US reconnaissance plane under jamming attack bu North Korea

A US military reconnaissance plane came under electronic attack from North Korea and had to make an emergency landing during a major military exercise in March, an aide to a lawmaker said Friday. The aide said the plane suffered disturbance to its global positioning system (GPS) by jamming signals from the North's southwestern cities of Haeju and Kaesong as it was taking part in the annual US-South Korea drill, Key Resolve.
The incident was disclosed in a report that Seoul's defence ministry submitted Thursday to opposition lawmaker Ahn Kyu-Baek of parliament's defence committee, the aide to Ahn told AFP.
Spokesmen for the defence ministry and US Forces Korea declined to comment.
Jamming signals, sent at intervals of five to 10 minutes in the afternoon on March 4, forced the plane to make an emergency landing 45 minutes after it was airborne, the aide quoted the report as saying.
They also affected South Korean naval patrol boats and speedboats as well as several civilian flights near Seoul's Gimpo area, according to the report.
Seoul mobile users also complained of bad connections and the military reported GPS navigational devices malfunctioning as the South and the US were staging the drill, which was harshly criticised by the North.
The communist state has about 20 types of jamming devices mostly imported from Russia and it has been developing a new device with a range of more than 100 km (62 miles) near the heavily fortified border, Yonhap news agency has said.
The North is also believed to have been responsible for the intermittent failure of GPS receivers on naval and civilian vessels along the west coast in August 2010.
South Korea's then-defence minister Kim Tae-Young said at the time that the devices could disrupt guided weapons and posed "a fresh security threat" to Seoul.
The UN's International Telecommunication Union in April urged the North to stop disrupting signals in the South.

US ‘CYBERCOM’ May Trigger A New Cyber Warfare: Chinese analysts

The US’ announcement to set up a Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), which is aimed at gaining military supremacy in cyber space, might trigger a new Cyber Warfare Race, Chinese strategic analysts have warned.

“It has already had the lead in conventional military and nuclear forces. Now it is expanding this advantage to be the leading force in new fields, such as electromagnetic space and outer space,” state-run China Daily quoted Peng Guangqian, a Beijing-based strategist, as saying.

US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates, recently, announced the establishment of the world’s first comprehensive, multi-service military cyber operation, called CYBERCOM, which could provide US forces a lead in new emerging strategic fields like space and outer space.

The announcement came only a few days after President Barack Obama laid out his National Security Strategy, stressing for the first time in such a document the importance of cyber security as one of the core national security interests, he said.

Meng Xiangqing, a professor with the National Defence University said there is a very thin line between a defencive and an offencive act when it comes to cyber space.

“CYBERCOM ranks high in the US military, reporting directly to the US Strategic Command, and the US is the most advanced state in cyber technology. This absolute advantage may trigger a new type of arms race,” Meng said.

Despite the US insisting CYBERCOM is mainly defencive, Meng said it “has raised a new challenge for China, and that is how to guard our national cyber security.”

States other than the US have already been planning mechanisms to guard national cyber security, including the UK, France, Russia, South Korea and Israel, which already has a military cyber force.

Song Xiaojun, a Beijing-based military strategist, said even if other countries join in the cyber arms race, they are not capable of competing with the US since it possesses the core technologies of the Internet and of all 13 Internet root servers in the world, 10 are in the US, including the only one main root server.

The newspaper also reported the comments of US Deputy Defence Secretary William J Lynn III that the potential enemy that CYBERCOM will fight has not yet been clearly identified.

“I think we need to be prepared for the unexpected. In fact, over the past several years we have experienced damaging penetrations,” Lynn had said apparently referring alleged attempts by Chinese hackers to break into sensitive defence sites. 

http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/

US Bird UAVs crashed in Pakistan

The mini-UAV that crashed in Pakistan close to the Afghan border was disguised as a bird. (Photo: AP/Shah Khalid)

U.S. special or covert forces are using hand-launched UAVs disguised as large birds to monitor terrorist movements along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. The Pakistan Frontier Corps recovered one such UAV after it crashed on August 25 near one of its border forts in Baluchistan.

Photos released by news agencies show a propeller-driven design with a six-foot cranked wingspan and a four-foot centerbody that narrows to a rudder, topped by a horizontal fan tail. A Pakistan military spokesman identified the UAV as American, unarmed and equipped with two cameras. It developed a technical fault, and was not shot down, he added.

Some mini-UAVs operating in the region are named after large birds, but none of them closely resemble the downed craft. Thousands of Aerovironment Ravens have been built for the U.S. Army. The Pakistan armed forces themselves operate the indigenously designed and produced Border Eagle. Lockheed Martin has produced the Desert Hawk for the British Army.

The Lockheed UAV was designed by the Skunk Works, which then developed the Stalker mini-UAV for sale to “special operations communities.” The electric propulsion system of the Stalker is silent, according to Lockheed Martin. The company has just revealed a new hybrid fuel cell/battery powered version of the Stalker that can fly for eight hours.

Despite the downed UAV’s disguise, residents of the nearby village of Chaman were apparently not fooled. They told Pakistan’s The Nation newspaper that they witnessed it flying for two hours before the accident.

While unusual, bird-like UAVs are not a new concept. In the early 1970s, the CIA implemented Project Aquiline, a scheme devised to fly an eagle-like reconnaissance UAV over key intelligence targets, such as ICBM sites and nuclear test grounds in the Soviet Union and China. Although a prototype made some 20 flights over Groom Lake, Nevada, the project was canceled due to the expected high cost of further development.

China Preparing For Future Fight With US

The Iraqi war has convinced the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership that some form of confrontation with the U.S. could come earlier than expected.

Beijing has also begun to fine-tune its domestic and security policies to counter the perceived threat of U.S. "neo-imperialism."

As more emphasis is being put on boosting national strength and cohesiveness, a big blow could be dealt to both economic and political reform.

That the new leadership has concluded China is coming up against formidable challenges in the short to medium term is evident from recent statements by President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao.

Hu indicated earlier this year Beijing must pay more attention to global developments so that "China make good preparations before the rainstorm ... and be in a position to seize the initiative."

Wen also pointed out in the first meeting of the State Council, or cabinet, last Saturday the leadership "must keep a cool head."

"We must boost our consciousness about disasters and downturns -- and think about dangers in the midst of [apparent] safety," he said.

Alarm bells about a deteriorating international situation have been sounded by the CCP's secretive Leading Group on National Security (LGNS), which coordinates policies in areas including diplomacy, defense and energy.

The LGNS, which is headed by Hu, has since early this month called a series of meetings to discuss ways to handle the Iraqi crisis.

In the near term, of course, the focus is on the impact of rising oil prices -- and on the need to build up a strategic oil reserve that can last at least 30 days.

However, economic concerns are not the top priority. Given the likelihood oil prices will drop after the resolution of the conflict, some government economists are saying the war's impact on this year's economic performance will be insubstantial.

Officials even cite the safe haven theory to predict foreign direct investment flowing into China will exceed the record $52 billion last year.

Of more concern to the LGNS is the perceived expansion of American unilateralism if not neo-imperialism.

As People's Daily commentator Huang Peizhao pointed out last Saturday, U.S. moves in the Middle East "have served the goal of seeking world-wide domination."

State Council think-tank member Tong Gang saw the conflict as the first salvo in Washington's bid to "build a new world order under U.S. domination."

Chinese strategists think particularly if the U.S. can score a relatively quick victory over Baghdad, it will soon turn to Asia -- and begin efforts to "tame" China.

It is understood the LGNS believes the U.S. will take on North Korea -- still deemed a "lips-and-teeth" ally of China's -- as early as this summer.

These developments have prompted China to change its long-standing geopolitical strategy, which still held true as late as the 16th CCP Congress last November.

Until late last year, Beijing believed a confrontation with the U.S. could be delayed -- and China could through hewing to the late Deng Xiaoping's "keep a low profile" theory afford to concentrate almost exclusively on economic development.

"Now, many cadres and think-tank members think Beijing should adopt a more pro-active if not aggressive policy to thwart U.S. aggression," said a Chinese source close to the diplomatic establishment.

He added hard-line elements in the People's Liberation Army (PLA) had advocated providing weapons to North Korea to help Pyongyang defend itself against a possible U.S. missile strike at its nuclear facilities. Forestalling the challenge Hu was elected president of China by the NPC this month. Hu was elected president of China by the NPC this month.

Even less hawkish experts are advocating beefing up the national security apparatus.

Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) economist Yang Fan pointed out the recent global flare-ups had alerted China to the imperative of improving national security and cohesiveness.

"Equal weight should be given to economic development and national security," Yang said. "As we become more prosperous, we must concentrate our forces [on safeguarding national safety]."

What is China doing to forestall the perceived U.S. challenge?

Firstly, the CCP leadership is fostering nationalistic sentiments, a sure-fire way to promote much-needed cohesiveness.

While not encouraging anti-U.S. demonstrations, Beijing has informed the people of what the media calls "increasingly treacherous international developments."

