By Carlo Kopp
The PLA is in the process of creating an almost impregnable air defence system for China. Washington should take note.
The recent deployment of China's first four indigenous KJ-2000 AWACS aircraft marks an important milestone in the PLA Air Force’s long march from being a ‘numbers intensive’ low technology force, to a much more modern high technology one.
More fundamentally, though, the AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System) extends China's deep and broad network of air defence Command Control Communications Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance (C3ISR) systems into a key airborne area. In doing so, China is now acquiring the radar and passive early warning and air defence command, control and communications it needs to counter foreign fighters and cruise missiles.
Yet despite the fact that this system employs radar technology two generations ahead of that used by the US Air Force’s E-3C AWACS—generally seen as a benchmark by the rest of the world—the deployment of China’s new aircraft elicited almost no response from Washington.
Airborne C3ISR systems such as AWACS aircraft typically operate as extensions to ground-based networks of air defence radar systems and defensive Surface to Air Missile (SAM) batteries, providing forward coverage against targets that are hidden from ground-based sensors by ‘terrain shadowing’ or the earth’s curvature. Such targets can be low-flying combat aircraft, but in an increasing number of cases are likely to be low-flying cruise missiles.
So, how important a step is this new system for China? To better understand the implications, it’s useful to look at the evolution of China's air defence capabilities more generally.
During the 1950s, the Soviets exported a range of air defence equipment to China, much of which reflected what was then state-of-the-art Soviet radar technology. But the Khrushchev-era tensions put an end to that, and over time China proceeded to reverse engineer all of these Soviet designs.
By the 1970s, China was producing clones or derivatives of most of this equipment, especially ‘acquisition’ radars designed to search for aircraft that could then be targeted by SAM batteries or interceptor aircraft. This area of military technology was so valued by the PLA that in 1969 it had initiated development of an indigenous AWACS—the KJ-1. This radar design was built into a 1950s Tupolev Tu-4 Bull aircraft which itself was a reverse engineered Boeing B-29 Superfortress. This project was repeatedly disrupted by the unstable political environment, and never produced an operational capability. Still, the efforts highlight the PLA’s long-standing interest in having credible airborne C3ISR.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
mandrewsf
On the Taiwanese island of Dadan Dao, there is still a huge sign facing mainland China (and incidentally also facing the mainland Chinese sign of ‘One Country, Two Systems Reunify China’ sign on the opposite shore) with the thinly-veiled threat of “Sanmin Zhuyi Tongyi Zhongguo,” or “Three People’s Principles Reunify China.” “Three People’s Principles” is the founding principle of the Kuomingtang party-state, which would technically translate to an Kuomingtang aspiration to reunify China under its rule. Whether or not the Nationalist mean what they say, the sign is still there. That does not equate to an actual Kuomingtang attempt to reunify China, whether through force or through ideology.
And I am sure Taiwan has countermeasures against the perceived mainland threat. Western media is simply not interested enough to note them, that’s all.
Fred Dowdridge
I’m sure the huge sign on the beach of Xiamen in the direction of Taiwan saying “ONE CHINA” really isn’t a thinly veiled threat at all. However the missile silos, massive naval base and vast number stationed troops stationed in the area there just could be considered that.
Timothy
One of the signs of the end times is when ” good is seen as evil and evil is seen as good”!!! Some way some how a peaceful country with no imperialist pass for over 5000 years now developing defensive capabilities is a threat to the world however a country which spends more on their military than the entire world combined, exports war and revolution, manipulates the entire world and invades a sovereign nation for its resources, has 900+ military bases around the world, has 5% of the worlds population yet consumes over 30% of its natural resources and is so greedy and reckless they brought about the world wide financial crisis and is the only country ever to use the Atomic Bomb on civilians yet is somehow seen as the “good”. Reality is broken!!!
Asean
I am sure there are some grains of truth in your statement. However, informed readers would assume that the “bad” country you referred to is the USA. Contrary to common propaganda, often times portrayed anti-American motives, the USA has vastly contributed to the world its superb achievements in all aspects of society, more than any countries in the past and present, including China. American inventions, technology, its ideas and ideals greatly contributed to the betterment of human civilization and brought peace and prosperity to much of the world. To overlook such contributions would result in a slanted view of the USA and further play into the common perception that China is the victim and and the USA is out to destroy it. Respect is earned, not just because one is “old”.
Ragu
With over 80% of Phd’s at MIT,Stanford, UCAL , just about any engineering school
being from China , I think they are overwhelming the U.S.
Give them another 10 – 20 years and theyll be so far advanced , theyll make us look like the 3rd world.
Dont kid yourselves. The Chinese are like Jews in Israel. Dual citizenship ,but
when the bullets start flying its homeland all the way. Thats why they laughed
during 9-11, they knew the U.S. would fight in the middle east .
This is why we need to put more money into our own nation and educate , and
push engineering , math and science to our own American born people.
John J. Xenakis
I just want to tell you that when you use an 8-bit non-ascii character in
your URL, such as the curly apostrophe in this article’s URL,
then a lot of older web software can’t handle it and can’t link to it.
Leahcim
My short background: former E-2C mission commander (1st Gulf War era), then 10+ years of military simulation, modeling, experimentation as a contractor.
A few points;
And….? I guess congratulations go to the Chinese firms that have the delivery, maintenance. and support contract$. Just because you have in your possession a bright, new, shiny, military whatitz does not mean you know how to use it. The US military has over 60+ of AEW operational experience. China cannot buy, spy, or steal then necessary experience. The very best theory and plan all go to hell when the shooting starts. There is a saying in Naval Aviation that “NATOPS is written in blood.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATOPS Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization). So, the PLAAF has a lot of planes to crash and people to kill, ~20+ years worth, before they can employ their AEW to a US (circa 1990) level of operations. After those lessons, then they can begin the lessons to integrate the damn thing with fighters and SAMs.
The same harsh lessons about go for the ‘carrier’ they bought from Russia but increase the teaching time to 30+ years…. for daylight operations …… in good weather. Add 10+ for bad weather. For nighttime+bad weather…. well I hope the time will have made the employment ideas OBE.
If ever a bullet if fired, in war, between China and the US (over Taiwan or whatever) then somebody, somewhere (a US or Chinese leader) slid down the Crazy Pole. If you think the economy is bad now, wait until you see the 2 biggest trading partners, stop trading.
A thought to leave you with: In general, who provides protection to China’s SLOC (Sea Lines of Communication – export/import trade routes) in the Pacific?
“Times Up! What is your answer?” ‘What is the US Navy, Alex?’
Cravo
Should anyone be worried because China’s defense capabilities may become a problem for the US offensive assets? Don’t you feel safe if the US is unable to bomb China’s mainland? For sure, sophisticated AWACS and SAMs in China’s territory sounds menacing for the “free” world… some day the “free” world may want to bomb them and find it difficult. Sorry for being sarcastic!
Tian
Finally, someone to put some perspectives to this whole hype of Chinese capabilities.
In the modern world, military conflicts will increasingly be replaced by economic ones.
Having said that, in case of war btw U.S. and China, chances are the Chinese will find their new toys expensive practice targets by the Americans. War fighting is as much about skill and experience as weapons.
Moshe Levinger
Chinese are preparing its systems against an American attack. Good for them!