What to expect next out of suddenly unhinged South Korea – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Yoon Suk Yeol, the president of South Korea, declared martial law on Tuesday evening, sending ripples through the earth.

Yoon’s competitors in the National Assembly soon gathered at the government to protest the order. This caused a serious conflict in which soldiers took command of the structure.

However, in the early time of Wednesday, adequate numbers of South Vietnamese legislators gained access to the room. Of the 300 people, 190 made it in, which is far more than the 150 needed for the voting to take place. They overwhelmingly voted down the government’s purchase at around 1 am.

However, around the government, Yoon’s competitors continued to accumulate in a tense standoff with defense.

By about 4:30 am, Yoon had formally acknowledged that his effort had failed and that the military forces had already left. The order may been rescinded. It put an end to a president-to-the-National Assembly’s brief but significant constitutional issue.

Important political freedoms are suspended by military law, which enables the military to training more authority in times of war or serious threats to public safety.

A order by Yoon’s just empowered martial law chief, Army Chief of Staff General Park An-su, proclaimed:

]… ] all political activities, including those related to the National Assembly, regional assemblies, political parties, the forming of political organisations, rallies and protests are banned.

Additionally, this martial law decree placed severe restrictions on the press’s liberty and put an end to an ongoing strike by young South Korean doctors.

But, little immediate attempt was made to adopt the order. As a result, criticism activity was frequently reported in real-time.

Why was military laws declared?

Yoon defended the military law by accusing his domestic political rivals of “anti-state actions plotting revolt.”

He asserts that he was shielding “pro North Korean forces” from the law. This is a facetious term that some South Korean conservatives often use against their liberal foes.

Decades of domestic political conflict between the North Korean head and the opposition-dominated National Assembly provide abroader perspective for this decision.

Yoon cited his detractors ‘ repeated attempts to remove senior members of his leadership and their blocking of budget policy as additional justification for martial law.

Who is South Korea’s leader?

In 2022, Yoon won with a extremely unpopular lot. He’s immediately seen a range of social corruption scandals, further depleting his help.

According to recent polls, he only receives about 25 % of the Asian public’s opinion.

After a number of embarrassing scandals involving alleged fraud, tensions rose especially between Yoon’s woman and South Korea’s first woman, Kim Keon-hee, who had formally apologized for their behavior in early November.

Legacy of dictatorship

Senate is undoubtedly in order, especially if South Koreans turn out in large quantities over the upcoming trip to demand that Yoon’s term be overthrown.

South Korea has made significant progress in political merger since the change to democratic rule in 1987, with a solid and engaged civil society.

At the same time, there is a lengthy history of scandal, impeachment and yet reported criminality among Korea’s democratically elected president.

Most recently in 2017, original President Park Geun-hye’s term in office ended shortly after public demonstrations and prosecution around an influence-peddling incident.

In 2018, Park was given a lengthy prison sentence for relevant acts. In 2021, she received a pardon from her leader.

On the one hand, the effective antagonism to Yoon’s military laws decree has demonstrated the political resilience of South Korea’s organizations and social traditions.

Critics of military rules included the mind of Yoon’s conservative People Power Party, Han Dong-hoon, who denounced the government’s order as “wrong” and promised he do” prevent it with the people”.

But for some of Yoon’s competitors, his strength capture was an all too common reminder of the region’s mid-20th-century tradition of conservative, military-led law.

What will happen next?

In South Korea’s current democratic period, military legislation was first enacted.

The country’s money and marketplaces may experience immediate financial damage, but its hard-won reputation as a stable and mature democracy may suffer a significant blow.

While the immediate constitutional crises has then receded, the political problems remains. Issues have now turned to Yoon’s potential.

The president’s main opposition party has vowed to launch a proper prosecution investigation unless he resigns right away.

Alexander M Hynd is a doctoral study fellow, UNSW Sydney

This content was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original post.

Continue Reading

USS Zumwalt transformed to point hypersonics at China – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

The US Navy seeks to transform the modern USS Zumwalt&nbsp, from a&nbsp, US$ 4 billion boondoggle into a fast weapons program to issue China’s rising marine can.

This quarter, Defense News&nbsp, reported&nbsp, that the US Navy is retrofitting the guided-missile destroyer&nbsp, USS&nbsp, Zumwalt with the first shipborne hypersonic weapons, transforming a pricey mistake into a possible strong property. &nbsp,

Defense News says that the&nbsp, USS&nbsp, Zumwalt, now at a Mississippi port, is equipped with missile tube replacing its twin turrets from an inert weapons system. &nbsp, The&nbsp, switch will allow the Zumwalt to do quickly, precision strikes from greater distances, enhancing its functional utility. &nbsp,

The Defense News report says the US Navy ‘s&nbsp, Conventional Prompt Strike&nbsp, ( CPS) &nbsp, hypersonic missile system, developed jointly with the&nbsp, US&nbsp, Army, will be installed on the&nbsp, USS Zumwalt, &nbsp, allowing it to launch hypersonic glide vehicles traveling at speeds seven to eight times the speed of sound. &nbsp,

Defense News says this modernization&nbsp, aims to leverage&nbsp, USS&nbsp, Zumwalt’s advanced technology, including electric engine and a subtle layout, despite the ship’s reputation as an expensive mistake. &nbsp,

It mentions that the US is accelerating the development of hypersonic weapons in response to developments by Russia and China, and that the US Navy intends to check the program aboard the Zumwalt by 2027 or 2028. &nbsp,

Asia Times has &nbsp, previously&nbsp, reported&nbsp, on US plans to shoulder the Zumwalt ships with fast arms. &nbsp,

The fast action reflects an immediate need to store rising threats, including China’s Model 055 cruisers armed with Mach 10 YJ-21 missiles and Russia’s implementation of military nuclear-armed area vessels. &nbsp,

Despite Zumwalt’s advanced stealth, radar and propulsion systems, &nbsp, the class has significant potential&nbsp, vulnerabilities, such as a tumblehome hull prone to instability and the absence of close-in weapons systems&nbsp, ( CIWS).

Production has been hampered by costs, which have resulted in three units costing$ 4.24 billion each, which raises questions about their suitability as a flexible platform. &nbsp,

Arming the potentially dangerous Zumwalt class with fast weapons may be symptomatic of a more significant&nbsp, capability&nbsp, gap in the US Navy as it seeks to prolong the service lives of its aging Ticonderoga-class cruisers. &nbsp,

Ticonderoga-class cruisers are typically around 35 years old and face problems such as cracks and structural deterioration. They also get out of hand and are difficult to keep up, with the high costs of repairs and upkeep likely outpacing their current combat effectiveness.

Nevertheless, The War Zone&nbsp, reported&nbsp, this November that the US Navy has reversed its decision to decommission the last of its Ticonderoga-class cruisers by 2027, opting to extend the service lives of three ships—USS Gettysburg, USS Chosin and USS Cape St. George—until 2029.

The extension adds 10 years of cumulative ship service life, according to The War Zone, and aims to maintain operational capacity despite delays and cost overruns in other naval programs. &nbsp,

This action, according to The War Zone, is a part of a wider plan to improve the readiness of crucial naval assets. It mentions that this decision comes after the US Navy announced that 12 of the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers will continue serving in the service. &nbsp,

The report states that the Ticonderoga-class cruisers, which have undergone extensive modernization, including upgrades to their Aegis Combat System and other critical systems, will play a vital role in the fleet.

