Russian Hypersonic Missile Test: Hypersonic Weapons Race Gone Hyper (Video)

SHARE this video on FB, G+, Twitter, Instagram - YouTube

Subscribe to Military Tiger~ MilitaryTiger

Russia just conducted a flight test of a revolutionary hypersonic glide vehicle for the purpose of delivering nuclear or conventional warheads penetrating highly advanced missile defenses systems.

The test firing of the hypersonic glider took place from eastern 

Russia involving the launch of an SS-19 intercontinental ballistic missile. Russia’s state-run Interfax news agency confirmed the test on Thursday.

Pentagon spokeswoman agrees the news but declined to comment on. Only two tests are known about this new hypersonic glider while the first test took place last year.

China and the United States also are developing hypersonic missiles, both gliders and jet-powered vehicles that travel at extreme speeds.

China has conducted six tests of its DF-ZF hypersonic glider. A U.S. Army hypersonic missile blew up shortly after launch in August 2014.  The Pentagon also is developing a scramjet-powered hypersonic weapon.

Hypersonic missiles are being developed to defeat increasingly sophisticated missile defenses. The weapons are designed for use in rapid, long-range strikes.

Follow us on~

https://www.facebook.com/MilitaryTiger
https://www.twitter.com/Military_Tiger
https://www.instagram.com/military_tiger
https://www.pinterest.com/militarytiger/
https://www.google.com/+MilitaryTiger

Stay Tuned and Enjoy.

Bell-Lockheed Martin JV's V-280 Valor Upraising for US Military's FVL Program

As the Pentagon considers the future of military vertical lift, Bell Helicopter is talking with the US services about designing a next-generation tiltrotor solution that could begin low-rate production in the mid-2020s, one company official said.

Bell Helicopter's V-280 Valor concept

Bell is partnered with Lockheed Martin to build a rotorcraft flight demonstrator as part of the US Army’s Joint Multi-Role program, which will gauge the art of the possible for the path ahead. The demonstrator program will inform the Army’s Future Vertical Lift effort to buy a new state-of-the-art family of helicopters in the 2030s.

The demonstration effort may have implications beyond the Army. The Pentagon has indicated that FVL may eventually replace the Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force military helicopters as well. But for now, Bell is working with the Army and Marine Corps to shorten the time line for fielding the aircraft, the V-280, program manager Chris Gehler told the media on Nov. 16.

“Bell Helicopter is working closely with the Army and the Marine Corps on informing the requirements of FVL, exploring the options for shortening the time required to field this aircraft,” Gehler said. “We’ll work with our primary customers in the Army and Marine Corps to explore different ways to enter into a low rate production by the mid 2020’s. We are in close communication with the DOD to bring the V-280 onboard as soon as possible with limited risk to better take advantage of the industry and DOD investment.”

The Bell-Lockheed team is offering its V-280 Valor tiltrotor, which builds on the technology developed for Bell-Boeing’s V-22. The competing team, made up of Sikorsky Aircraft and Boeing, is working on a coaxial helicopter known as the SB-1 Defiant for the demonstrator effort.

Although the demonstrator prototypes will fly in 2017, the Army is currently not planning a contract award until the late 2020s, Richard Harris, Bell’s vice president for international military business sales, said in an interview with Defense News. But he stressed that company officials believe the Bell-Lockheed team could achieve initial operational capability by 2025.

“The Army and DOD are exploring options for shortening the V-280 development timeframe, given the significant investment by DOD and industry,” Gehler said. “The Army intends to enter a technology maturation and risk review (TMRR) phase around 2020. We feel a case could be made to instead jump ahead to the Engineering Manufacturing and Development (EMD) phase, given the technology readiness levels we will demonstrate. This has the potential to move the entire timeline up, and deliver this leap-ahead capability to the warfighters years earlier.”

Bell’s goal is ultimately to replace all the Pentagon’s helicopters with the V-280, Harris said, touting the plane’s speed and flexibility. The Valor will have twice the speed and range of the Army’s UH-60 Black Hawk, more than doubling operational reach, according to Bell’s website. The future plane will also outperform the V-22, Harris said, with a combat radius of 1,200 nautical miles compared to the Osprey’s 900 nautical miles.

In one major difference between the two tiltrotors, the Valor’s engines remain in place for transition to forward-flying position, while the rotors and drive shafts tilt, Harris explained. The V-280 will also build on the V-22’s offensive capability. Unlike the Osprey, the Valor will have a forward-firing capability, likely achieved by integrating Hellfire missiles into the plane’s side panels, he said.

While the new aircraft’s cabin will look much like a Black Hawk’s, the advanced glass cockpit uses similar technology to the F-35, Harris said, touting the plane’s fly-by-wire flight control system.

Bell just received the first cabin, and is getting ready to integrate the wings and engine onto the plane, Harris said, adding that “it went together like Lego blocks.”

