Skip to comments.U.S. Navy Is Removing Life Support For Shipbuilding Industry
Posted on 07/11/2005 10:19:47 AM PDT by mr_hammer
click here to read article
Thanks for the ping!
China has already begun to attack us. The attack is political, so far. China is not your friend.
U.S. Attitude Shifts as Chinas Military Improves
By WILLIAM MATTHEWS, Defense News, July 11th, 2005
In 1991, U.S. precision weapons, night vision, stealth and other technologies dazzled the world by obliterating the Iraqi Army in four days. Among those most profoundly impressed by the U.S. accomplishment was China.
Awed by the power of U.S. technology, the Chinese military launched a sustained effort to modernize and reorganize its military, said David Finkelstein, an Asia expert at the Center for Naval Analysis.
A decade and a half later, its Americans who are beginning to be awed by what China has achieved.
The Chinese military has acquired an assortment of new weapons: Russian submarines and jet fighters, destroyers with state-of-the-art phased-array radar, airborne early warning aircraft, cruise missiles and wake-homing torpedoes, among others.
Stressing quality over quantity, China has cut the size of its military, yet increased its capability, Finkelstein said. It has developed new command-and-control doctrines and new standards for training troops.
Chinese military leaders know whats broken and what has to be fixed to make themselves a more capable, professional institution, Finkelstein said July 7 during a discussion on the Chinese military at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington think tank.
Chinas Ultimate Goal?
The question for the U.S. military is: What does China plan to do with its improving military power?
For U.S. military planners, who are conducting the Defense Departments Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), Finkelstein said,it would be prudent to assume that China will continue to improve its military.
But it would be a mistake to assume that China inevitably harbors hostile intent toward the United States, he said.
That seems to be the assumption President George W. Bush and his administration are making, another expert said.
As recently as December, former Secretary of State Colin Powell referred to the U.S. relationship with China as the best in 30 years. But since then, there has been a noticeable shift in the way top administration officials discuss China, said John Tkacik, a research fellow in China policy at the Heritage Foundation.
In June, for example, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld questioned continued increases in Chinese military spending.
Since no nation threatens China, one must wonder: Why this growing investment? Rumsfeld said.
Finkelstein contends that China perceives that it has legitimate defense needs. China fears Japan, wants to protect the access of its burgeoning industries to shipping lanes, and has reasons to worry about the aspirations of Asian neighbors such as India.
Tkacik offers this answer: China is preparing for a major war over Taiwan.
The U.S. military should pay attention to Chinas military advances, said Daniel Gouré, vice president of the Lexington Institute, a defense research center in Arlington, Va. There arent many uses for these advanced weapons except against an equally large and capable foe, he said
Gouré cautioned against those who have advised that the QDR focus on the war against terrorism. China and its role as a rising world power are at least as important as the war on terrorism, he said.
The forces needed to check the military power that China may become are substantially different from those optimized for the global war on terrorism.
Among the U.S. capabilities that have a clear impression on China is the ability to go downtown, Gouré said. China is pursuing defenses against the capabilities that enabled the United States to strike with impunity in Belgrade and Baghdad, he said.
If the Chinese succeed, the United States will be unable to operate aircraft other than stealth planes anywhere near China, Gouré said.
For the U.S. military, that creates a clear role for planes like the F/A-22, the B-2 bomber and a B-2 follow-on, he said. It also could increase the requirement for electronic warfare capabilities and very high-speed or hypersonic strike aircraft, he said.
In response to the Chinese military buildup, Gouré said U.S. planners conducting the QDR should give consideration to:
Maintaining a strong nuclear attack submarine fleet. Talk of reducing the fleet raises questions about how the Navy would maintain an adequate undersea presence in Asia.
Equipping aircraft carriers with better early warning aircraft, long-range unmanned aerial vehicles and stealthy F-35 fighters.
Keeping ship-based ballistic missile defenses in the region.
And we need a ground force capable of taking the war to China if that becomes necessary, he said. It may not be necessary or possible to march the U.S. Armys 3rd Infantry Division into Beijing, Gouré said. But U.S. military planners should consider putting U.S. troops on Chinese soil in ways that are persuasive.
Theres another threat the United States has yet to address: cyber defense.
Theres a lot of talk these days about the terrorist cyber threat. That pales in comparison to the ability of countries like China to put 10,000 or 20,000 trained people on the hacking circuit if they want to do so, he said. That is something you simply cannot ignore.