However, it also mentions that the US Navy’s original plan to retire these cruisers was criticized because of concerns about capacity gaps and the high cost of modernization. &nbsp,

However, Asia Times&nbsp, noted&nbsp, in January 2024 that despite these efforts, the US Navy faces a” cruiser gap” as it retires Ticonderoga-class cruisers. Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, the US Navy ‘s&nbsp, primary&nbsp, surface warship, may also already have exhausted their upgrade potential with no more internal space for future upgrades.

China’s Type 055 cruisers and Type 052 destroyers, equipped with advanced missile systems, pose a significant threat, particularly with the deployment of DF-21D and DF-26 anti-ship ballistic missiles and YJ-21 hypersonic missiles. &nbsp,

The US Navy’s modernization efforts are crucial but may not suffice to match China’s numerical superiority, as&nbsp, historical evidence&nbsp, suggests that fleet size often trumps technological advantages in naval warfare.

While the US Navy’s DDG ( X ) program aims to replace the Arleigh Burke destroyers and Ticonderoga-class cruisers, it is still in the design and development phase. &nbsp,

The DDG ( X ) will feature advanced technologies, including the Aegis combat system, integrated power systems and enhanced weapon capacity. The design will incorporate 96 standard&nbsp, vertical&nbsp, launch&nbsp, system (VLS ) &nbsp, cells and the potential for 12 large missile launch cells. &nbsp,

In January 2024, USNI&nbsp, reported&nbsp, that the&nbsp, US Navy is planning a three-year overlap between the construction of its next-generation DDG ( X ) guided-missile destroyers and the current Flight III Arleigh Burke destroyers, aiming to start DDG ( X ) construction in fiscal year 2032.

USNI says the&nbsp, DDG ( X ) will incorporate the combat systems, sensors and weapons of the&nbsp, Arleigh Burke&nbsp, Flight III within a new hull designed for expanded space, weight, power, and cooling to accommodate future high-power equipment and weapons.

However, in June 2023, Asia Times&nbsp, pointed out&nbsp, that&nbsp, the DDG ( X ) program&nbsp, faces scrutiny over its feasibility and strategic alignment amid evolving naval warfare dynamics.

Incorporating&nbsp, advanced but unproven technologies such as lasers and hypersonic weapons in the design&nbsp, may be challenging, as the US faces hurdles in getting its laser and hypersonic weapons programs up to speed.

The DDG ( X ) may also be incompatible with the US Navy ‘s&nbsp, Distributed Maritime Operations ( DMO ) concept, which emphasizes smaller, dispersed units over larger ships, as they&nbsp, risk concentrating capabilities in a single, vulnerable asset. &nbsp,

Cost-effectiveness is another contentious issue, with calls to extend the life of the Arleigh Burke destroyers rather than to create a completely new design.

The latest Arleigh Burke Flight III models already feature cutting-edge upgrades, but a planned Flight IV variant was scrapped&nbsp, to fund nuclear ballistic missile submarines&nbsp, ( SSBN). &nbsp,

Sustainment and logistical&nbsp, challenges, such as transitioning industrial capacity and replenishing&nbsp, VLS&nbsp, at sea, compound the dilemma. &nbsp,

Meanwhile, &nbsp, China ‘s&nbsp, People’s Liberation Army-Navy ( PLAN ) continues&nbsp, to expand rapidly. With China ‘s&nbsp, shipbuilding&nbsp, capacity&nbsp, dwarfing&nbsp, the US’s, it&nbsp, now has the world’s largest navy in terms of ship numbers.

While US vessels are more technologically advanced, the&nbsp, US&nbsp, Navy risks relying too much on costly and untested designs, potentially ceding strategic advantage to a numerically superior Chinese fleet.

Continue Reading

South Korea’s sloppy coup attempt: Why’d Yoon do it? – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Editors seeking a tale typically concentrate on answering the “five Ws,” but in South Korea that has often been challenging.

That was undoubtedly the case during a time of military rules in the 1970s and 1980s, when the military-backed authorities had all the means to terrify Asian editors. Federal officials were known to use wiretaps to spie on international journalists, and they even blackmailed some of them after being caught in honey traps with sexual partners.

The nation has become more transparent since it first became a republic in 1987, and a shoddy coup attempt by President Yoon Suk Yeol failed before any judges from the coup plotters ‘ group may prevent the world from learning the fairly completely compiled responses to four of the five W questions regarding the incident: the who, the what, the when, and the where.

It appears that Yoon colluded with some members of the military by appointing General Park An-su, the chief of staff of the Republic of Korea Army, to be in charge of military rules. But, in the National Assembly in Seoul on Tuesday ( December 3 ), with soldiers in battle gear trying to get in and shut down the country’s parliament, Yoon’s own civilian party leader turned on the president.

Yoon had stacked the defense with loyalists. but he hadn’t protected his civil side. He had decreed military laws, but his order was rejected in congress.

We’re still waiting to see if the public and his quick boss, Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun, who are reportedly held responsible by the leader for poor advice, resign, and how the whole situation ends up having an impact on the president’s reputation, who is apparently very unhappy halfway through a five-year elected term.

Some people will feel justified in joke describing the situation as a ludicrous returning to 1980s politicians from responses to those four Ws. As Karl Marx said: First moment drama, next day comedy.

But in reality we don’t hear quite enough to be certain that’s a good judgment. The second W, or “why,” is what has been lacking in this story thus far. Yoon did it for what reason?

Begin with the description he gave in his televised statement announcing martial law on Tuesday night in Seoul:

I therefore declare crisis martial law to protect a liberal South Korea from the dangers posed by North Korea’s communist troops and to stop anti-state groups from plundering people’s freedom and happiness.

This give the president the benefit of the doubt and believe, for the moment, for purposes of figuring things out, that he was advised to do so by his troops.

Retired US Marine Colonel Grant Newsham, who frequently writes for Asia Times about military issues, says in an message that he is” curious to know why he did it and why the army went down.” In response to Yoon’s mention of” challenges posed by North Korea’s socialist causes, Something specific? If not, not a good move”.

Let’s find out why the defense minister and the army under General Park continued to support Yoon’s plan until National Assembly lawmakers stood up and voted to reject the presidential order.

First, there is, indeed, a history here. The military-backed regime rolled back in the 1970s and 1980s by using an alleged heightened threat from North Korea as a pretext for grabbing power.

One of the two authors in the article you’re reading, who is asking today if the Seoul Hilton concierge is still holding his gas mask and helmet in preparation for the following round, was directly involved in this situation.

The North did not resist the temptation to move militarily south in large enough units to be found after the assassination of South Korean President Park Chung Hee on October 26, 1979, at a time when there was great conflict in the South. Some of the reports coming out of Seoul to the contrary were pure lies created by the forces supporting ailing Major General Chun Doo-hwan’s ultimately successful power grab.

South Korean government officials were caught red-handed by reporters from the Baltimore Sun Tokyo bureau in fabricating a report that claimed Northern plans to invade the South appeared to be taking off.