“When you take a look at the dynamic world that we live in these days and how fast things happen and how far away things happen, a conventional helicopter just does not meet the requirements of all the services,” Harris said. “We are trying to define the standard for what future vertical lift is based upon [Bell’s] legacy and the fact that we are the ones that developed the secret sauce for the V-22.”

Former SecDef Perry: US on 'Brink' of New Nuclear Arms Race

The US is on the “brink” of kicking off a new nuclear arms race that will elevate the risk of nuclear apocalypse to Cold War levels, former Secretary of Defense William Perry warned Thursday.

An unarmed Minuteman III ICBM shoots out of the silo during an operational test launch in 2012 at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif.

Perry also called for the breaking of the nuclear triad by dismantling the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) stockpile.

“We’re now at the precipice, maybe I should say the brink, of a new nuclear arms race,” Perry said at an event hosted by the Defense Writer’s Group. “This arms race will be at least as expensive as the arms race we had during the Cold War, which is a lot of money.”

The Pentagon is starting a major overhaul of its nuclear triad, made up of bomber, submarine and ICBM nuclear options. The Air Force is starting work on its Long Range Strike-Bomber (LRS-B) program, a conventional bomber that later could be nuclear-certified; it is also planning a new version of the ICBM. Meanwhile, the Navy is figuring out funding plans for the Ohio-class submarine nuclear replacement program.

In an August assessment, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments projects that it will cost more than $700 billion over the next 25 years to recapitalize the nuclear triad.

Speaking on Wednesday, Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall indicated the nuclear modernization programs would be protected in the fiscal 2017 budget and remain a priority for the department going forward.

To Perry, who served in a number of Pentagon positions before becoming the 19th US secretary of defense under President Bill Clinton, spending that money is foolish when the US is both short of cash for other programs and capable of a robust nuclear deterrence already.

The risk of nuclear war is exacerbated by the dismantling of the relationship between Russia and the US that had been formed after the fall of the Soviet Union. Without clear military-to-military communication between those two nations, the risk of an accidental conflict increases.

“Today, probably I would not have said this 10 years ago, but today we now face the kind of dangers of a nuclear event like we had during the Cold War, an accidental war,” he said.

“I see an imperative,” Perry added, “to stop this damn nuclear arms race from accelerating again.”

The greatest source of that danger, to Perry’s mind, are the ICBMs, which he said are simply too easy to launch on bad information and would be the most likely source of an accidental nuclear war. He referred to the ICBM as “destabilizing” in that it invites an attack from another power.

Because of that, he said, the US should look to break the nuclear triad and go down to a force of simply bombers and submarines – a major change in strategic posture, and one he openly acknowledged isn’t likely to happen due to US domestic politics.

ICBMs “aren’t necessary … they’re not needed. Any reasonable definition of deterrence will not require that third leg,” Perry concluded.

Perry did note that he supported the LRS-B and submarine programs as they can service non-nuclear missions as well.

US DoD Being Requested To Rethink Electronic Warfare

In a world where long-range guided missiles and sophisticated radars are the norm, analysts and lawmakers are urging the Pentagon to rethink the way it operates in the electromagnetic spectrum to gain new advantages over near-peer competitors, such as Russia and China.

An E-6B Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System takes to the skies, Aug. 18, 2007.

Over the past few decades, competitors’ advancements in sensor and missile technology have forced the US military to operate farther and farther away from its intended targets, according to a report released this week by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment (CSBA). The Pentagon must shift toward using low-power countermeasures to defeat enemy sensors, as well as low-power sensors and communications.

During a Dec. 2 event on Capitol Hill to release the report, the report's co-authors and CSBA senior fellows Mark Gunzinger and Bryan Clark said the military must invest in technology to avoid detection and confuse enemy air defenses — for instance stealth aircraft, electronic jammers and decoys. Cheap, expendable unmanned vehicles, in the air or undersea, are crucial to this approach, they said.

Much of this technology is already fielded, but the Pentagon is not using it to its full potential, Clark stressed. Advancements like electronically scanned array (AESA) radars, the Navy’s Next-Generation Jammer and the Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program — an upgrade of the SLQ-32 shipboard electronic warfare (EW) system — are a good start. But the military could do much more with these systems, Clark said.

“So these new systems are coming out with these new technologies, but they are not necessarily being used in a way that exploits those new technologies — they are going to be used in a way that simply mimics how the predecessor system was used,” Clark said. “New operational concepts are necessary to leverage the technologies we’re already fielding.”

The Pentagon must invest in improving networking between the individual systems, agility in frequency and power, multi-functionality and miniaturization, Clark said. For example, operators could take a sophisticated jammer, currently deployed on an existing aircraft, and install it on a low-cost, expendable UAV that could penetrate farther into enemy territory.

Gunzinger blamed a “stove-piped” acquisition process, both within and between the armed services, for slowing progress in developing new concepts of operations in electronic warfare.