If all that sounds daunting to the United States, it may be more daunting to the Chinese, according to Finkelstein.
Chinas military modernization is occurring amid extraordinary economic growth, modernization and change in its society. In recent weeks, for example, riots have erupted among farmers over land disputes, students over rising university fees and peasants over the growing gap between rich and poor.
For Chinese government officials, the biggest problems lie not beyond the waters edge, but right at their doorstep, Finkelstein said.
The big story is about whether the Chinese Communist Party will succeed or fail in managing the rise of China at home, he said.
BAE Chief: Lower U.S. Tech Transfer Rules
By WILLIAM MATTHEWS , Defense News, July 11, 2005
The chief of Europes largest defense company is urging the U.S. government to ease rules that restrict foreign access to defense U.S. technology.
Dick Olver, chairman of London-based BAE SYSTEMS, said export controls imposed by the State Department are hindering the development of high-tech weapons such as the Joint Strike Fighter and data fusion technology that promises to improve battlefield situational awareness.
In addition, buy American sentiment in the House of Representatives in recent years threatens to further limit the ability of foreign companies to sell to the U.S. military. Olver called it misguided.
If buy American legislation prevails, it would impair the United States defense capabilities because it would prevent the U.S. taking full advantage of the global market, Olver said in a July 12 address at the Woodrow Wilson Center, a public policy research institute.
BAE has a particular interest in lowering the barriers that inhibit technology transfers and buying from foreign defense suppliers. Since 1999, the company has bought about a dozen U.S. defense firms. In March, BAE paid $4.2 billion to buy United Defense Industries, the maker of Bradley fighting and Marine Corps amphibious vehicles, naval guns, missile launchers and precision munitions.
BAE employs 35,000 American workers and expects to keep expanding in the United States, Olver said.
But even a trans-Atlantic company like BAE must get State Department approval before an American branch of the company can share sensitive technology with a British branch.
One result, Olver said, is that the United States has a hard time getting access to expertise it needs on short take-off and vertical landing a key feature in one version of the JSF.
We have been asked to lead the testing of this technology and to carry out operational modeling of mixed short takeoff and conventional takeoff options. But we can only do this if we receive the right approvals, Olver said.
BAE has hit a similar roadblock with data fusion technology. The company has developed ways to combine data from multiple sources to create a detailed picture of a threat, he said. Combined with U.S. capability, we believe we would be cutting-edge. But we are waiting for approval to contribute what we know in order to develop more capable, interoperable solutions.
One of the big losers because of U.S. export controls is the United States, Olver said.
Controls deny the United States access to tens of thousands of skilled engineers, scientists, companies and technology, he said.
One aim of U.S. technology transfer restrictions is to deny militarily important technology to U.S. enemies and potential adversaries. But Olver said strict British prohibitions mean there is no possibility that critical U.S. technology would be re-exported to prohibited countries such as China.
Sigh. This is such GARBAGE. We have more, and better skilled aerospace and electronics engineers now selling real estate and insurance for lack of employment BY OUR OWN DEFENSE INDUSTRY!!!!!!
And the "Global Market" is most assuredly not a good reason for furthering this abomination any further. The plane is either built entirely so as to DEFEND AMERICA...or it shouldn't be built.
If it's solely a flying pig farm, for the benefit of our allies, or merely to stymie the french fighter (much as I like to embarass them that's not a good enough reason to spend $220 billion U.S.), then it badly needs termination.
Put the money into the F-22...which is mostly American at least. And a TRUE air superiority machine. It rocks. Restored funding would let Lockheed get the economies of scale needed to really optimize our investment in this plane. The numbers would be there...
True. Many have chosen to not apply leather to pavement over and over looking for the next engineering position and have settled for the job security and continuity of working in a coal mine or driving a cab.
This guy has no idea how gaping is his knowledge deficit. He doesn't know what he doesn't know.
Very disturbing. My conclusion: He must be a product of a very recent public education...
A factoid: The transcontinental and spur railroads of the mid to late 1800s were partially funded by European investment. There was a huge crash in railroads four years after the continent was spanned when business didn't go quite right and European investment dried up. It wasn't all bad, but it was dislocating for a few years while the American economy reoriented itself.
I think the number is 55 at the moment. The 33 is a 2010 projection.
Thanks for the ping!
Just hope they now what they are doing?