Prime Minister Shin Hyon-hwak claimed that a” close ally” had informed the government that North Korea’s infiltration-trained Eighth Army Corps had been a long distance from intelligence surveillance in a briefing with South Korean journalists on May 10, 1980. The unit might show up in South Korea, perhaps between May 15 and May 20.

At the time, South Korea had only two” close allies”, the United States and Japan. Thus it was a simple matter to check, and to report in the Sun the next morning, that neither ally had provided this information.

Instead, the Japanese said the South Koreans had been trying to peddle the “intelligence” to them, claiming it came from China – a country that certainly was not a close ally. A Japanese source blatantly stated,” The South Korean inquiry appeared to be something of an advertising balloon.

With this historical background, it should have been no surprise on early on Wednesday when the military announced that no unusual North Korean movements had been detected after the South Korean special forces soldiers assigned to enforce martial law had left the premises and the mission had been abandoned.

What do you believe Kim Jong Un will accomplish? asks Stanford’s Daniel Sneider, whose Asia Times byline is familiar to you, dear readers. ” Sit tight and enjoy the show, I imagine”.

In fact, Kim Jong Un of North Korea doesn’t believe it’s time to act now that the recent events on Seoul’s streets don’t sound remotely sufficient.

Korean Military Academy loyalists dispute the claim that North Korean forces even actively participated in the Gwangju uprising a little later in May 1980, when Seoul’s streets were on fire.

They contend that Chun and his sidekick Roh Tae-woo, both of whom were honorable KMA graduates and later became president, would not have oppressed the populace in the manner that those two and their special forces subordinates were, and that doing is said to have contributed to the uprising.

History as guidance has its limits. Before the soldiers who enforce martial law stood down at the National Assembly, Sneider noted in an email that” we will have to see how much of the army follows the orders.” ” This is not 1979 or 1980″. &nbsp,

Moving on, and again giving Yoon the benefit of the doubt, note that, in the president’s justification for martial law, he tied North Korea to “anti-state” elements at home.

Yoon has been a significant critic of pro-North groups who he believes are attempting to politically overthrow South Korea with some success. We all seem to be at odds with South Korea and its allies that this is a serious issue. The Asia Times has long been making it known.

However, it is not a new problem. Moon Jae-in’s five-year noticeably pro-North presidency immediately preceded Yoon’s taking up residency in the Blue House. And Kim Jong Un did not occupy South Korea at the time.

We are not aware of the evidence if the issue has reached the certifiable Fifth Column stage and needs to be recognized as an emergency that warrants the establishment of a new military dictatorship.

One more element of this subject might be involved here. Very likely, there was no measurable, more significant threat from North Korea. The entire world was furious at the deployment of North Korean troops to Russia, allegedly even to the Kursk frontline, so Yoon made the perfect hints at one.

Oh, and add one more thing: Yoon and the military may have intended to stop Trump from speaking with Kim again. What does the not-quite new background tell us about Yoon’s motivation to pull the martial law stunt at this specific time, though?

Here we must get into purely domestic politics. Yoon has a history of fighting with his own party leader Han and rules against an opposition majority in parliament. With a tight budget, the opposition wants to stifle him, and they’ve got to go after his wife on corruption charges as well.

Meanwhile, apparently the drill is to take a leaf out of ancient South Korean 1970s and 80s history, hype the North Korean threat and rule by decree. Yoon’s move had some potential success, as the president had stacked the military against rebellious anti-North Korean sympathisers. But the venture failed.

Where do we go from there in this argument? Even deeper into domestic politics, probably. Stay tuned for that.

” This is an act of political suicide”, says Newsham. ” Yoon did a shoot, ready, aim sort of thing. He’s right about pro-NK and pro-CCP elements in the opposition. But, man, this doesn’t look good. Hard to put the egg back together. It’s not difficult to imagine a few parties who can benefit from this turn of events if one is a chess player.

Uwe Parpart&nbsp, is publisher and editor-in-chief of Asia Times. Follow him on X @uwe_parpart

Associate Editor Bradley K. Martin covered the democratization movement in South Korea for Newsweek and the Baltimore Sun before moving on to the Baltimore Sun. Follow him on X @bradleykmartin

Continue Reading

Trump tariffs potential death knell for Japan automakers – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Somewhere in the world, probably Beirut, Carlos Ghosn is having a severe case of sadness.

The Nissan-Motor-CEO-turned-international-fugitive is seeing stock plunge 47 % during the recent CEO’s five-year career. Makoto Uchida also lost more than 100 percent details to Japan’s Topix score. He’s then Nissan’s worst-performing president since at least 1974.

But Nissan’s slip isn’t happening in a suction, as Japan’s another engine giants can speak.

In 2019, the business was still reeling from Ghos n’s arrest on financial misconduct charges and escape. Nissan and its Japanese competitors are now facing a worldwide market shakeup caused by the growth of China.

Or, as Michael Dunne, CEO of automobile industry advice ZoZoGo, calls it, the “great China vehicle blitzkrieg”. According to Dunne,” the unexpected flood of Chinese cars is upending years of steady market securities and profits.”

As Donald Trump enters the White House to start off trade war, China Inc. is becoming even more of a goal. Chinese manufacturers are under increasing pressure due to a precise explosion in competition from China, particularly in the field of energy vehicles.

The Volt manufacturing acceleration process has been at best slower. Has Japan Inc. CEOs ‘ pressure on the nation’s long-dominant hybrid car market shifted to EVs and loosened their hand?

” China may export a spectacular 6 million vehicles to more than one hundred countries this month, cementing its status as the country’s No 1 producer”, Dunne says.

The typical price of those made-in-China cars: US$ 19, 000. ” That’s less than half the regular price of a new vehicle in America and Europe”, Dunne adds. Customers in all time zones are switching to new Chery, MG, Changan, and BYD models instead of Chevys, VWs, and Hondas.

If not for Trump’s returning to the scene 48 time from now, Chinese EVs eating Japan’s meal would be problems much. The US president-elect has hit the ground running by enacting transfer taxes on both China and Canada.

Trump’s inclusion of neighbors in his price list is shocking Tokyo and Seoul. One big concern is Trump’s plan to impose 100 % levies on vehicles made in Mexico ( and, presumably, on Canada too ).

As Trump results to business, his “revenge” journey is sure to start in Asia. That has leaders at Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, Kia and some bracing to levies of similar scale heading Asia’s manner. Auto-production-heavy markets like Thailand also may be in harm’s way as global supply chains go astray.

Tesla businessman Elon Musk has Trump’s hearing as the next trade war develops, thinning the story. Earlier this year, Musk warned that Chinese Vehicle areas are destined to have” important” achievement outside China.

Musk claimed in January that” the Chinese auto companies are the most competitive car companies in the world.” According to the statement,” I believe they will have a major achievement outside of China depending on the establishment of taxes or trade barriers.”

But, he added, “frankly, I think, if there are no industry restrictions established, they will very much dismantle most various companies in the world”.

In the months that followed, Musk has attempted to refute those sentiments. Apparently, someone in the Shanghai place reminded Musk of Tesla’s sprawling manufacturing presence there, where he built his first outside” Plant”.