This explains what analysts including Beijing scholars considered the unexpectedly virulent official reaction to the start of the Iraq war.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan said the U.S.-led military campaign had "trampled on the U.N. constitution and international law" and that it would lead to regional and global instability.

Equally tough statements were issued by the National People's Congress (NPC) and the advisory Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference.

Major official media such as Xinhua and People's Daily have run dozens of articles and analyses whose gist is that, in the words of commentator Li Xuejiang, the invasion of Iraq had "damaged the international order."

In an apparent departure from Beijing's cautious attitude at the beginning of the Iraqi crisis, authorities last weekend allowed a group of nationalist intellectuals to hold a conference condemning U.S. "hegemonism."

The corollary of boosting national cohesiveness could be the suppression of dissent, particularly politically incorrect views expressed by "pro-West" intellectuals.

The warning and punishment that party authorities recently meted out to several Beijing and provincial publications may augur a relatively prolonged period of ideological control in the interest of promoting "unity of thinking."

On the economic front, the authorities may play up the imperative of concentrating resources to boost China's "economic security" and "energy security."

"The Wen leadership is checking out why earlier plans to build up a strategic oil reserve failed to materialize last year, when prices were much lower," said a Beijing-based party source.

"It is possible that bucking the overall trend of market reforms, Beijing may bring back more government fiats to sectors deemed to have strategic and national-security implications."

It is instructive that in his 90-minute long interview with the international media last week, Wen was quite reticent about boosting economic reform such as the liberalization of state-owned enterprises.

In accordance with the theory of "the synthesis of [the needs of] war and peace," civilian economic projects in areas including infrastructure may be planned will the requirements of the defense forces in mind.

On the military front, the Iraqi conflict will kick start another season of accelerated modernization of weaponry.

Diplomatic analysts in Beijing said PLA officers and strategists had been scrutinizing the latest hardware used by American and British forces.

They pointed out the PLA's astonishment at the wizardry of American firearms used in the 1991 Gulf War was a major factor behind the Chinese army's aggressive modernization drive through the 1990s.

Academy of Military Sciences (AMS) expert Peng Guanqian pointed out that the Iraqi war would provide the Pentagon with "a testing ground for new military equipment and strategies."

The Liberation Army Daily last Friday quoted unnamed officers from the Army and the People's Armed Police as saying the PLA must "quicken the pace of military modernization."

Such developments could in turn hasten a possible showdown between the two countries that harbor deep-seated mistrust of each other even in relatively tranquil times.

Also see:
The Pentagon is preparing for the first visit to the United States by a high-ranking Chinese military officer in years.

New War Ahead: China-Pakistan vs. U.S.A

China has been deploying thousands of soldiers in the strategic Gilgit-Baltistan, a mountainous area in northern Pakistan, and a region historically contested by Pakistan, India and its inhabitants.
Although cooperation between Pakistan and China is not new -- it was China in the 1970s that supported Pakistan's attempts to acquire its nuclear capability -- the deployment of Chinese troops in Pakistan, however, indicates a worrying alliance for the US. The US would do well to monitor these developments before a catastrophic scenario, especially for its troops, takes place.
The presence of the Chinese People's Liberation Army [PLA] in the contested Gilgit-Baltistan region, where a nascent revolt against the Pakistani rule is taking place, constitutes the direct involvement of Beijing in the dispute over Kashmir, making any future understanding between Pakistan and India more difficult, and can only arouse a new and serious rift between New Delhi and Beijing.
According to Mumtaz Khan, director for the International Centre of Peace and Democracy in Toronto, many Western analysts who view China's stance merely as a bargaining chip against India will unfortunately soon realize that China is redefining its priorities and interests in South Asia and beyond. "The current involvement of China in Gilgit-Baltistan and Pakistan administered Kashmir consists of more than just providing military and diplomatic support to Pakistan. Soon, Pakistan will swap its role to take the backseat as China exerts itself as a major player in the Kashmir issue" and maybe also in Afghani one.
The Gilgit-Baltistan region borders Afghanistan to the north; China to the northeast; the Pakistani administrated state of Azad, Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) to the south, and the Indian-administered state of Jammu and Kashmir to the southeast. Recently, the New York Times reported that two major developments are taking place there: a rebellion against the Pakistani rule, and the influx of an estimated 7,000 to 11,000 soldiers of the PLA.
China's Grip on Pakistani Strategic Area
"China wants a grip on the strategic area to assure unfettered road and rail access to the Gulf through Pakistan," stated the NYT. Beijing intends to create a corridor from the Indian Ocean up to the Chinese province of Xinjiang. The first cornerstone of this grandiose project has been the construction of the Gwadar Port, at the mouth of the Persian Gulf and outside the Strait of Hormuz. It is near the key shipping routes used by the mainline vessels that have connections to Africa, Asia and Europe, and it enjoys a high commercial and strategic significance.
The port was financed and built by China and inaugurated in 2007 by the former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. At present, it takes a Chinese tanker about 16 to 25 days to reach the Gulf. Once high-speed rail and road links through Gilgit-Baltistan are completed, however, China will be able to transport cargo to and from Xinjiang to Gwadar and to other Pakistani port facilities, within 48 hours.
PLA's soldiers in Gilgit-Baltistan are also expected to work on the infrastructure in the region. According to reports, China is planning the construction of roads and bridges; a high-speed rail system, and nearly two-dozen tunnels. As the whole area is closed to foreign observers, news can only be obtained through intelligence information, as well as satellite imagery that shows construction activities are underway throughout the region.
Many of the PLA soldiers are supposedly currently building the railroad. Others are extending the Karakoram Highway, which connects China and Pakistan across the Karakoram mountain range, and engaged in activities for constructing dams, expressways and other projects.
Their presence is also apparently meant to deter any possible disturbances from the local population, within which are simmering rebellious sentiments against the Pakistani rule.
China and Pakistan's Common Interest is India
The presence of Chinese soldiers on Pakistani soil is not an ordinary matter. If all Pakistani governments have always objected to the deployment of U.S. troops in the country, why is there such openness towards the Chinese army?
The alliance between the U.S. and Pakistan appears to be becoming less and less sound. The U.S.-led war against the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and other terrorist groups in Afghanistan is quickly deteriorating into a growing open conflict with Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI)., which represents the core of Pakistani military power and can also act independently from Pakistan's government. The agency is responsible for the creation of the mujahiddin movement in Afghanistan during the war against the USSR; and later, for the movements for the "liberation" of Kashmir, as well as the first attack on World Trade Center, and the attacks on hotels and a Jewish Habad Cenmter in Mumbai. . The main ISI's concern, however, is India's rule in Kashmir. This is why the ISI, in order to confront New Delhi, is providing help and shelter to Islamist groups ready to fight for the "Muslim" Kashmir.
China and Pakistan share many common interests: both have territorial disputes with India. China and India, whose populations, combined, make up slightly less than 40% of the world population. They are also both striving for strategic regional supremacy. By linking its western province to the Indian Ocean, China will not gain just a strategic stronghold and access to the Persian Gulf, but also could significantly influence the geopolitics and trade in the Indian Ocean Region, as well as in Central Asia.
A Possible War Between Pakistan/China and the US
The possible scenarios coming out of the present situation are also dangerous. A deterioration of the relations between the U.S. and Pakistan over the war in Afghanistan could lead to a direct confrontation -- in which event, the involvement of the giant China, as Pakistan's ally, might be inevitable. The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) reports that already a delegation of the Chinese Army visited the Pakistan-Afghan Border last October[5].
The same MEMRI's analysis also predicts that in a possible war between Pakistan/China on the one hand and the US on the other, Russia would be on the side of the West. Russia's First Deputy Prime Minister, Sergei Ivanov, has said that Russia does not want the international troops to leave Afghanistan. Moscow, concerned about development in this region, has begun strengthening the Afghan police forces by supplying weapons and ammunition.
In the meantime, the relationship between Pakistan and Russia are marred by the Cold War legacy, and will take a long time to get normalized. MEMRI reports that the Urdu-language Pakistani daily Roznama Nawa-i-Waqt has warned that "another enemy of Pakistan" –. Russia – has been added to the list of the countries influencing Afghanistan; and that the presence of Russian troops in Afghan will reinforce anti-Pakistan forces in Afghanistan.
Conclusion
Before apocalyptic scenarios become a reality, it would help if Washington exerted exert maximum efforts -- and firmness -- to convince Pakistan not to continue on such a dangerous path. Two new war fronts seem rapidly to be opening: Afghanistan on one side, and Kashmir on the other.. The explosion of a possible war could involve both fronts, the Afghani and the Kashmiri, where the US ally, India, might pay a heavy price, finding itself between two enemies: Pakistan and China.
The US will admittedly have a hard role, given the fact that relations between the Washington and China are already fragile, especially since the "Star Wars arms race" launched by China in 2007, but it is urgent that serious efforts be made.

source

Another U.S. War? Obama Threatens China and Iran

The possibility of yet another U.S. war became more real last week, when the Obama administration sharply confronted both China and Iran.  The first aggressive act was performed by Obama’s Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who “warned” China that it must support serious economic sanctions against Iran (an act of war). 

