[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
International News Title: Russia Could Make China King of the South China Sea What Robert Kaplan so smartly dubbed “Asia’s Cauldron”— the South China Sea— might be set to boil once again. But the real kicker is who might be turning the switch to “high” on that virtual stove: none other than Russian President Vladimir Putin. Events thousands of miles away in Ukraine could set off a chain reaction that could see China become the undisputed ruler of this large body of water thanks to a large infusion of Russian weapons and technology— if the West starts arming Ukraine. But before we get to all the juicy details of how China could become “master and commander” of the South China Sea thanks to Russian assistance, lets take a much needed survey of the latest drama show in this troubled body of water. Tensions are rising in the Asia-Pacific as China continues to change facts on the ground (“in the water” might be a better term), continuing work on several massive island reclamation projects that many analysts feel will create much larger islands housing airfields, ports, radar stations and maybe even anti-ship missile batteries. The motivation is quite obvious— Beijing would likely become the sovereign master of the South China Sea if these islands were used for the natural purpose of claiming sovereignty. Nothing says “indisputable sovereignty” by doing the things a sovereign does, like patrolling your supposed territory and enforcing your laws in that territory. Bases in the South China Sea could make that all too infamous nine or ten-dash line more than just big marks on a map somewhere in Beijing. They could make it a reality. New South China Bases + A2/AD = A Nightmare for America and Its Allies When it comes to Chinese military capabilities, much has been made over the last several years of the PRC’s growing ability to deny a technological advanced adversary (think the United States and/or Japan) the capability to intervene in various possible engagements near its borders (Taiwan and/or the East and South China Seas). Over the next several years, such capabilities are likely to evolve and improve thanks to technological innovations. Combining likely Chinese technological advances like longer range and more accurate cruise missiles, plus new bases in reclaimed islands in the South China Sea, is nothing short of a nightmare for U.S. and allied planners who are doing all they can to ensure access to vital parts of the Asia-Pacific. Dubbed A2/AD by most Western military specialists, the PRC is slowly creating the conditions in which U.S., Japanese or other allied forces would suffer heavy losses if a conflict ever occurred in the out to the first island chain, and in the future, all the way to the second island chain. Across multiple domains of possible engagement (land, sea, air, cyber and space), Chinese forces have pursued a robust program to develop a set of unique weapon systems that take advantage of specific weaknesses in perceived U.S. and allied capabilities. While such capabilities are already robust enough that Washington and its allies are making plans to negate the impact of such a strategy (see the Air-Sea Battle/JAM-GCC concept debate), something widely missed in many open-source reviews of the problem is that Beijing is already at work on acquiring the next generation of A2/AD weapon platforms, along with developing matching tactics and strategies. China, over the last several years, has developed 5th-generation fighter prototypes, increasingly sophisticated anti-ship ballistic missiles and longer-range land and sea attack cruise-missile platforms. Such systems are not easy to produce for any nation. If Beijing were to find a willing partner, one who might already have such technology, it could provide the quantum leap needed to field such highly advanced A2/AD weapons platforms years ahead of when domestic producers could do so on their own. Russia, looking for revenge over the crisis in Ukraine, could provide such assistance. How Russia Could Help China: Weapons and Technology Imagine this scenario: The West decides that it is time to arm Ukraine. Russia decides it needs to strike back— and not just in Europe. President Putin pulls out his map of the globe and looks for a place where Russian power would best stick it to the United States. His eyes light up on the one area that could not only strengthen ties with a potential partner but do real damage to America’s efforts to “pivot” to that part of the world: the South China Sea. A2/AD Heads to the Sky: Here Comes the Russian SU-35 China is attempting to enhance its anti-access capabilities in the air domain with the much-rumored purchase of the SU-35 from Russia, a purchase that could become formalized if the West arms Ukraine. With greater range than the current PLAAF SU-27/J-11, the SU-35 would give China the ability to deploy advanced fighter jets for longer periods of time in the East and South China Seas, improve the effectiveness of patrols in the recently declared East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) and possibly help Beijing create an ADIZ in the South China Sea. The aircraft would likely be superior to most fighters in Asia (except the F-22 or later F-35) and fill the gap until presumably domestic 5th-generation stealth airframes come online. If China armed the plane with advanced anti- ship weapons and based them in newly created airfields on Johnson or Fiery Reef, a new and potent anti-access weapon would emerge, with solid capabilities to push allied forces back to safer waters. A2/AD 2.0 in the Sea: Subs and Sonar: On the high seas, and thanks again to possible collaboration with Russia, China could seek to enhance its capabilities under the waves with possible new submarine purchases. This has been tied to press reports surrounding a possible SU-35 