Musk’s close relationship with Trump — including a position as authorities efficiency advisor— muddies the issue. How Musk manages to compromise his position in Trump World with an economy that Tesla heavily relies on, one that Tesla relies on.

Some argue that Musk’s level – and position in Trump World – may help Tesla engage in China via-a-vis contemporaries.

Tesla “has the scale and scope that are unmatched in the EV industry, and this dynamic could give Musk and Tesla a clear competitive advantage in a non-EV subsidy environment, coupled with likely higher China tariffs that will continue to dethrone cheaper Chinese EV players ( BYD, Nio, etc. )” from flooding the U. S. business over the forthcoming times”, says Dan Ives, an analyst at Wedbush Securities.

There is nothing scientific about where all this leads, though, in Japan, where the country’s economy is still reeling from decades of excessive monetary easing.

Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has been frantically trying to meet with Trump since his shock victory on November 5. But to no cost. So much, Trump World has refused to grant Ishiba a Mar-a-Lago market.

Ishiba hopes that by forming a specific relationship with Trump, Japan Inc. will suffer less collateral harm. It’s what former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe did during Trump’s 2017-2021 president.

Abe became the first earth president to jump to Trump Tower in New York to love the ring in November 2016, just weeks after Trump’s victory in the election. But other than garnered worldwide headlines, the prank did little good.

Trump continued to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which was started by the US. Abe had pressed Trump to be on the TPP, which was the foundation of Tokyo’s efforts to encircle China.

Nor did Abe’s beauty offensive win Tokyo a slip on the Trump 1.0 taxes. Trump, however, palled around with Kim Jong Un in way that upheld North Korea’s brutal government at the cost of Japan’s national security. Trump humiliated Abe by revealing that the Chinese president had nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize, adding insult to injury.

But there’s another reason Ishiba may perform Trump 2.0 quite carefully: the interpersonal US leader’s wish for a “grand bargain” with Xi.

Trump government takes, including Scott Bessent as US Treasury director, argue that this is the end game. Today’s risks of large tariffs, they argue, are only a negotiating strategy aimed at prodding Beijing to flex to US needs.

Japan’s issue is that it would be looking into any diplomatic Group of Two trade offer from the outside. Chinese EV industry would be the main beneficiaries of any such agreement.

That, of course, would be the same of President Joe Biden’s plan of shutting Chinese Vehicles out of the US business with 100 % fees.

Trump claimed on the campaign trail that “large companies are only being built across the border in Mexico” by China to make vehicles to offer in the US market. Our folks will man those flowers, and those plants will be constructed in the United States.

The vegetables Trump may employ to encourage China to construct US factories remain ambiguous. But the stick if China Inc doesn’t post could be 200 % tariffs, Trump has warned.

Where does this leave South Korea and Japan, in my opinion?

Now, it’s clear Foreign EV makers are on a break. By the time they were a month quick, BYD, Leapmotor, and Xiaomi already had their yearly delivery goals crossed. What’s more, BYD, Xpeng and Zeekr saw record quarterly sales in November.

BYD, for instance, delivered 504, 003 passenger cars in November and 500, 526 in October. Its full-year sales for passenger vehicles presently hit 3, 740, 930, exceeding the week’s 3.6 million goal.

Leapmotor, which is backed by Stellantis, saw 40, 169 deliveries in November, up 5.2 % from October and a whopping 117 % year on year. As competition in China heats up, Tesla has had to slash Model Y prices by 10, 000 yuan ( US$ 1, 371 ) to 239, 900 yuan ( US$ 32, 000 ).

At the moment, Chinese automakers are playing catch-up in the EV area and boosting purchases. That’s regardless of what becomes of Trump’s business conflict or his pledge to eliminate Biden’s$ 7, 500 return on EV payments.

Toyota, for instance, is building a great power shop in the US state of North Carolina”. We plan for the long term, but political considerations aren’t a factor in how we approach product creation or investment opportunities,” says David Christ, vice president of Toyota North America.

Yet Japan Inc. is bleeding global market share. A new analysis by Bloomberg economists found that Japanese automakers saw the biggest market share losses of any peers between 2019 and 2024 in China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand.

How China is gaining from those losses can be written in bold font between the lines. It’s likely they’ll strengthen that push,” says Bloomberg Intelligence senior auto analyst Tatsuo Yoshida of China’s ambitions.

Even the sales and output of the much-vaunted Toyota appears&nbsp, to have plateaued. All six of the main Japanese automakers that Bloomberg Intelligence has tracked have consistently ceded ground. In Thailand and in Singapore, where Japanese carmakers long enjoyed strong customer loyalty, market shares are down to 35 % from 50%-plus in 2019.

In 2023, China dethroned Japan to become the world’s top automaker. The devastating blow to Japan’s collective psyche was the worst since China overtook Japan in terms of GDP in 2011.

However, the ways that Chinese automakers managed to capture Japan’s nap continue to surprise economic historians. It’s not just autos. Efforts to generate more tech” unicorns,” for example, didn’t gain the traction Japan’s government expected. Even today, Japan trails Indonesia in the race to generate US$ 1 billion-plus valuation startups.

As the EV market expanded, Japan’s persistent obsession with hybrid vehicles reflects this same pattern. Granted, the slowdown in US demand for EVs has many auto analysts believing Japan’s dual-track approach has merit. At least temporarily.

Yet Toyota officials and their Japanese counterparts are in fact aware of their errors when they dismiss the EV future as being in view. Toyota is catching up on older models. Japan’s top automaker is tripling EV output as it chases China’s BYD, which in 2023 surpassed Musk’s Tesla.

The question, of course, is whether it may already be too late as Tesla, Detroit, Germany and China beat Toyota to the market”. No one,” says advisory ZoZoGo’s Dunne”, can match BYD on price. Period. Boardrooms in America, Europe, Korea and Japan are in a state of shock.”

Of course, Trump’s trade war could complicate the outlook considerably. This is especially important because no one is sure whether Trump will strike a deal with Xi’s China or instead impose tariffs.

For now, Cigdem Cerit, an analyst at Fitch Ratings, sees a” neutral outlook for the global automotive sector, “reflecting” our expectation of a stable production environment, with global light vehicle sales projected to increase by about 2 %.”

But Cerit adds”, the growth will be unevenly distributed across regions, as European and Chinese markets face macroeconomic challenges. We expect pricing to remain subdued due to escalating competition.”

For Japanese chieftains like Nissan’s Uchida to those at Toyota, the threat from China’s auto industry isn’t to be taken lightly. Nor does the upcoming US government work with China Inc. or support its replacement.

Follow William Pesek on X at @WilliamPesek

Continue Reading

Korea nightmare persists after lawmakers’ reject Yoon martial law – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

The Korean National Assembly rescinded a military law order issued by Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol despite the presence of combat troops attempting to enter meeting areas in the legislature’s building.

Diffuses of troops that had entered the main political building began to leave, according to Vietnamese news media, after lawmakers had voted to prevent the president’s military law decree. The North Korean government announced the troops ‘ withdrawal and claimed that there hadn’t been any unusual North Korean motions. Yoon himself announced the soldiers had left, revoked his order, and stated that a government gathering would follow quickly.

The North Vietnamese president’s initial determination was disastrous for both Korea and the United States. The country has been greatly harmed by Yoon’s reckless declaration, which also poses a serious threat to our relationship with the US.