Clinton said: “China will be under a lot of pressure to recognize the destabilizing effect that a nuclear-armed Iran would have, from which they receive a significant percentage of their oil supply.”

The implication here is that China will be cut off from a major energy source if they do not support U.S. foreign policy — this, too, would equal an act of war. 

A more direct military provocation occurred later when Obama agreed to honor a Bush-era military pact with Taiwan, a small island that lies off the mainland coast of China, and is claimed by China as its own territory. Taiwan has been a U.S. client state ever since the defeated nationalist forces fled there from China in the aftermath of the 1949 revolution. Taiwan has remained a bastion of U.S. intrigue and anti-China agitation for the past six decades.  Obama has recently upped the ante by approving a $6.4 billion arms sale to Taiwan, including:

“... 60 Black Hawk helicopters, Patriot interceptor missiles, advanced Harpoon missiles that can be used against land or ship targets and two refurbished minesweepers.”  (The New York Times, January 30, 2010). 

The same article quotes a Chinese government official who responded, accurately, by calling the arms sale “… a gross intervention intoChina’s internal affairs, [and] seriously endanger[ing] China’s national security…”   In 1962, When Russia supplied missiles to Cuba, nearFlorida’s coast, the U.S. interpreted this to be an act of war. 

China responded harshly to the Taiwan arms deals, imposing “an unusually broad series of retaliatory measures… including sanctions against American companies that supply the weapon systems for the arms sales.”  These U.S. arms manufacturers are giant corporations who have huge political influence in the Obama administration, and are likely to further push the U.S. government towards an even more aggressive response.    

Obama’s polices against China have been far more aggressive than Bush’s, making a farce out of his campaign promises of a more peaceful foreign policy. Obama’s same, deceitful approach is used inSouth America, where he promised “non-intervention” and then proceeded to build military bases in Colombia on Venezuela’s border, while giving a green light to the coup in Honduras. 

Hillary Clinton also threatened China about internet censorship last week, while Obama consciously provoked China by agreeing to talks with the Dalai Lama, who advocates the removal of Chinese influence from Tibet.

Still fresh in the memories of both the U.S. and China is the recent trade flair up, when Obama imposed taxes on Chinese imports; and China responded with protectionist measures against U.S. companies, which brings us to the heart of the matter. 

The attitude of the U.S. government towards China has nothing to do with the Dalai Lama, internet censorship, or human rights.  These excuses are used as diplomatic jabs in the framework of a larger, geopolitical brawl. Chinese corporations are expanding rapidly in the wake of the decline of the U.S. business class, and Obama is using a variety of measures to counteract this dynamic, with all roads leading to war. 

This grand chessboard of corporate and military maneuvering reached a dangerous standoff yesterday, with the U.S. military provoking Iran. The New York Times explains:

“The Obama administration is accelerating the deployment of new defenses against possible Iranian missile attacks in the Persian Gulf, placing special ships [war ships] off the Iranian coast and antimissile systems in at least four [surrounding] Arab countries, according to administration and military officials.” (January 30, 2010). 

The same article mentions that U.S. General  Petraeus admitted that “… the United States was now keeping Aegis cruisers on patrol in the Persian Gulf  [Iran’s border] at all times. Those cruisers are equipped with advanced radar and antimissile systems designed to intercept medium-range missiles.”  Iran knows full well that “antimissile systems” are perfectly capable of going on the offensive — their real purpose. 

Iran is completely surrounded by countries occupied by the U.S. military, whether it be the mass occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the U.S. puppet states that house U.S. military bases in Arab nations.  Contrary to the statements of President Obama, Iran is already well contained militarily.  Iran’s government — however repressive it may be — has every right to defend itself in this context. 

It is possible that these aggressive U.S. actions will eventually force Iran’s government to act out militarily, giving the U.S. military the “defensive” excuse it’s been waiting for, so the tempers of the U.S. population can be cooled. 

A separate New York Times editorial outlines the basic agreement onIran shared by the Democrats and the Republicans.  It says:

“It is time for President Obama and other leaders to ratchet up the pressure with tougher sanctions.”

And: 

“If the [UN] Security Council does not act quickly, then the United States and Europe must apply more pressure on their own [Bush's Iraq war strategy]. The Senate on Thursday approved a bill that would punish companies for exporting gasoline to Iran or helping Iran expand its own petroleum refining capability [another act of war]” (January 29, 2010).

The U.S. anti-war movement must organize and mobilize to confront the plans of the Obama administration.  Obama’s policies not only mirror Bush’s, but have the potential to be far more devastating, with the real possibility of creating a wider, regional war.  Iran and China are far more militarily capable than puny Afghanistan or Iraq; the consequences of a war with either will cause countless more deaths. 

source

US Offers Israel more F-35 fighters

 

U.S  offers   Israel of more Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth fighters and other military equipment in return for a 90-day settlement freeze is an offer that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu "cannot refuse," the Haaretz daily said Monday.

According to media reports, U.S. President Barack Obama offered to add 20 F-35s to the 20 Israel ordered in October under a $2.75 billion contract.
The additional F-35s would give the Israeli air force a formidable strike capability unmatched in the region, and indeed the world, that could deliver massive blows against an adversary, such as Iran.

"The offer by President Obama is very enticing," Haaretz commentator Amos Harel observed.

"The addition of 20 F-35s to the package discussed two months ago tips the balance very clearly. From Israel's point of view, it's an offer that cannot be refused."
Israel has reportedly taken delivery of the first batch of 1,000 new U.S. 250-pound GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs it ordered in 2009. The SDBs, manufactured by Boeing Integrated Defense Systems, can be carried by Boeing F-15s or Lockheed F-16s.
The bombs can penetrate 8 feet of concrete, making them ideal for strikes on Hezbollah's rocket bunkers and underground command posts in Lebanon.
The offer of another 30 F-35s for Israel, which will be the first foreign state to acquire the fifth-generation fighter, could mean it will get the jets before U.S. forces do.

Israel, along with the United Arab Emirates and India, led the world over the last five years in the procurement of new fighter aircraft, according to a study by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute issued last week.

It said Israel bought 82 aircraft in 2005-10, mostly Lockheed Martin F-16I jets tailored for its air force, preceded by the emirates with 108 and India with 115.

Russia’s Stealth Fighter Developments Mean for America

Russia’s development of the PAK FA fifth-generation stealth fighter could challenge American air supremacy, especially if Russia sells the PAK FA to its usual buyers of military equipment. In the U.S., closure of the F-22 production line has severely limited America’s ability to respond to PAK FA proliferation by building more F-22s and potentially selling them to U.S. allies. The U.S. needs to revise its assessment of U.S. air superiority needs and then explore ways to modernize and strengthen the U.S. tactical fighter force.


With America’s closure of the F-22 production line and the recent debut of Russia’s PAK FA fifth-generation stealth fighter, American air supremacy for the foreseeable future is not as assured as the U.S. Department of Defense once predicted. Indeed, Lieutenant General David A. Deptula, recently departed Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance in the U.S. Air Force, recently made the startling announcement: “For the first time, our claim to air supremacy is in jeopardy.… The dominance we’ve enjoyed in the aerial domain is no longer ours for the taking.”


To preserve traditional U.S. margins of military technological superiority, Congress should review potentially outdated requirements and projections, and policymakers should push defense officials to enact more forward-looking budgeting and acquisition strategies for U.S. fighter fleets. Increased investment in modernization and new partnerships with allies like Japan and Israel will be necessary to prevent the airpower balance from tilting in favor of the Russian and Chinese air forces and to hedge against the potentially destabilizing proliferation of Russia’s PAK FA fighter to unstable actors, non-state groups, and/or terrorism-sponsoring rogue states around the world. For example, if Syria or Iran acquires the PAK FA, it could provide the fighter to the non-state group Hezbollah to form a proxy air force against Israel.

U.S. Air Power Assumptions Challenged

Defense analysts, officials, and industry personnel have long believed that the U.S. F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter would not face serious threats from foreign fifth-generation fighters for the next 20 years. In September 2009, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates repudiated claims of a looming “fighter gap”—a deficit between the services’ fighter aircraft inventories and their operational requirements. “[T]he more compelling gap,” he argued, “is the deep chasm between the air capabilities of the United States and those of other nations.”

In an earlier speech, he argued:
China…is projected to have no fifth generation aircraft by 2020. And by 2025, the gap only widens. The U.S. will have approximately 1,700 of the most advanced fifth generation fighters versus a handful of comparable aircraft for the Chinese.

