has a significant political and diplomatic deterrent because some NATO supporters have strong ties to regions of the Global South and had ties to the Indo-Pacific. This affects the data room, where NATO communication and signaling might be useful for the United States and Taiwan in international forums.

Third, they could contribute to the Euro-Atlantic by preventing Chinese industry and electricity supply, even if NATO commitments did not stop a discord. The Taiwanese economy, which is greatly dependent on exports to Europe, would be in serious trouble because of this.

Some people have argued that the United States agreed to a treaty that excluded Hawaii, and that it is impossible to change that fact, despite our belief that these are compelling arguments for discussing the status of Hawaii ( or Guam ). This is a false explanation that ignores the dramatic decline in security in the Indo-Pacific since the 1950s, making it nearly impossible for the US to deal with its own threats and challenges. A US-China battle is a must, and preventing one is the top priority.

Another explanation is that NATO may never work out-of-area. However, this explanation quickly overlooks the fact that NATO has expanded its responsibilities and people since its inception, when it was based around the English Channel, to include West Germany, Greece, and Turkey and to conduct operations in Afghanistan. NATO has always been focused on defending its members ‘ shared passions, and all NATO members ‘ social goals include preventing a conflict with China.

However, if the United States were to be at conflict with a near-peer attack like China, any out-of-area factors would be pointless. The draw on US military sources from the Euro-Atlantic to the Indo-Pacific may significantly reduce NATO capacity and power, as Chinese naval forces and sea shipping may be forced to travel the world.

Some Europeans are open to the possibility of a conflict with China over Taiwan. To them, this is an” America Problem”, and NATO currently has its hands full with Russia. This is difficult, for at least three causes.

For beginners, and as mentioned, the United States is NATO’s largest part and the drain on its resources and capabilities may affect NATO allies, whether they like it or not.

Next, the landscape is poignant and important, and this watch does not take into account US local politics and the US population, who would be interested in the amount of blood and treasure poured into Western security since 1941. After all, Japan’s Pearl Harbor attack in 1941 was the catalyst for US presence in World War II, which saw the US pursue the battle with a” Europe First” mindset.

Third, and lastly, some may argue that the emphasis on China falls to the United States, not the United States itself, to focus on Russia. This is accurate to some extent, but it falls short of the argument that the warning value of NATO across DIME counts was significantly undermine China’s resolve before a war begins. We should be taking all possible steps to stop a warfare like this, and NATO must be put to work to help its largest part.

When NATO leaders come together in Washington to take into account the world around them and ensure that the group’s security and deterrence systems fit for goal across the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific, they should take advantage of this opportunity to include Hawaii and Guam in Article V factors. Far from it, doing so would not solve all of the problems, but it would be a step in the right direction and may stop a crisis.

John Hemmings&nbsp, ( john@pacforum .org ) &nbsp, is senior advisor at the Pacific Forum. He specializes in US partnerships and strategic contest, with a specific focus on Indo-Pacific Strategies, the US-Japan Alliance, AUKUS, the FVEY, the Quad, and another minilaterals.

David Santoro&nbsp, ( David@pacforum .org ) &nbsp, is the president and CEO of the Pacific Forum. With a local concentrate on both Asia and Europe, he concentrates on proper and safety issues.

Continue Reading