The United States keeps a massive military force in Korea&nbsp, based on a common security agreement.

The US has 28, 500 US soldiers in Korea, mostly Army, the majority of them at Camp Humphreys, the largest US international base in the world. Near the Asian Demilitarized Zone are US Army Garrison Daegu and Camp Casey.

Kunsan and Osan Air Bases are US Air Force bases. The 8th Fighter Wing,” The Wolf Pack,” is housed at the Republic of Korea Air Force’s 38th Fighter Group and the Pacific Air Force’s Seventh Air Force base in Kunsan Air Base.

Osan Air Base, 48 miles south of the DMZ, is home to the” Mustangs” 51st Fighter Wing and 24 tenant units, including Seventh Air Force. As the most forth deployed permanently-based flap in the Air Force, the 51st Fighter Wing is charged with providing mission-ready Airmen to carry out fight businesses and receive follow-on forces.

As a component of the US ballistic missile defense system, the US has deployed a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense ( THAAD ) system in South Korea since 2016.

The Biden administration, at least so far, has said very little, perhaps trying to work in the background in the early stages of the Korean President’s news. However, Washington cannot feign desire and lay idly by.

That’s a promising sign if the Korean army sticks by the political order, as they appear to have done when they retreated from the parliament building. However, the army and police must not attempt to thwart protests by using violence as a social instrument, as they have done.

If the Asian army continues in this manner, it will reduce its legitimacy at home. Was it push the US to go through a divorce it doesn’t want? South Korea’s internal political climate is about unsalvageable right now. It remains to be seen if common sense may change carelessness.

Stephen Bryen is a journalist for Asia Times and previously held the positions of assistant secretary of protection for policy and staff director of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee. &nbsp, This&nbsp, post was second published&nbsp, on his&nbsp, Substack newsletter&nbsp, Weapons and Strategy and is republished with authority.

Continue Reading

Will NASA Moon rocket get canceled in favor of Musk Mars project? – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia, Technology

Since Donald Trump’s new electoral defeat, rumours and speculation have circulated that NASA’s large Moon jet, the Space Launch System ( SLS), may be under threat. The US area company’s Artemis program, which aims to bring people back to Earth for the first time since 1972, includes a number of crucial components.

For the first lunar getting mission, called Artemis III, the SLS will launch four pilots on NASA’s Orion team capsules. The Moon will be reached by Orion next. Once in lunar orbit, Orion will dock with Elon Musk’s Starship vehicle ( launched separately ). A Starship, which departs from Orion and descends to the moon’s surface, may have two pilots float into it.

After walking on the Moon, the two pilots return to solar orbit in Starship, which docks with Orion. The two moonwalkers leave the Starship in lunar orbit and return their companions on Orion.

According to US place journalist Eric Berger, “NASA’s Space Launch System rocket may be cancelled, but to be clear, we are far from anyone being settled, but based on what I’m hearing, it seems at least 50-50.”

There have n’t been any official announcements. But, for a choice may align with previous rumors that the Trump administration might sack NASA and force it to sell much of its function to private companies.

However, was the SLS be replaced with a different rocket quickly? In the midst of the emerging 21st-century place culture, this is at the heart of what America wants to accomplish. By 2030, China has pledged to give its astronauts to the moon. Unlike the US, China is generally traditional in its estimates, so we can conclude date slippage is doubtful. Some in the space industry believe that US place ambitions would suffer significantly if China were to reach the Moon second this era.

However, many aspects of Artemis are holding up the US plan. One of these delayed parts is Musk’s Starship, which acts as the spacecraft on Artemis III. Important milestones like refueling in space and making a Moon landing without a team still need to be demonstrated.

As one of the two chief value cutters aiming to reduce national spending by up to US$$ 2 trillion, Musk has been appointed to the incoming administration. Elon Musk’s ties to Trump and his remarks about shifting attention to a crewed Mars objective have alarmed some spectators.

These remarks appear to echo Musk’s, who has focused little of his energies on planetary settlement goals rather than the Moon. Some people believe the billionaire’s plan to take humans to Mars using his Starship car to be impossible, according to the billionaire.

The Artemis program was actually created by the Trump presidency in 2017. The program intends to create a permanent foundation where astronauts may conduct cutting-edge research after conducting preliminary missions to the lunar surface.

But, the routine has been slipping. This time, US pilots were scheduled to make their first appearance on Earth. Nasa then says the second landing, during the Artemis III mission, does not take place until Autumn 2026.

Delays have been introduced by revisions to astronauts, issues with Orion’s heat-shield and life assistance devices and, as mentioned, with Starship. Cost overruns and missed deadlines have also been a problem with an upgraded smart build tower for the SLS.

Orion during Artemis I mission
Had Nasa‘s Orion crew capsule start on another jet? Nasa

Importantly, the SLS, which performed exceptionally well during the Artemis I mission in 2022, is one of the factors that are causing difficulties. The Kennedy Space Center at NASA’s Florida Space Center has already invested a number of billions of dollars in designing and building the Orion and related equipment.

NASA says the SLS is” the single jet that you take Orion, pilots, and goods straight to the Moon in a single launch”. But its expense has been criticized: each SLS launch is estimated to cost more than$ 2 billion.

The news of difficulties and complex problems with Artemis coincides with much-lauded PR for Musk’s SpaceX, particularly in relation to its Starship test flights. This included next season’s achievement, which wow space enthusiasts all over the world when the car massive booster level was caught in two robotic arms as it returned from space to the bank’s launchpad in Texas. Unlike several launch automobiles, Starship is designed to be entirely reusable. Coming crewed missions may benefit tremendously from its low cost effectiveness.

If the SLS were to be cancelled, was Musk’s Starship change it? In this case, the SpaceX spacecraft could presumably serve both as the launch pad for pilots traveling into lunar orbit and as the spacecraft for their landing on Earth. This is essentially possible, but would be far from a simple, like-for-like replacement. While Starship is still in its testing phase and still needs to be completed before astronauts may board it, the SLS is now operational.

The Falcon Heavy is yet another SpaceX rocket that has recently been rumored to be capable of launching Orion. Engineers would need to adjust the assembly and launch procedures as well as the rocket. This may carry some uncertainties, and with it the risk of more, considerable delays to the Artemis schedule. All of this suggests that the US needs to advance in this 21st-century space race if there is n’t much time left to significantly alter NASA’s Moon program.

Falcon Heavy launches Europa Clipper
Orion had been launched from a Falcon Heavy rocket, according to previous research from NASA. SpaceX, CC BY-NC

Rocket debuts require particular designs to satisfy objective requirements, as well as substantial planning for carrying astronauts, aircraft and payloads. The mission of Artemis is to land astronauts on the Moon in a variety of locations, including the largely unknown southern shaft.

The development and planning involved are extremely optimistic and sophisticated. It remains to be seen whether SpaceX, or any other business start businesses, are prepared for such a major effort and determination.

It does n’t seem economically advantageous to completely abandon the rocket with the hundreds of billions already invested in it. There may be other ways for corporate place players to get involved, as NASA has indicated by its willingness to look for creative approaches and collaborate with business on upcoming Artemis missions.