The Secretary’s claims may now be in doubt. With the cancellation of the F-22 and closure of its production line combined with various development delays in the F-35 program—the mainstay of America’s future fighter fleets—U.S. fighter inventories may be significantly smaller in coming years than initially planned. For example, initial operational capability for the F-35A, the U.S. Air Force version of the F-35, was recently pushed back two years to the end of 2015, now changed to 2016 for both the F-35A and the Navy’s F-35C. These delays often increase production costs, forcing reductions in the overall buy. Regrettably, other fiscal pressures will likely squeeze procurement budgets further in the coming years and prevent the expenditures needed to reach planned F-35 force levels.


Meanwhile, Russian fighter and military modernization efforts are proceeding rapidly, defying the expectations of many. In August, Russia undertook the largest airborne military exercises since the collapse of the Soviet Union, making “use of automated command and control systems.”[6] On January 29, 2010, Russia conducted the first test flight of the T-50, a prototype of the PAK FA, Russia’s fifth-generation fighter jet, which was designed to rival the American F-22. With advanced stealth technology and high-tech avionics, the PAK FA could eventually—as Moscow has repeatedly proclaimed—seriously challenge U.S. air supremacy. Russia is also selling modern fourth-generation fighter aircraft to the Indian, Chinese, Algerian, Vietnamese, and Libyan militaries.

The air forces of Russian defense trade partners—including India, China, Algeria, Vietnam, and Libya—could also pose growing challenges. Russia has already sold hundreds of its best fighter aircraft to China, and may sell China the PAK FA as well. China is Russia’s largest purchaser of Su-27/ Su-30 Flanker fighters, including the more advanced Su-30MKK and Su-30MK2, buying or ordering up to 624 as of 2009. The Su-27/Su-30 fighters are produced by Sukhoi, the same firm that is developing the PAK FA. Indeed, the Komsomolsk-on-Amur KNAAPO factory, which is producing the Su-27/Su-30 fighters, is located in Khabarovsk, a region that borders China. By 2025, China could have up to 120 PAK FA fighters, compared to America’s 187 F-22As.

PAK FA Program and Potential Foreign Exports

While reduced resources and growing internal defense budget imbalances imperil U.S. defense procurement plans, Russian defense spending is getting a boost from oil and gas export revenues, even after the 2008–2010 slump in oil prices. Russia has the third largest gold and hard currency reserves after China and Japan. State coffers have been expanding quickly, with Russia’s foreign reserves increasing from $437 billion at the end of January 2010 to $503.7 billion by October. Although the Russian economy relies heavily on exports of raw materials, the government is unlikely to encounter much difficulty funding the PAK FA program, especially with significant assistance from India, which plans to inject $30 billion into the program.


Furthermore, the PAK FA is expected to be cheaper to produce than the F-22. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has recently claimed that the PAK FA “would be 2.5 to 3 times cheaper.” Currently, the PAK FA is expected to cost less than $100 million per plane, while the F-35 is projected to cost between $100 million and $112 million, and the F-22 will cost around $140 million.


The Russian Defense Ministry initially planned to buy 300 PAK FA fighters, but has since reduced its stated requirement to 250 planes, with a preference for the single-seat version. Whether Russia will meet this target is unclear. As part of the “2011–2020 state arms procurement program,” the ministry is budgeting $656 billion, which includes funding to produce 10 PAK FAs between 2013 and 2015 and 60 additional fighters between 2016 and 2020.
Although Russia is leading the program and shouldering the bulk of the cost, India is set to provide significant assistance, aiming to have a 25 percent stake in designing and developing the fighter. India is currently negotiating with Sukhoi to build an Indian variant called the Fifth-Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA). India reportedly plans to purchase 250 of these fighters: 200 twin-seaters and 50 single-seaters, with an option for future orders that could increase the total to 300.

Mikhail Pogosyan, General Director of the Sukhoi Design Bureau, has stated: “I am strongly convinced that our joint project will excel its Western rivals in cost-effectiveness and will not only allow strengthening the defense power of Russian and Indian air forces, but also gain a significant share of the world market.” Pogosyan calculates that there could be a world market for 1,000 PAK FAs in the next 40 years.


One likely buyer is China. Although Beijing is reportedly developing its own fifth-generation fighter aircraft (the J-12), the Chinese military could conceivably buy up to 250 PAK FA planes, especially if its own program encounters delays. In addition, Russia would likely seek to export the PAK FA to Algeria, Libya, Iran, Syria, and Venezuela. Kazakhstan may also purchase the aircraft, as could Malaysia and Vietnam, thanks to their gas and oil revenues. Indonesia may want to buy limited numbers to counterbalance the 100 F-35s that Australia plans to acquire. America’s oil-rich Arab allies may also order PAK FA aircraft if Washington refuses, as expected, to sell them F-35s and instead exports up to 100 F-35s to Israel.


The PAK FA will likely form the basis for several foreign variants, in the same way that the Russian Su-27 Flanker fighter spawned the Su-30MKI multirole fighter for India, the Su-30MKK multirole fighter and Su-30MK2 naval strike fighter for China, the Su-30MKA for Algeria, and the more advanced Su-34 strike aircraft and Su-35 multirole fighter. One possible PAK FA variant is a twin-seat long-range strike version similar to the Su-34 or the proposed (and now shelved) FB-22 bomber version of the F-22.


With its stealth technology, supercruise capability, and sensor fusion, the F-22 was designed to prevail in present and future air battles. It also has the ability to carry smart bombs for precision strike missions in heavily defended battle spaces. Due to its supercruise ability, the F-22 is capable of covering long distances in regions like the Arctic Ocean, the continental U.S., the Western Pacific, and the Persian Gulf with supersonic flight without the need to engage afterburners. Since the PAK FA is planned to have similar capabilities, only the F-22 would be capable of matching the future Russian fighter, if not prevailing over it.


The FB-22 would possess the stealth and supercruise characteristics of the F-22A, and it would provide a stealth and supersonic medium-range bomber capability for the Air Force, filling a niche between the F-35 fighter-bomber and the proposed 2018 long-range bomber.The FB-22 would be able to carry 30 Small Diameter Bombs and have 50 percent more range than the F-22. In the future, Russia may deploy a medium-bomber version of the PAK FA while the U.S. Air Force may be left without such a bomber capability.


According to Russian officials, the joint Russo– Indian PAK FA/FGFA fighter should be ready by 2015 or 2016. It may also incorporate equipment from third countries, just as Russia has previously integrated French and Israeli technology into its weapons systems. Indian officials hope the FGFA will be fully developed by 2016 so that it can enter service in 2017.


With a planned price tag of about $100 million per aircraft, the PAK FA will not be cheap, but it will likely find a market among those countries that have purchased Russia’s Su-27/30 fighters. Many of these countries have substantial foreign currency reserves. Those that want to modernize and expand their militaries, expand their global presence, and become increasingly assertive on the world stage or in their regions will be interested in the PAK FA. If the PAK FA proves to be a success, the U.S. should expect it to proliferate among countries with the means to acquire it and with foreign policies that potentially defy Washington or look toward Moscow.

Understanding the Potential for Trouble

After successful test flights on January 29 and February 12, 2010, the T-50 began standard tests in April. Testing could take several more years, according to sources from Sukhoi and statements by Prime Minister Putin, but some planes could conceivably be deployed in operational units before testing is completed. This would not be unusual. The first operational F-22s were delivered in September 2003, even though testing continued until November 2005.[Colonel General Alexander Zelin, commander in chief of the Russian Air Force, estimates that PAK FA fighters will be delivered to operational units in 2015.In preparation, Russian pilots are already receiving training in piloting fifth-generation fighters.

As one expert recently noted: “In this modern era of stealth combat, there are two types of fighters: stealth fighters and targets.” Similarly, the commander in chief of the Russian navy stated that “it would be impossible to win contemporary and future wars without air and space supremacy. Whoever understands this is on the right path.” Mikhail Pogosyan says that “the most important thing is stealth to enemy radar, which allows the aircraft to approach enemy positions without being noticed.”


One risk is that Russia or potential PAK FA customers around the world could use the sophisticated aircraft to conduct sneak attacks against U.S. forces or allies. Russian doctrine still considers the U.S. its “principal adversary,” even though successive U.S. Administrations have announced that Russia is no longer our enemy.

Viewing the U.S. and NATO as potential opponents in a future war, Russia has designed the PAK FA to compete with the F-22 and to devastate formations of F-35 stealth fighters. It takes more than technology to make an advanced fighter classified as fifth-generation, including pilot skill and training, aircraft, and tactics. It remains to be seen whether Russia will develop advanced operational concepts and fighter doctrine to employ the PAK FA. If this occurs, it is possible that the twin-engine F-22, which was devised as an air superiority fighter, would perhaps be the only credible match for the PAK FA. Even if the F-22 proves superior, PAK FAs may still pose a formidable threat. F-35s, which were partly designed to serve as force multipliers for the F-22, may be vulnerable to PAK FA attack. Although the U.S. plans to build more than 2,000 F-35s, the numerical advantage of the F-35 fleet could potentially be offset by the PAK FA’s larger weapon capacity, especially if it proves technologically superior.