sale over the last several years. While reports do vary on the seriousness of negotiations and have been confirmed and denied several times, we again get a sense of Chinese trends in attempts to strengthen its A2/AD capabilities with Russian help. A fresh infusion of new sub technology would be of vital importance to China not only for the ability to deploy undersea vessels with greater capabilities, but also because Beijing could potentially reverse engineer new technologies from these subs. This would likely include Russian AIP engines, better quieting technologies and state of the art anti-ship weapons sometimes sold with each sub. The PRC also seems interested in improving its anti-submarine warfare (ASW) technology--a traditional weakness for Beijing. In an article for Proceedings magazine last year, TNI contributor Lyle Goldstein and Shannon Knight explore recent Chinese works that suggest Beijing “has deployed fixed ocean-floor acoustic arrays off its coasts, presumably with the intent to monitor foreign submarine activities in the near seas.” Citing multiple essays in Chinese sourced materials, their research seems to all but confirm Beijing’s foray into this important area of military technology. While there has been no specific mention of a submarine deal between Russia and China, Moscow certainly has the experience to help Beijing in this regard. Considering that U.S. efforts to keep access to possibly contested spaces by Chinese A2/AD is largely dependent on U.S. submarines staying stealth, such a collaboration in this area could bolster Chinese A2/AD plans considerably. Why Russia Might Want to Think Twice: The SU-27 Deal While the Ukraine crisis certainly would be a powerful catalyst for Sino- Russo defense technology collaboration, such transfers have happened in the past— with Moscow paying a heavy price. Russia would certainly be wise to review the recent past, which offers clues on why a sale to China could be challenging over the long-term. The last major aircraft deal between Moscow and Beijing in the 1990s involved the still much sought after 4th generation SU-27 Flanker. At the time, Russia hadn't sold technologically advanced military hardware to Beijing since the Sino-Soviet split, when a rise in tensions sparked border clashes. When the USSR collapsed at the end of 1991, the Russian arms industry was struggling to stay above water. Russia was overflowing with weaponry that could help the Chinese jump multiple generations in military technology, so a partnership appeared to make sense. For China, gaining access to state-of-the art military technology was critical and by 1991 Beijing considered such a quest of top importance. Chinese strategists were stunned at the speed at which the United States was able to overwhelm Iraqi armed forces in the First Gulf War. Chinese military planners realized that much of their weaponry was obsolete in the face of precision-guided munitions, stealth bombers and fighter aircraft all guided by advanced command and control systems. Russian technology— while not as advanced as America's— provided a much-needed boost toward modernization. In 1991, Moscow sold Beijing a batch of twenty-four SU-27’s for approximately $1 billion. In 1995, China purchased another twenty-four Su- 27s from Russia, which were delivered in 1996. In the same year, China and Russia deepened their partnership when Beijing paid about $2.5 billion for a license to manufacture an additional 200 or so SU-27s at the Shenyang Aircraft Company. The contract had an important provision— the Chinese version of the SU-27, which included imported Russian avionics, radar and engines, couldn't be exported. Russia was concerned China would reverse engineer or learn enough about the SU-27 that they could some day sell it to third parties, costing Russia potentially billions of dollars in fighter jet sales. Unfortunately for Russia, the deal ended up being nothing short of a disaster. After building 100 or so jets, China canceled the contract in 2004. Beijing said the planes no longer met its specifications. Three years later, China completely cast the agreement aside when it developed a new fighter aircraft—the J-11. The plane looked like an exact copy of the Su-27. China denies that it copied the SU-27, explaining that the plane uses mostly indigenous parts and that it developed superior domestic avionics and radar equipment. Parting Thoughts: While debate heats up in Washington on ways to impose costs on Russia for its actions in Ukraine, Moscow does have multiple pathways to strike back if the West arms Ukraine. Indeed, the above is just one of many possibilities. Moscow could pursue a course of action like I have described with China, giving them arms and technology that would exacerbate trend lines in the South China and other areas of contention for years to come. However, Russia has many other ways it could create trouble for the West; for example, in the Iran nuclear talks or by cozying up to other nations on the outs with the West, like North Korea, Venezuela, and various others. And Russia of course has the ability to raise the stakes in Ukraine dramatically by giving the separatists even more advanced weapons to counter possible Western arms. While Russia might not be a superpower anymore, it does have the power to create lots of havoc for the United States and its allies all over the world. Such moves would then see the West again look to strike back at Moscow, creating a dangerous dynamic that would see the conditions ripe for a new Cold War that is in no ones national interest. This is all the more reason for all parties concerned when it comes to Ukraine to find a political settlement to the crisis.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: nativist nationalist (#0)
Good. The world is better off with a USA not thinking its the British empire on the high seas.