The incoming Trump administration has a reason to ask questions and prompt NASA program price versions. However, it would be wise for them to thoroughly consider the trade-offs before making decisions with such dire consequences.

Whether or not the top concern is winning the new place competition may be. Whatever objectives the new administration chooses to prioritize or to set aside, it may have to properly defend those goals to various lawmakers and the American electorate.

Yang Gao is a doctor of technology and mind of the Center for Robotics Research, King’s College London.

The Conversation has republished this essay under a Creative Commons license. Read the original post.

Continue Reading

Tariffs have two very different meanings for Trump – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Donald Trump has not adhered to agreement. But some people were surprised last week when he threatened to attack China, Mexico, and Canada over what his trade policy would be when he took office on January 20. Presidents-elect are not supposed to announce policies in advance, but he does n’t care about such niceties.

Strangely enough, but, his statement was really very soothing, perhaps more convincing than he meant it to be.

How could it be regarded as comforting to know that the first day of his presidency would threaten to impose 25 % tariffs on all exports of goods from America’s two biggest and closest investing partners? How could it be comforting to be threatened with a 10 % tax increase on Chinese goods? The obvious motivation behind these risks is what provides the answer.

Trump’s stated love of tariffs, which he described as” the most beautiful word in the dictionary,” is the subject of a heated debate over whether he views them as economic and fiscal policy tools or as leverage in negotiations. If they are instruments of financial and fiscal policy, the taxes will be popular and long-lasting. They will be targeted at particular places and may be very short-lived if they are negotiating weapons.

The threat of tariffs as negotiating weapons was really comforting because of how they were placed in the next category. And since the names of the arms ‘ potential targets were so ambiguous and impossible, it should be relatively simple for China, Mexico, and Canada to deal with them.

In reality, each of the three threats was aimed at putting an American national issue on the shoulders of foreign nations. Trump claimed that the threats made against China and Mexico were meant to force those nations into halting the flow of the methadone drug that results in 100, 000 deaths annually in America as a result of overdoses.

None of these nations may fulfill their obligations. Fentanyl and its components are subject to stricter controls in China, but it can be purchased from numerous sources and is notoriously difficult to control. According to the&nbsp, Financial Times, deaths caused by fentanyl abuse in the US actually decreased by 20 % last year. It is unclear why Mexico could be any worse at policing the US-Mexico border than the US itself, given that the illegal immigration across the French border is currently little.

The expectations are clear. Trump may only want to sway a small amount from each of these governments so that he can consider a victory and demonstrate earlier in his administration how strong he is and how America may outperform different nations under his leadership.

This kind of bullying behavior is not the real cause of Trump’s and taxes ‘ worries. Nor does it stay in his employ of tariffs against certain places, such as China. In the same way that he did during his first term in office, he dealt with challenges of the kind this year. Perhaps a nation as large as China would simply defer business through other channels rather than completely halt it with high tariffs against it. After Trump imposed 25 % tariffs on Chinese goods in 2018, this was the case, and it would happen once more.

The real worry

The real worry is that he might want to use tariffs as a genuine tool of economic and fiscal policy, believing that imposing high tariff barriers around America will raise fiscal revenues, promote domestic manufacturing and eliminate America’s trade deficits. If so, then his campaign promise of implementing a 10% or 20% universal tariff – on goods imports from all countries except those on which even higher tariffs are imposed – would be carried out.

This would not be a communicating technique, which would force Europe to spend more on defense or purchase more American liquefied natural gas. In the belief that doing so would render the US more productive and stronger, it would adhere to a deeply held deglobalization idea. Such a plan may be sustained until at least the close of Trump’s word in 2028 and had basically make the existing laws of the world trading system, policed by the World Trade Organization in Geneva, outdated (or, at best, in expulsion ).

Trump’s deglobalization theory is still a mystery as of right now. His choice of Scott Bessent as the Treasury Secretary suggests that he wo n’t attempt to implement a radical change in economic policy. Bessent is a fairly orthodox investment fund manager. However, his nominations for Commerce secretary ( Howard Lutnick, another financier ) and US trade representative ( Jamieson Greer, a lawyer ) suggest that he might, for those men have voiced strong support for broad tariffs.

The manufacturing sector in America typically relies on imported components and raw materials, which would present a significant challenge for Trump, Lutnick, and Greer in imposing a 10 % or 20 % universal tariff. While some manufacturers may welcome defense against foreign competitors, others, including in the defense industry, had notice their input costs rise sharply as a result. Replacing global supply chains with local ones would be problematic, time-consuming, and costly and generally might not even be feasible.

The best chance is that any proposal to implement a universal tariff will receive a wave of lobbying for specific exemptions, enough to postpone the policy or possibly discredit it immediately.

This year’s tax risks were all about negotiating with foreign institutions. Also Trump’s pretended best buddy, Elon Musk, whose Tesla electric car company, Starlink satellite online company, and SpaceX rocket-launcher all rely on world markets and supply chains, would need to negotiate a large tariff.

Discussions with foreigners might be much simpler than those with Americans.

Previously editor-in-chief of The Economist, &nbsp, Bill Emmott&nbsp, is currently president of the&nbsp, Japan Society of the UK, the&nbsp, International Institute for Strategic Studies&nbsp, and the&nbsp, International Trade Institute.

This post, originally published on Bill Emmott’s Global View, is the English classic of an essay published December 2 in Italian by La Stampa. It is republished with authority.

Continue Reading

All bow before the almighty US dollar – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia, World

The earth was suffering from a massive abundance of dollars in 1971. The world was being flooded with money by British international investment and assistance, as well as US government policies that were inflationary.

The earth had too little golden at the same time, especially the United States. That was a problem because, unlike today, exchange rates did n’t float freely on markets. Money were to be exchanged for gold for$ 35 an ounce. ( The currencies of other countries were fixed-rate pegged to the dollar. )

Europeans were frantically attempting to exchange money for metal or exchange them for other currencies. With the US progressively unable to fulfill its responsibility, traders expected devaluation.

President Richard Nixon halted the economy’s conversionibility into gold in August of that year in response to the money crisis.

Despite a later established devaluation, speculators continued to attack the money. By 1973, the gold standard and resolved exchange rates were past.

Nixon’s Treasury Secretary John Connally made a wonderfully cynical post that is frequently quoted yet now during the devaluation negotiations in 1971. Connally stated to foreigners,” The money is your problem, but ours.”

In an unexpected way, the money was likewise my problem. In 1971, I was the 24-year-old minesweeping and offer agent on the USS Pivot. The Nixon administration decided to pay for basic rights that by granting Pivot and several other US Navy minesweepers as pay for the money problems.

In preparation, the Pivot’s captain tasked me with teaching our crew Spanish – a language that I did n’t know and that the crew turned out to be uninterested in learning. I called the Pentagon in a desperate attempt to find someone there who could help me compile a lengthy list of minesweeper conditions in Spanish. By pointing at their mimeographed files of the list, the crew successfully overcame the language barrier.

These weeks a strong money is, in many ways, everybody’s issue. It’s particularly difficult for international places.

International Monetary Fund research last year concluded that for emerging-market economies,” a 10 % U. S. dollar appreciation, linked to global financial market forces, decreases economic output by 1.9 % after one year, and this drag lingers for two and a half years”. Development-developed nations are worst hit by their ballooning local currency principal and interest duty.