In addition, the PAK FA could pose a threat to the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and F-35C Lightning II squadrons operating from America’s aircraft carriers. The Russian navy plans to deploy 15–20 naval PAK FAs on its aircraft carrier after it is modernized, perhaps by 2020. Russia may also seek to reduce the numerical advantage of the overall U.S. fighter fleet by building large numbers of a lighter version of the PAK FA, a possible equivalent to the F-35.


In a dogfight, U.S. Air Force models predict that small formations of F-22 fighters would prevail over far larger numbers of fourth-generation enemy fighters because the F-22’s superior stealth would give it a substantial advantage.[39] However, how the F-22 would fare against the PAK FA is unclear. The PAK FAs may ultimately match the F-22s in capability and possibly outnumber them. It is also unclear how mixed formations of F-22s and more numerous F-35s would fare against PAK FA formations or against combinations of PAK FAs and lighter variants. The Department of Defense needs to develop a comprehensive understanding of the capabilities of the various Russian platforms to accurately gauge the threat to U.S. planes and to develop appropriate responses.

The PAK FA Compared to U.S. Fighters

According to information in the public domain, the PAK FA could be superior to the F-35, equal or nearly equal to the F-22, and superior to fourth-generation fighters. This section compares these fighters across a range of capabilities and discusses nascent and unfolding security implications.

Stealth.

The PAK FA will likely incorporate several advanced stealth features. According to the Sukhoi firm, the fighter’s “use of composite materials and advanced technologies, improved aerodynamics, and reduced engine heat signature minimizes its radio-frequency, optical and infrared visibility.” Like the F-22, the PAK FA was designed according to the principle of planform alignment, which means that surfaces and edges—such as the leading edges and horizontal control surfaces of the wings and the vertical sides of the engines’ air intakes—are aligned to share the same angles. The pilot’s canopy is also angled to deflect incoming radar waves away from the radar source.


An additional stealth feature that could be incorporated is curved S-ducts to mask the engine compressor blades from radar. The T-50 prototype tested earlier this year was not fitted with stealthy engine nozzles, but the operational version of the PAK FA will likely have stealthy thrust-vector-control nozzles, like those on the F-22. A stealthy engine nozzle has been fitted on one of Russia’s Su-27 test aircraft.

The PAK FA is expected to be built with radar-absorbing material. About 30 percent of the aircraft fuselage will be made of composite materials. It could also be fitted with a “stealthogenic” system, an advanced technology reportedly developed by Soviet scientists. This stealthogenic technology is a form of anti-radar cloaking device using “wisps of plasma formed by pencils of electromagnetic rays from special generators installed on the aircraft; the plasma absorbs radio waves, reducing the aircraft’s radar cross section (RCS) approximately 100 times, making it almost invisible to radar. The U.S. Air Force is reportedly interested in using a similar, cold plasma cloaking device “as the next generation of stealth technology” for its fighter aircraft.
The Indian version of the PAK FA is said to have a radar cross section of 0.5 square meter, the equivalent of a missile’s RCS. By comparison, older tactical jets have RCSs between 5 and 100 square meters. For example, the fourth-generation Su-30MKI has a RCS of approximately 20 square meters.

Russia is likely to reserve the more advanced stealth capabilities for its own aircraft. The stealthogenic cloaking device under development could reduce the PAK FA’s radar cross section even further, making it potentially as stealthy as the F-22, which has the RCS of a small bird or a bumblebee at between 0.001 and 0.01 square meter. The stealthogenic system may even enable the fighter to carry a full load of missiles, bombs, and/or drop tanks externally and still remain stealthy. It is possible Russia may have already tested the technology successfully; if so, one could reasonably assume Russia would then be readying it for deployment on the operational version of the PAK FA.
The F-35 normally carries two beyond-visual-range AMRAAM missiles and two JDAM-guided bombs in its two internal weapon bays. It could carry two additional AMRAAMs or AIM-9X Sidewinders under its wings, but this would make it less stealthy.Based on the current capabilities of Russian airborne fire-control radars, the PAK FA’s active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar can simultaneously detect, track, and target six to eight F-35s with impaired stealth, offsetting the advantage of the additional weapons.



The PAK FA and F-22 differ from the F-35 in that both can carry two short-range air-to-air missiles in internal side compartments, which significantly reduces their RCS and enables them to maintain their stealth outlines, even when carrying additional weapons. The F-35’s engine nozzle may give it a stealth disadvantage versus the PAK FA. This means a PAK FA flying high above an F-35 could potentially detect and track the F-35’s nozzle. In a battle against an F-35 formation, the PAK FA’s stealth and radar would likely be significant force multipliers.

Radar.

Although the T-50 prototype probably used a modified Irbis-E radar (the passive electronically scanned array technology used on the Su-35 fighter), the Russians are developing more advanced radar systems for the PAK FA. Approximately 30 companies are developing the PAK FA’s integrated avionics suite.
Ultimately, the PAK FA is expected to have an AESA radar system with 1,500 individual transmitter/receiver (T/R) modules. A prototype is being tested, and development should be completed in mid-2010.[ In comparison, the F-22’s AESA radar system has about 2,000 T/R modules.

In addition to AESA radar, the PAK FA will have a side-looking radar and a rear-facing radar. The sting fairing in the tail, located between the engine’s exhaust nozzles, may harbor a small fire-control radar for detecting airborne targets and attacking missiles and to provide fire-control solutions for its air-to-air missiles. With AESA radars in the nose and tail, the PAK FA could cover 120 degrees of both the plane’s front hemisphere and its rear hemisphere. In addition, the aircraft will have an L-band AESA radar in conformal arrays on the wings’ leading edges. According to some reports, L-band arrays can detect stealth aircraft the size of the F-35.

The PAK FA’s design may also allow placement of additional AESA conformal arrays on the fighter’s surfaces that could provide radar coverage of its starboard and port sides, allowing all-round radar surveillance. Perhaps with this in mind V. K. Naik, the Indian Air Force Chief of Staff, said that the FGFA’s “highly advanced avionics…[would be] giving 360-deg. situational awareness.”In addition, the PAK FA’s AESA radar will have electronic countermeasures that can jam enemy radar. The F-35 has a similar system.

Like the F-35’s radar, the PAK FA’s radar can use radio waves to burn the electronic systems of enemy radar, the command-and-control computer of a surface-to-air missile (SAM) battery, and perhaps even the flight computer of an enemy fighter. The L-band AESA radars on the aircraft’s wings could potentially track, locate, and jam the Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (JTIDS), Multifunctional Information Distribution System (MIDS), and Link-16 communications links and emitters.


The PAK FA’s optoelectronic system may incorporate a LADAR (laser radar) to identify targets, including other stealth fighters, by providing an image of a contact in three dimensions. The PAK FA may also incorporate a more advanced, fifth-generation version of the infrared search and track/ laser rangefinder (IRST/LR) optoelectronic system that was used in earlier Russian fighter aircraft. The T-50 prototype has already been fitted with a newer version. The system has a sensor in the cockpit and uses infrared and television channels for day and night operations; a laser rangefinder for accurate targeting; and a “look down/shoot down” capability for detecting, tracking, and engaging targets over land, sea, and air. The system can detect approaching fighters at 40 kilometers (km) and departing enemy fighters at 100 km.


According to some reports, a Russian-made IRST/ LR may have already proven effective in downing U.S. stealth aircraft. Although the U.S. Air Force officially determined that the F-117A stealth fighter downed during the Kosovo crisis of 1999 was shot down by a Russian-made surface-to-air missile launched by the Serbs, some military analysts believe that it was shot down by a Russian-made MiG-29 operated by the Yugoslav air force. According to that account, the Serbian MiG-29 fired its infrared-guided missiles at the F-117A and destroyed it with the first missile launched. Some accounts say that the Serb pilot used the MiG-29’s IRST/LR system to stealthily detect, track, and engage the F-117A, even though the U.S. plane was designed to mask its engines’ exhaust infrared signature. According to sources interviewed by Jane’s Defense Weekly, the Serbs may have intercepted the F-117A using the fighter’s mission flight plan, which was allegedly stolen by a spy working for Russian military intelligence who had infiltrated NATO.


The F-22 does not have a built-in IRST/LR system, but such a system could be added. The F-35’s electro-optical sensor system (EOSS), which includes the optronic distributed aperture system (DAS) and the electro-optical targeting system (EOTS), will give the fighter 360 degrees of infrared coverage for searching and tracking enemy surface and air targets. Using DAS, the F-35 could fire a short-range air-to-air missile at an enemy fighter in a lock-on mode and then escape from the fight.[71] Ultimately, it is unclear exactly how the PAK FA’s radar systems will compare in power and sensitivity with the radar systems in the F-22 and the F-35.