A2/AD = anti-access/area-denial I see that Rand Corporation is busy with papers on how to counter precisely this threat. No doubt the War College and Pentagon are working the same angles. TheDiplomat: How A2/AD Can Defeat China Even so, the Chinese threat to this sea area that is vital to so many other nations that look to America for security against Chinese aggression cannot be dismissed. And we are no longer as capable of multiple-front warfare. If one bad guy goes to war with us, as soon as we ramp up and deploy to fight him, it gives the other Bad Guys a ticket to run the board against us elsewhere in the world while we're busy dispatching Bad Guy #1. So if we're bogged down in a commitment to eject ISIS from Iraq and Syria, that is the perfect time for China to make aggressive moves in the South China Sea or against Taiwan. Or the Russians in their dispute with Japan. Or the Norks against South Korea. Or Bad Vlad against Kiev. It's the problem posed by not having enough military to project power into more than one theater of war, a classic problem for America given how we had to shelve our Japanese war somewhat until we helped Russia and Britain finish off Hitler. We had the same problem with Iraq and Af-Pak where the Af-Pak war was put on hold when the far greater demands of the Iraq invasion and occupation escalated (because we really were not "greeted as liberators" as promised by that idiot Bush).
The same ruling class that picks all these fights is the same ruling class that gutted our manufacturing base. Interesting article you posted, I notice they left out Vietnam, and Vietnam could have some potential along with Russian eagerness to sell arms. The US does not really offer a land based anti-ship missile today, no doubt the Harpoon or Tomahawk could be adapted for the role, but Russia today offers this type of equipment. And were Russia to be the one arming these nations with land based anti-ship missiles it might put strain on the Sino-Russian alliance.
Events thousands of miles away in Ukraine could set off a chain reaction that could see China become the undisputed ruler of this large body of water thanks to a large infusion of Russian weapons and technology— if the West starts arming Ukraine. I guess Kaplan is helping out some program managers get funding with the “Asia’s Cauldron” meme. We have Kaplan to thank for polluting the Pentagon and 'think tanks' with his tome "Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos". A2/AD 2.0 in the Sea: Subs and Sonar: Let them waste the money on such things. We are 15-20 years ahead of all nations on defeat mechanisms for these weapon systems.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
A2/AD = anti-access/area-denial I see that Rand Corporation is busy with papers on how to counter precisely this threat. No doubt the War College and Pentagon are working the same angles. Not difficult at all. Everything has a command structure and network. There Rand, now give me the millions the Pentagon gave you to 'look at this.' Here's a better proposal. Army the South Koreans and Japanese to the teeth with high tech weapons and supporting networks. Checkmate.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
The Russkies always go nuts over rockets. Maybe even more than tanks.
Like you'll get any argument from me. I've advocated that both should be nuclear states for years. We shouldn't have to trade Chicago for Seoul or Tokyo and they shouldn't have to wonder if we really will sacrifice Chicago for Seoul or Tokyo. And Japan already has the biggest stockpile of weaponizable plutonium in the world as a result of their nuclear program. They're both too important not to be armed. And it would reduce the ability of China/Russia to contemplate ways to present us with fait accomplis in the region. But they have to be nuclear-armed to stand up to nuclear-armed states like Russia or China (or both).
Things that if not properly built to 21st century countermeasures are a waste of money to make. I could point to how often we upgrade our weapon systems to ensure they comply with the latest threats. But you probably know.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
Decades back when the topic came up, the Russians used to say, "Quantity has a quality all its own". They still say that. But they do actually focus much more on quality than they once did. We taught them that. They may still love their tanks like their love their mamas but they aren't going to rebuild their massive tank forces again.
I really like that idea, and North Korea's nuclear bomb may be used as the pretext.
What a shame that the Bush idiots put a stop to SKorea's efforts at a nuke program. I always disagreed with it. Even then, it was known that NKorea was pursuing nukes. And had all that artillery aimed at downtown Seoul to boot.
I remember back in the day my dad was a big fan of Charles de Gaulle's Force de Frappe, de Gaulle understood the dilemma the United States would face if it ever came down to trading Chicago for Paris. French nuclear weapons resolved the dilemma. It seems that all our non-proliferation achieves is to disarm American allies, hostile nations like Pakistan and North Korea have no problems getting the bomb, but South Korea, Japan and Australia are blocked.
I'd arm all of them with nukes. But that's just me.
|
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|