Higher interest rates are a possible issue for the Federal Reserve Board and Fed Chair Jerome Powell, if that’s one of the reasons for a stronger money. Donald Trump, the president-elect, wants more authority over the Federal Reserve, weaker currencies, and lower interest rates. However, the Fed will keep rates higher, which will tend to keep the buck powerful, if his policies are as many economists and investors predicted. In such a case, Powell may find himself in Trump’s sights again.

A stronger money would be no joy for US exporting companies, pretty little including agriculture. Without the money dwindling more, it’s difficult enough to engage with Brazil and other ag-exporting nations.

The money appears to be strengthening further. Since April 2022, the US Dollar Index has been in solid country, rising above 100, and rising since soon September. Despite the mayor’s choices, Wall Street is betting that it will expand under a Trump presidency.

Trump has significantly reassured markets by appointing hedge-fund director Scott Bessent as treasurer. In recent days, the money and long-term interest rates have both increased slightly. Wall Street’s fears about prices have been fueled by the promise of enormous tariffs. Bessent has criticized taxes less heavily, claiming that they can serve as a bargaining chip and that coordination should be done with US friends.

Bessent furthermore, however, has promised to keep the economy’s position as the nation’s reserve currency. That’s a good thing for any government minister to perform, reserve-currency position affords the US many advantages. Keep in mind, though, that it is one of the factors the money is therefore often strong. With so much of the world’s business and assets denominated in dollars, there’s nearly always require for the divine buck.

Connally was half-right, the money is really our money. But it’s not just their difficulty. It’s about everybody’s.

Past lifelong Wall Street Journal Asia journalist and editor&nbsp, Urban Lehner&nbsp, is writer professor of DTN/The Progressive Farmer.

This&nbsp, content, &nbsp, initially published on December 2 by the latter news business and then republished by Asia Times with authority, is © Copyright 2024 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved. Follow&nbsp, Urban Lehner&nbsp, on&nbsp, X @urbanize&nbsp,

Continue Reading

China’s triple-island mystery carrier shakes up naval battlefield – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

A strange triple-island ship launch by China merely might indicate a significant change in naval energy projection and raise questions about its potential for dual use and function in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait.

The War Zone&nbsp, has reported&nbsp, that China’s latest mysterious vehicle, a special ship with three structures, has embarked on its maiden tour, raising questions about its function and style. The War Zone mentions that the fleet, which lacks common defense signs and characteristics commercial-style names, was constructed at Guangzhou Shipyard International’s infrastructure on Longxue Island.

According to the report, satellite pictures indicates that the vehicle was launched between September and October and that building had begun after May 2024. The report takes note of the carrier’s unique layout, which includes three island-like structures along the left side and a large, open, sensor-equipped flight deck.

The special three-island style may have been inspired by earlier multiple-island aircraft companies, such as the HMS Queen Elizabeth. The HMS Queen Elizabeth’s twin-island style allows for beach independence in case of an emergency, as well as a more effective use of the flight board and aircraft area, as well as the ability to separate aircraft operations from running the dispatch.

The HMS Queen Elizabeth’s twin-island style also demonstrates a paradigm change in provider energy, allowing smaller, more practical, and more effective provider designs.

The boat’s intended use is subject to numerous speculations, with options ranging from a civilian study ship to a dual-use system for military procedures, according to The War Zone. According to the report, the vessel’s quick production and innovative design make it possible to prototype for upcoming marine innovations or to provide training.

The ship’s owner and precise mission are still undetermined, according to the report, but its presence points to China’s expansion of naval capabilities and tactical ambitions, especially in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea.

In an article published in The Aviationist final month, Rin Sakurai claims that the style may be inspired by a Chinese state vessel condition that has been posted online since 2022.

Sakurai says the sweet specifies the vehicle to be 200 feet long, 25 feet wide at the trip board, and 15, 000 lots in displacement. It also stipulates that the vehicle may reach a maximum speed of 16 twists, have a range of 5, 000 nautical miles at 12 twists, and maintain at-sea strength for 40 weeks.

Sakurai mentions that the ship likely serves both civilian and military purposes despite the ship’s claim that its specific mission is ambiguous. He mentions that China’s new carrier, which is a type of amphibious assault ship, could conduct military operations if it needed while also having the capability to conduct scientific research. He says this dual-use trend is common, with civilian ships often involved in military activities.

China has built a unique vessel that could support drone operations before for this reason. In May 2024, Asia Times&nbsp, reported&nbsp, that China had launched the world’s first dedicated drone aircraft carrier, marking a significant shift in naval power projection, built at the Jiangsu Dayang Marine shipyard on the Yangtze River.

This drone carrier is smaller and has a wide-spaced catamaran hull with a low flight deck to support large fixed-wing UAVs, unlike traditional aircraft carriers. The ship’s design allows for cost-effective unmanned aerial operations, potentially transforming naval warfare by reducing reliance on manned aircraft.

This development is in line with China’s strategy to strengthen its military presence in crucial strategic areas like Taiwan and the South China Sea. At a fraction of the cost of traditional carriers, the ship can operate drones at sea, demonstrating China’s commitment to modernizing its naval arsenal and keeping a competitive edge in maritime conflicts.

To support operations in the Taiwan Strait or South China Sea, China may require larger vessels capable of carrying larger drones with greater range and payload.

In line with that possible requirement, Asia Times&nbsp, mentioned&nbsp, in October 2024 that China had unveiled its first known tiltrotor drone, the UR6000, designed to enhance military logistics and surveillance operations in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait.

The prototype, developed by United Aircraft, was revealed in October 2024 at the Wuhu Aviation Industrial Park in Anhui province. The drone is scheduled to be certified by 2027, having previously been unveiled at the Singapore Airshow earlier this year.

The UR6000, with a maximum takeoff weight of 6, 100 kilograms and a payload capacity of 2, 000 kilograms, combines a helicopter’s vertical takeoff capability with an airplane’s forward flight ability, allowing for higher speeds.

In the event of a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan, a drone can provide resupply operations. UR6000 drones can fly from China’s Type 76 amphibious assault ships or specialized drone carriers to support offensives to take Tainan, Kaohsiung, and Pingtung following the establishment of a beachhead in southern Taiwan and the surrounding Pingtung Airbase with airborne forces.

Instead of focusing so much power on a few potentially vulnerable ships, China’s new carrier might also be a light carrier whose construction and deployment adhere to the dispersion principle for survivability.

Aside from the UR6000, China’s new stealth fighters may operate from its new carrier. In July 2024, Asia Times&nbsp, reported&nbsp, that China is rapidly advancing its airpower by deploying the J-31B stealth fighter developed by Shenyang Aircraft Industry Group.

Unveiled in late June 2024, the J-31B is designed for carrier operations and is expected to be deployed on China’s third aircraft carrier, the Fujian. This fifth-generation fighter jet, an upgrade from the J-15, features advanced stealth capabilities, making it more challenging to detect by radar.

The J-31B has side weapon bays capable of carrying two missiles each, enhancing its combat capabilities. The Fujian, equipped with an electromagnetic catapult, allows the J-31B to carry more fuel and weapons, thus expanding its operational range. This development is in line with China’s strategic plans to boost its air and sea power, particularly in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait.