Range.
The PAK FA’s combat range will be roughly equivalent to the F-22’s range, but possibly greater than the ranges of some F-35 variants. According to Russian sources, the PAK FA will have a maximum range of 5,500 km. Realistically, this is probably its maximum range with at least one air refueling. Similarly, the Russian fourth-generation Su-30MK multirole fighter reportedly has a top combat range of 5,200 km with one in-flight refueling. With internal fuel tanks, the PAK FA—like the Su-30M—will likely have a range of about 3,000 km. By comparison, the F-22 has a reported combat range of more than 2,963 km with two external fuel tanks. According to Russian sources, the PAK FA will be capable of repeated air refueling for extended operations.




In contrast, the U.S. Air Force’s F-35A and the U.S. Navy’s carrier-based F-35C will have a range of about 2,222 km with internal fuel tanks, but the U.S. Marine Corps’s F-35B will have a range of about 1,667 km.
Weapons.

With a maximum length of about 22 meters and a wingspan of 14.8 meters, the PAK FA will be similar in size to the Russian Su-27 Flanker fighter. Both aircraft are larger than the F-22, which has an overall length of 18.9 meters and a wingspan of around 13.6 meters. Because of its larger size, the PAK FA will be able to carry more fuel, more missiles, and heavier bombs internally. It will also be able to carry numerous kinds of weapons, enabling it to simultaneously attack multiple surface and air targets in all weather conditions— hence, its classification as a multirole fighter.


The PAK FA could carry a deadly mix of weapons. Russia’s Vympel State Machine-Building Design Bureau is reportedly developing very long-range beyond-visual-range (BVR) missiles and short-range air-to-air missiles designed to fit inside the PAK FA’s weapon bays.[82] Development of the new R-77M BVR missile is due to be completed in 2010. The PAK FA could carry eight of these missiles in its two main weapon compartments. Like the F-35, the PAK FA may also be able to carry an additional BVR missile attached to the inner side of each weapon compartment door, enabling it to carry four R-77M missiles while reserving internal space for two bombs or two very long range air-to-air missiles. Another weapon under development for the PAK FA is the ramjet-powered R-77M-PD, which has a reported range of 160 km, twice that of the R-77M. The PAK FA could carry four of them internally.


The original R-37 air-to-air missile (maximum range of 300 km) was designed to shoot down valuable air targets, such as airborne warning and control system (AWACS) aircraft, Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (J-STARS) aircraft, air tankers, reconnaissance planes, electronic warfare aircraft, transport aircraft, Airborne Laser aircraft, and bombers. Improved versions of the R-37 missile are under development, including the R-37M very long-range air-to-air missile (range of 300 km to 400 km) and the Izdelie 810 (range of 375 km to 450 km). They will also be able to engage targets at extremely high altitudes. Both of these next-generation missiles will have active and passive radar guidance systems designed to seek enemy radar and electronic countermeasures emissions. In passive mode, an R-77M missile could conceivably target an F-35 at up to 240 km if the F-35 is using its AESA radar in a jamming operation.


In addition to the larger weapons compartments, the PAK FA has two smaller compartments located in the rear, which could each carry one short-range air-to-air missile.[88] This design feature was borrowed from the F-22, which has two smaller side compartments, which could each hold one AIM-9M or AIM-9X .



The PAK FA’s smaller compartments could accommodate several types of short-range air-to-air missiles. One possibility is an improved Vympel R-73M short-range air-to-air missile with a high off-boresight capability, which enables it to turn 160 degrees to engage enemy targets in the plane’s rear hemisphere using infrared guided-missile technology. It could lock on before or after launch, and the rear AESA radar could provide the necessary targeting information. This new missile, the Izdelie 760 or R-74, may have a range of around 40 km. It is due to enter production this year. Alternatively, the PAK FA could carry the Vympel K-30, a new compact short-range air-to-air missile, or the K-MD short-range air-to-air missile, a new weapon for close combat and for shooting down enemy missiles, which could be developed by 2013.

In its larger weapon compartments, the PAK FA could accommodate two precision-guided 1,500 kilogram (kg) bombs, such as the new KAB-1500LG family of laser-guided bombs. The PAK FA could also carry two satellite-guided KAB-500S-E bombs, which weigh 500 kg, or new versions that could weigh 1,500 kg. These bombs are dubbed “Russia’s JDAM” after the highly effective U.S. bomb guidance package.

The U.S. Phantom Ray unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV), which has been proposed as the basis for a future bomber, could carry two 1,000 kg JDAM bombs, or a payload of up to 2,000 kg, on a long-range strike mission of 3,704 km. The stealthy UCAV can also carry eight Small Diameter Bombs and refuel in the air independently and repeatedly to enable it to conduct global strike operations.[94] The PAK FA, by contrast, could have an internal bomb payload exceeding 3,000 kg. In addition, the PAK FA might be able to carry two subsonic Kh-35E anti-ship missiles (range of 130 km) internally.[95] The PAK FA may also be able to carry two Kh-35UE GLONASS satellite-guided missiles, which can strike land targets at a range of 260 km.

The PAK FA may also have up to eight external hardpoints to which additional missiles and bombs could be mounted. The Indian FGFA and the PAK FA may be armed externally with “BrahMos supersonic missiles,”[98] which were jointly developed by Russia and India, or the 3M55 Oniks anti-ship missile, which has a maximum speed of Mach 2.6 at altitude and a range of at least 300 km.

Speed.

The PAK FA and F-22 are expected to have roughly equivalent top speeds and altitudes, but the F-35 is potentially less capable in both areas. The F-22 has demonstrated supercruise speeds above Mach 1.5 and is designed for sustained supersonic operation without using afterburners. Reportedly, it has a maximum supercruise speed of Mach 1.82 at 30,000 feet (9,000 meters) altitude. Russian sources claim that the PAK FA is slightly faster (Mach 1.83) at 30,000 feet.High supercruise speeds enable these aircraft to control wide expanses of territory. The F-35 will not have supercruise capability.



Using afterburners, the F-22 has a maximum speed of about Mach 2.5, likely faster than the PAK FA. Although the Russian air force initially established the PAK FA’s maximum speed at Mach 2.5, it revised its operational requirement downward to Mach 2 in December 2004. Nevertheless, the PAK FA will probably be able to reach Mach 2.45 with afterburners. The T-50 and F-22 will likely have the same service ceiling of about 20,000 meters. By contrast, the F-35’s maximum speed at altitude is about Mach 1.6 or more than Mach 1.8 with afterburners, and its maximum altitude is estimated to be 15,000 meters.

Maneuverability.

The F-22’s engine nozzles have thrust vector control for superior maneuverability, which can be essential in close air combat and for successfully evading attacking missiles. The PAK FA will incorporate the same capability. However, the F-35 is not planned to be fitted with thrust vector control technology.

Both F-22 and F-35 fighters will likely have shorter takeoff distances than the PAK FA. In air interception mode, the F-22 may be able to take off from an airstrip of only 274 meters.[107] On land, the Marine Corps vertical/short take-off and landing (V/STOL) F-35B is capable of taking off in just 167 meters. By contrast, the PAK FA requires an airstrip of 300 meters to 400 meters.[109] The F-22 also has a slightly higher maximum takeoff weight of 38 tons,compared to the PAK FA’s reported 37 tons.

Engine


The PAK FA will be fitted with a new “engine of the second stage,” which is set to begin development in 2010 or 2011.The engines are being developed by the United Engine Building Corporation in cooperation with NPO Saturn and Salyut, Russia’s two largest producers of aircraft engines. The engine in the T-50 prototype is the NPO Saturn 117M, an improved, modernized version of the 117S engine in Russia’s Su-35 fourth-generation-plus aircraft, which already incorporates fifth-generation technologies, including a full-authority digital engine control system and three dimensional thrust vectoring control nozzles. The first operational PAK FAs would use the 117M engines. Later PAK FAs would use the new second-stage engine when it enters into service.



According to Russian sources, the new PAK FA engine could provide 17,500 kg of thrust.[115] Realistically, the engine may only achieve a lower thrust. It is still being developed, and Pogosyan stresses that the engine will not be ready before 2015 and could take up to 12 additional years to develop fully.

Communications.

One feature of fifth-generation fighters is the ability to communicate vast amounts of tactical information in real time within a formation of fighters. The F-22 has an advanced communications, navigation, and identification system called the TRW AN/ASQ-220. It has multifunction antennas distributed in conformal arrays along the leading edges of the wings and vertical control surfaces, which enable radar track warning, missile launch detection, threat identification, and communication of this information between aircraft.

It is unclear whether the PAK FA will have a comparable system, but it will likely have communication equipment that allows real-time data exchange within flight groups and with ground-based control systems.[119] For example, the Indian FGFA will reportedly have a “very high degree of network centricity” and “multi-spectral reconnaissance and surveillance systems.” Like the F-22 and the F-35, the PAK FA and the Indian FGFA will presumably have sensor data fusion, which will organize the information into a unified tactical picture and feed it to the pilot in easily usable form.