However, light carriers may have some significant limitations. They might experience an “offense-defense dilemma,” where adding more aircraft to an attack renders the carrier vulnerable, while holding on to the defense might help. Also, light carriers are just as vulnerable as larger carriers to anti-ship missiles, mines, and submarines. &nbsp,

Continue Reading

Japan’s Marines: Amphibious (but not so) Rapid Deployment Brigade – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

The defence officials from Japan, Australia and the United States&nbsp, just met in Darwin, Australia, aiming to strengthen trilateral defence cooperation. One highlight: They agreed that the Japan&nbsp, Ground Self Defense Force’s ( GSDF) &nbsp, Amphibious Rapid Deployment Brigade&nbsp, ( ARDB) ― akin to Japanese” Marines” ― would regularly deploy to Australia in larger numbers. They may do more sophisticated training alongside US and Australian forces there and elsewhere in the area.

Japan is different from what it was over a decade ago when the term “amphibious” was prohibited. The idea of Chinese troops stationed in the Asia-Pacific area was also controversial.

However, “amphibious” conjured up pictures of Japan’s 1930s and 1940s anger and the ensuing crisis for the Chinese people themselves.

Japan’s aquatic army started developing in soon 2011 after&nbsp, Operation Tomodachi. A dozen Japanese and Americans who were wise enough to refuse to request authorization from USINDOPACOM or the Pentagon helped spur the conversation. &nbsp,

In 2018, the Marine Rapid Deployment Brigade was fully activated. &nbsp,

The JSDF’s transition toward a more consistent war is exemplified by the ARDB. That is both a matter of electronics and weaponry as well as a psychological move.

The amphibious project faced remarkably little political or public opposition perhaps at first. It now faces few altogether, more demonstrating how Japan has changed.

During a joint docking for Iron Fist 24, a US Marine military unit and troops from the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force ARDB coach using US Navy and JSDF products. Photo: Social / the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit

Hasegawa’s analysis

But, while the ARDB demonstrates development, it also reflects the deficiencies in Japan’s efforts to build up its threats.

How thus?

Training and activities, such as those planned for the ARDB in Australia, are meticulously planned months in advance. Any moment the Self-Defense Force sends troops elsewhere, the same is true. &nbsp,

That does not equate to the Japanese Self-Defense Force having the ability to engage in combat. &nbsp,

Instead, think a pianist who is extremely well-versed in one or two pieces but is unable to read music or play a musical on time.

A GSDF commander, Captain Kazuki Hasegawa, wrote an&nbsp, article&nbsp, in US Naval Institute Proceedings in November. He claims that the ARBD cannot be mobilized quickly enough to deal with a crisis in the real world or fight a battle. The JSDF Parachute Brigade, Japan’s another “rapid implementation product,” also has this trait. &nbsp,

As for the ARDB, the major problems include transportation, transportation, and education.

Transport

Boats and air travel are not included in the ARBD, nor are they natural. Normally, transport had been provided by the overworked and too-small-by-half&nbsp, Maritime&nbsp, and&nbsp, Air&nbsp, Self Defense Forces.

As the content information, the ASDF only has 30 transport plane. Moreover, the MSDF has only three landing deliver tank transports, known as LST, that are most beneficial for aquatic operations. And even the present cannot be fully integrated with the ARBD for education, much less for the war effort.

Captain Hasegawa says frankly: &nbsp,

These figures, in particular given Japan’s alleged invasion of its most distant islands, do not adequately address the intense transportation demands of aerial and amphibious contingency operations.

Logistics 

According to reports, the ARDB lacks the necessary shipping, including having ready-made weapons and equipment. Additionally, there are no pre-staged weapons and equipment companies throughout Japan, including those that facilitate ARDB rollout in the southern islands. In brief, it is missing the ability to get into action.

The Japan Ground Self Defense Force’s Marine Rapid Deployment Brigade, which is similar to the Chinese” Marines,” will often travel to Australia in larger numbers, along with US and American forces, and will provide more sophisticated teaching it. Photo: Sankei

Education and Readiness&nbsp,

Captain Hasegawa offers another terrible judgment:

It’s challenging to maintain or even improve readiness for the JSDF’s expected operations because of the present JSDF training system.

A device must exert a lot of effort in order to make for quick combat. Additionally, the ARDB training cycle does n’t guarantee that a regiment is ready on a quick-call basis ( a large battalion by US Marine Corps standards ). &nbsp,

The US Marine Corps Marine Expeditionary Unit ( MEU) training and rotation cycle is suggested by Captain Hasegawa. Just put, one unit is ready to fight and another is education to be the “ready to come” system. The second is recovering from being the “on-call” regiment on lively activities.

The Captain properly states that the “backbone” of Japan’s protection is coordination with&nbsp, US forces. &nbsp,

So, the ARDB should deploy quickly enough for the Marines. The rest of the JSDF should also have that in mind.

In closing Commander Hasegawa recommends that more numerous and complicated mutual coaching with US troops in Japan, especially the US Marine Corps, is needed to improve ARDB capabilities and&nbsp, interoperability&nbsp, with US forces.

This is sound advice. &nbsp,

The Japanese can aim for a high level of integration with Americans ( and vice versa ) beyond just training together. That should include including ARBD into operational plans, joint command and control, and exercises so they can fight together rather than as separate “battlespaces” in parallel.

Done right, the ARDB and the Marines ( and US Navy ) can be a bite-sized proof of concept that might bleed over to the entire JSDF-US forces relationship.

Suggestions

A few ideas to bring this about:

  • Integrate a Japanese amphibious ship and an ARDB regiment with the US Navy’s Amphibious Ready Group ( ARG ) at Sasebo, Japan and the Marine Corps ‘ 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit ( MEU) on Okinawa. These units provide the MEU’s amphibious shipping.
  • Create a multinational Australia, Japan, US amphibious group. From Darwin in northern Australia, each country would supply ships and troops. &nbsp, Form Joint Task Force –&nbsp, Nansei Shoto.
  • Make defense of Japan’s southern islands a joint effort, with a headquarters on&nbsp, Okinawa. There, Japanese and Americans could work side-by-side on a real-world problem– and conduct necessary planning, training, patrols and contingency operations.
Japanese Self-Defense Force base under development at Yonaguni Island, Okinawa Prefecture.

Each of these options serves as a “forcing function” to enhance capabilities ( in the case of ARDB). They would force US and Japanese ( and any other forces ) to become linked ( physically and psychologically ) to the point they could conduct real-world short-notice operations of all sorts, including fighting.

A half-spoken supplementary suggestion: The Marines might also want to prepare the paperwork for Captain Hasegawa’s transition to the Marines’, and perhaps also consider making him a major. At least in this writer’s experience, the ruling class in most militaries does n’t like being told it’s got problems.

Captain Hasegawa has, nonetheless, done Japan and the US a service by calling a spade a spade. &nbsp,

RELATED:

Former US diplomat and former US Marine officer Grant Newsham. He is the author of the book” When China Attacks: A Warning To America“.

JAPAN Forward was the first to publish this article. It is republished with permission.

Continue Reading