The PAK FA may possibly be one step ahead of the F-22 and F-35 in computer processing functions. The PAK FA’s computer will not only process data from various sensors and sources and provide it to the pilot, but also function as a battle management system. Instead of the system serving as the pilot’s pocket combat information center, it could serve as a combat direction center by analyzing the information and offering the pilot combat decisions from which to choose. The head of Avionika, Russia’s leading avionics manufacturer, described the PAK FA as having “advanced avionics that act as an electronic pilot.” Avionika representatives claim that “[t]he fighter itself analyses the situation and offers options to the pilot,” which “greatly reduces the mental load on the pilot and allows him to focus on tactical tasks.”


Whereas the F-22’s sensor fusion technology is touted as allowing the pilot to spend “less time monitoring basic systems and more time making combat decisions,”[123] the PAK FA’s battle management system could allow Russian pilots to spend less time making combat decisions if these were already made by the fighter’s artificial intelligence. In this case, the pilot would then simply choose the best tactical decision offered by the plane’s “electronic pilot” and press a button, which could give the pilot a decisive time advantage in combat. General Nikolai Makarov, chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, describes the PAK FA’s computer system as so powerful that it practically has “human intelligence.”

The PAK FA’s electronic pilot can also fly the plane autonomously in many situations, in much the same way that a UCAV is controlled. In other situations, the human pilot could use his discretion to fly the fighter manually, particularly to perform evasive maneuvers.


The T-50’s instrument panel is dominated by two large color multifunction displays, similar to the Su-35’s instrument panel. The screen arrangement may have been influenced by the cockpit design of the F-35 with two large multifunction displays integrated to form one large display. It is widely thought to be a simpler, easier-to-read arrangement than the four-multifunction-display design in the F-22 cockpit. The T-50’s displays are surrounded by control buttons, in contrast to the F-35’s touch screen technology. Touch screen technology may be incorporated into later versions of the PAK FA, depending on how the systems perform in testing.


Like the F-22, the T-50 currently has a heads-up display (HUD), a transparent display that presents data without requiring a pilot to look away from the view through the windshield. In future versions of the PAK FA, pilots may have helmet-mounted displays (HMD), like those planned for the F-35 and upgraded F-22.[ HMDs are similar to HUDs, but project the information onto the pilot’s visor, allowing the pilot to obtain situational awareness and cue weapons systems based on the direction the pilot’s head is facing.


Implications for U.S. Defense Policy and Force Structure

If the PAK FA proves to be as deadly as Russian officials claim, the Pentagon will need to revise its assessment of U.S. air superiority requirements. New requirements could expose larger fighter shortfalls in the Air Force and Navy than are currently predicted—not just numerically, but also in terms of vital air superiority capabilities. If a new, comprehensive assessment leads the U.S. Air Force to revise its fighter requirements upward in numbers and/or capabilities, the Air Force, Department of Defense, and Congress should explore ways to modernize and strengthen the U.S. tactical fighter force.

Specifically, Congress should:
Fund F-22 tooling to preserve future options. Given the uncertain long-term threat environment and the possible proliferation of PAK FA fighters to countries that are hostile to the U.S. and its allies, purchasing additional F-22s may be in the national interest, both to augment U.S. fighter forces and to enable loyal allies to defend themselves against the PAK FA threat. The best way to preserve that option would have been to sustain domestic production in the U.S. Regrettably, with the F-22 production line shut down, resuming production may prove prohibitively expensive. Nonetheless, to hedge against this threat, the U.S. Air Force has decided to “retain tooling for the F-22” so that it can repair and modernize existing F-22s and possibly manufacture new Raptors in the future. Congress should fund the maintenance of F-22 tooling for the next 10 years.

Allow Japan and Israel to acquire export variant F-22s. Another helpful hedge against uncertainty would be for Congress to allow loyal allies, such as Japan and Israel, to purchase an allied variant of the F-22 from the U.S. This would preserve the U.S. capability to procure additional F-22s and improve their capabilities if needed. In June 2010, Boeing announced that it would share F-18 technologies with Japan and allow Japan to develop a new derivative of the F/A-18 Super Hornet itself. Similar arrangements should be made for the development of F-22 technologies.

The U.S. could encourage Lockheed Martin and Boeing to allow Japan and Israel access to some F-22 technologies so that they can develop them further in pursuit of F-22 allied variants. Israel Aerospace Industries is in negotiations to manufacture the wings for its future F-35. If the PAK FA is exported to countries in the Middle East and proves as effective as Russia and India have been claiming, the F-22 would be the best aircraft to guarantee the Israeli Air Force’s air superiority in the region.


Invest in pilot training.
The short-sighted decision to cancel F-22 production has constrained the U.S. ability to improve the technological and numerical advantages of its fighters, but the U.S. military still maintains a significant skills overmatch. America’s pilots are the best trained in the world. Maintaining this advantage could prove decisive on the battlefield. However, wartime demands and financial strains from current operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere have undermined pilot training to some degree. The range and intensity of training courses have suffered as scarce resources have been diverted toward developing capabilities for ongoing operations. Congress should renew its efforts to fully fund aviation training to help to sustain American dominance of the skies.


Fully fund the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and develop additional force multipliers. Investing in additional force multipliers is another way to maximize the impact of limited numbers of F-22s. Congress should provide adequate funding and oversight to ensure that the F-35 program succeeds. Congress should fully fund the President’s fiscal year 2011 budget request for 42 F-35s. Congress should then ask the Defense Department to explore an additional cost-effective option to build stealth unmanned combat aerial vehicles. These could operate from land bases and aircraft carriers, conducting intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance missions as well as strike operations with the F-35. In a tactical scenario, F-22s and F-35s could engage enemy fighters in air combat, while other formations of F-35s and UCAVs attack SAM and radar sites, command and control centers, and air bases, overwhelming the adversary’s defenses with sheer numbers.
Build an alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. If Congress fails to fund the alternate engine this year, even though the program is more than 80 percent complete, the success of the F-35 will depend on only one type of engine. In 2035, the F-35 will constitute 90 percent of all U.S. fighters. Thus, because the F-35 is a single-engine plane, a problem with the engine could ground all F-35s until the problem is identified and fixed, unless an alternative engine is available. Such a scenario constitutes an unacceptably high risk. Further, in 2009, Congress passed an acquisition reform law that requires competition for all major subsystems, including fighter engines. This engine program would also help to ensure that the U.S. maintains engine competition for future fighter programs including potential sixth-generation aircraft.

Strengthen economic and military-to-military cooperation with India. India’s involvement in the PAK FA program could be potentially helpful. A large fighter fleet in the hands of the world’s largest democracy and a key American partner could counterbalance China’s growing air power capabilities and other powers in the region. Given the historical rivalry between India and China, New Delhi will likely seek to convince Moscow to restrict exports of advanced weapons technology, such as the PAK FA fighter, to China. Indeed, India may make its participation in the project contingent on such restrictions. India is increasingly relying on U.S. weapons technology and equipment to fulfill its military modernization requirements, while still maintaining a strong defense relationship with Russia, its long-standing friend.
The U.S. should continue to strengthen economic and security cooperation with India. The U.S. Air Force and Indian Air Force should continue to conduct joint wargaming exercises, such as Red Flag in 2008. Just as Lockheed Martin reportedly offered the F-35C to the Indian Navy to deploy on its future aircraft carriers, the Administration should encourage the Indian Air Force to acquire the Joint Strike Fighter, allowing it to operate alongside the FGFA.


Continue to modernize the U.S. Air Force. The Air Force and Congress should adopt a longer view and begin to research and develop a sixth-generation fighter. For the first time since the beginning of military aviation, the U.S. military does not have a manned aircraft program under development. Boeing has already revealed its design concept for a sixth-generation fighter, featuring a stealth and tailless aircraft with supercruise capability that would replace the Navy’s F/A-18E/F in 2025 and the F-22 in 2027– 2028. As the U.S. military margins of technological superiority decline across the board, select competitors and potential future challengers are embarking on their own military modernizations. Rather than cede ground, the U.S. should begin developing new fighter aircraft and air defenses that are so effective that they discourage rivals from developing or even investing in stealth fighter aircraft. The greater the U.S. air power advantage, the riskier and costlier other countries’ air power investments will be.


Deploy networked anti-stealth surveillance against emerging stealthy air threats. In cooperation with Israel, the U.S. should produce and deploy a new generation of CAEW with “track before detect” technology for both Air Force and Navy aviation to detect stealth aircraft and low-observable flying craft. In addition, the U.S. should deploy electronic intelligence (ELINT) aircraft with an airborne detection system similar to the Czech Tamara, which can reportedly detect stealth aircraft using the signals from its avionics. Surveillance satellites equipped with radar may also be able to detect and track stealth fighters because the upper surface of their stealth designs might not be as stealthy against radar waves from space. ELINT satellites might also detect the signals from the avionics of stealth fighters flying in formation. Stealth fighters can also be detected with low-frequency metric-band radars by using computers to identify low-observable targets in a cluttered environment. Ladar (laser radar) in combination with radar could help to detect, track, and identify air targets, including stealth aircraft.
Conclusion

The decision by the Obama Administration and Congress to permanently close the F-22 production line has exposed the U.S. and its allies to increased security risks in the future. This was entirely predictable. In a rapidly changing threat environment in which rising powers and potential rivals are expanding their global presence, developing advanced weapons systems, and becoming more assertive, the U.S. needs to preserve a wide range of core defense capabilities to ensure that the U.S. military will remain dominant and can hedge against all possible contingencies. Instead, the U.S. has reduced its aerospace manufacturing to one fifth-generation fighter production line, while China and Russia are operating 12 fighter and bomber lines between them today.

Although the F-22 cancellation decision took a valuable defense option off the table, Congress can still salvage other possibilities for the future. Congress and the Pentagon should focus on widening the U.S. lead in the areas where the nation retains a competitive advantage, such as piloting skills, research and development, and innovation. Defense and military leaders should work with friends and allies to reinforce collective defense and to ensure that the world’s freedom-loving democracies maintain their ability to secure the skies.

China On Fast Track To Match U.S. Drone Capabilities

 At the most recent Zhuhai air show, the premier event for China’s aviation industry, crowds swarmed around a model of an armed, jet-propelled drone and marveled at the accompanying display of its purported martial prowess.

In a video and map, the thin, sleek drone locates what appears to be a U.S. aircraft carrier group near an island with a striking resemblance to Taiwan and sends targeting information back to shore, triggering a devastating barrage of cruise missiles toward the formation of ships.
Little is known about the actual abilities of the WJ-600 drone or the more than two dozen other Chinese models that were on display at Zhuhai in November. But the speed at which they have been developed highlights how U.S. military successes with drones have changed strategic thinking worldwide and spurred a global rush for unmanned aircraft.

More than 50 countries have purchased surveillance drones, and many have started in-country development programs for armed versions because no nation is exporting weaponized drones beyond a handful of sales between the United States and its closest allies.

 “This is the direction all aviation is going,” said Kenneth Anderson, a professor of law at American University who studies the legal questions surrounding the use of drones in warfare. “Everybody will wind up using this technology because it’s going to become the standard for many, many applications of what are now manned aircraft.”

 Military planners worldwide see drones as relatively cheap weapons and highly effective reconnaissance tools. Hand-launched ones used by ground troops can cost in the tens of thousands of dollars. Near the top of the line, the Predator B, or MQ9-Reaper, manufactured by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, costs about $10.5 million. By comparison, a single F-22 fighter jet costs about $150 million.

 Defense spending on drones has become the most dynamic sector of the world’s aerospace industry, according to a report by the Teal Group in Fairfax. The group’s 2011 market study estimated that in the coming decade global spending on drones will double, reaching $94 billion.

But the world’s expanding drone fleets — and the push to weaponize them — have alarmed some academics and peace activists, who argue that robotic warfare raises profound questions about the rules of engagement and the protection of civilians, and could encourage conflicts.
“They could reduce the threshold for going to war,” said Noel Sharkey, a professor of artificial intelligence and robotics at the University of Sheffield in England. “One of the great inhibitors of war is the body bag count, but that is undermined by the idea of riskless war.” 

China On Fast Track

 

No country has ramped up its research in recent years faster than China. It displayed a drone model for the first time at the Zhuhai air show five years ago, but now every major manufacturer for the Chinese military has a research center devoted to drones, according to Chinese analysts.
Much of this work remains secret, but the large number of drones at recent exhibitions underlines not only China’s determination to catch up in that sector — by building equivalents to the leading U.S. combat and surveillance models, the Predator and the Global Hawk — but also its desire to sell this technology abroad.

The United States doesn’t export many attack drones, so we’re taking advantage of that hole in the market,” said Zhang Qiaoliang, a representative of the Chengdu Aircraft Design and Research Institute, which manufactures many of the most advanced military aircraft for the People’s Liberation Army. “The main reason is the amazing demand in the market for drones after 9/11.”

Although surveillance drones have become widely used around the world, armed drones are more difficult to acquire.

Israel, the second-largest drone manufacturer after the United States, has flown armed models, but few details are available. India announced this year that it is developing ones that will fire missiles and fly at 30,000 feet. Russia has shown models of drones with weapons, but there is little evidence that they are operational.

Pakistan has said it plans to obtain armed drones from China, which has already sold the nation ones for surveillance. And Iran last summer unveiled a drone that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the “ambassador of death” but whose effectiveness is still unproven, according to military analysts.

The United States is not yet threatened by any of these developments. No other country can match its array of aircraft with advanced weapons and sensors, coupled with the necessary satellite and telecommunications systems to deploy drones successfully across the globe.
“We are well ahead in having established systems actively in use,” said retired Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, the former deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance at the Air Force. “But the capability of other countries will do nothing but grow.”

Raising alarm

  

In recent conflicts, the United States has primarily used land-based drones, but it is developing an aircraft carrier-based version to deploy in the Pacific. Defense analysts say the new drone is partly intended to counter the long-range “carrier killer” missile that China is developing.
With the ascendance of China’s military, American allies in the Pacific increasingly see the United States as the main bulwark against rising Chinese power. And China has increasingly framed its military developments in response to U.S. capabilities.

A sea-based drone would give the United States the ability to fly three times the distance of a normal Navy fighter jet, potentially keeping a carrier group farther from China’s coast.
This possible use of U.S. drones in the Pacific has been noted with alarm in news reports in China as well as in North Korea’s state-run media.
There are similar anxieties in the United States over China’s accelerating drone industry. A report last November by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission noted that the Chinese military “has deployed several types of unmanned aerial vehicles for both reconnaissance and combat.”
In the pipeline, the report said, China has several medium- and high-altitude long-endurance drones, which could expand China’s options for long-range surveillance and attacks.

China’s rapid development has pushed its neighbors into action. After a diplomatic clash with China last fall over disputed territories in the South China Sea, Japan announced that it planned to send military officials to the United States to study how it operates and maintains its Global Hawk high-altitude surveillance drones. In South Korea, lawmakers this year accused China of hacking into military computers to learn about the country’s plans to acquire Global Hawk, which could peer into not only North Korea but also parts of China and other neighboring countries.

On top of the increasing anxieties of individual countries, there also are international concerns that some governments might not be able to protect these new weapons from hackers and terrorists. Sharkey, the University of Sheffield professor who also co-founded the International Committee for Robot Arms Control, noted that Iraqi insurgents, using a $30 piece of software, intercepted live feeds from U.S. drones; the video was later found on the laptop of a captured militant.

Relaxing U.S. export controls
 
But with China and other countries beginning to market their drones, the United States is looking to boost its sales by exploring ways to relax American export controls.

Vice Adm. William E. Landay III, director of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency overseeing foreign military sales, said at a Pentagon briefing recently that his agency is working on preapproved lists of countries that would qualify to purchase drones with certain capabilities. “If industry understands where they might have an opportunity to sell, and where they won’t, that’s useful for them,” Landay said.

General Atomics, the San Diego-based manufacturer of the U.S. Predator drones, has received approval to export to the Middle East and Latin America an unarmed, early-generation Predator, according to company spokeswoman Kimberly Kasitz. The company is now in talks with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt, among others, she said.
At the same time, U.S. officials have sought to limit where others sell their drones. After Israel sold an anti-radar attack drone to China, the Pentagon temporarily shut Israel out of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program to register its disapproval.

In 2009, the United States also objected to an Israeli sale of sophisticated drones to Russia, according to diplomatic cables released by the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks. A smaller co-production deal was later brokered with the Russians, who bristled when Georgia deployed Israeli surveillance drones against its forces during the 2008 war between the two countries.
 

 

But for China, there are few constraints on selling. It has begun to show its combat drone prototypes at international air shows, including last month in Paris, where a Chinese manufacturer displayed a craft, called the Wing-Loong, that looked like a Predator knockoff. Because of how tightly China controls its military technology, it is unclear how far along the Wing-Loong or any of its armed drones are from actual production and operation, defense analysts say.
According to the Aviation Industry Corp. of China, it has begun offering international customers a combat and surveillance drone comparable to the Predator called the Yilong, or “pterodactyl” in English. Zhang, of the Chengdu Aircraft Design and Research Institute, said the company anticipates sales in Pakistan, the Middle East and Africa.
However, he and others displaying drones at a recent Beijing anti-terrorism convention played down the threat of increasing Chinese drone technology.

“I don’t think China’s drone technology has reached the world’s first-class level,” said Wu Zilei, from the China Shipbuilding Industry Corp., echoing an almost constant refrain. “The reconnaissance drones are okay, but the attack drones are still years behind the United States.”
But Richard Fisher, a senior fellow at the Washington-based International Assessment and Strategy Center, said such statements are routine and intended to deflect concern about the nation’s expanding military ambitions.

washington post