“That kind of a structure doesn’t really facilitate — it’s not conducive to the development of multifunction capabilities, such as an array that can act as a radar or a jammer or [do] cyber, and perhaps other missions, all in one package,” Gunzinger said. “Who is going to be the guru who is the champion for developing a new capability across the DoD?”

Reps. Randy Forbes, R-Va., Jackie Walorski, R-Ind., Rick Larsen, D-Wash., and Jim Langevin, D-R.I., also spoke at the event.

One major program the Pentagon could rethink is the Air Force’s much-delayed effort to recapitalize its Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) fleet, Gunzinger told Defense News before to the official report release. In a highly networked, contested environment, it does not make sense to use a non-stealthy business jet for battlefield management, he said.

Although the Air Force has used JSTARS to great effect in the Middle East over the past few decades, the operational concept of the plane is “already untenable,” Clark said.

“JSTARS is getting flown really hard in places like the Middle East where there’s no threat, and even that is starting to be constrained because there’s places that it can’t fly anymore because of the air threat in Syria and from Iran and the air threat from Russia,” Clark said.

Some offices in the Pentagon are examining whether the military needs a dedicated, manned aircraft to conduct both battle management and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), Gunzinger said. US forces might do better to disaggregate the ISR and battle management missions, he suggested. UAVs can conduct ISR undetected in enemy territory by using passive or low-power sensors, while ground or sea forces can do battle management from outside the immediate engagement area.

“When you start to think that the air environment in particular is becoming increasingly contested, certainly in the Pacific, certainly in Europe, certainly in the Persian Gulf region … you have to ask, well, how are you going to use this in the future in those environments, and is it worth it, frankly?” Gunzinger said.

JSTARS is particularly vulnerable to proliferating threats like Russia’s S-400 air defense system that can easily detect the aircraft’s high-power radar, Clark said.

Gunzinger and Clark’s comments on JSTARS echo concerns voiced recently by outgoing Air Force acquisition chief William LaPlante. The Pentagon may scrap the existing recapitalization program and go back to the drawing board, LaPlante said Nov. 24.

“There’s still debate in the building, outside the Air Force, on whether you do this or you do other things,” he said, explaining that some people want to trade JSTARS for unmanned platforms like Northrop Grumman’s Global Hawk remotely piloted surveillance aircraft.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh framed the debate over JSTARS differently, arguing that combatant commanders want the capability, but budget reality may force the Pentagon to postpone the program.

“The question is where does it fit in the priorities of things? To the combatant commanders it’s high on the priority list, but so are a lot of other things,” Welsh said Dec. 1 at an event hosted by the Atlantic Council. “If there are people in the department that think there’s a different way to provide this capability for less money, we should have a debate about that.”

The Air Force will continue to “push hard” to fund the JSTARS recapitalization program in the fiscal 2017 budget, but nothing is certain, Welsh said.

Did USA provocating a war with China regarding Soth China Sea disputes?

The Pentagon in the third week of May sent a U.S. Navy P-8A Poseidon surveillance plane near Fiery Cross Reef in the South China Sea — called the East Sea by Vietnam. The Fiery Reef is in the archipelago called the Spratly Islands by the U.S., the Nanchan Islands by China and the Truong Sa Islands by the Vietnamese.

 As the U.S. surveillance plane approached the area of the reef, a Chinese radio dispatcher warned: “Foreign military aircraft, this is the Chinese Navy. You are approaching our military alert zone. Leave immediately!” (Los Angeles Times, May 21)

The U.S. military replied that the plane was over international waters, even though it was close to 12 miles from the reef. “I am a military aircraft conducting lawful activities,” added the U.S. plane. The Chinese warned the spy plane off eight times, to no avail.

The U.S. surveillance flight came less than a week after the USS Fort Worth, a Navy littoral combat ship designed for near-shore operations, passed close to the islands, where the Chinese are dredging sand and building up five reefs.

Provocation part of planned campaign

These were deliberate provocations staged by the Pentagon as part of a planned campaign to escalate Washington’s military pressure on the People’s Republic of China. It is the implementation of the so-called “Asian pivot” announced by President Barack Obama.

According to a May 12 article in the British paper The Guardian, “Ash Carter, the defense secretary, had requested options that included sending ships and aircraft within 12 nautical miles of reefs that China has been building up in the disputed Spratly Islands. …

“‘We are considering how to demonstrate freedom of navigation in an area that is critical to world trade,’ [a] U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity, adding that any options would need to be approved by the White House.”

To unfold such a plan under the banner of defending “freedom of the seas” is ludicrous. For one thing, the U.S. is one of the few countries that has not signed the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, although it participated in drafting much of the language.

This is a reflection of the imperialist arrogance and presumptuous, great-power chauvinism of Washington. The Pentagon regards the Pacific as a “U.S. lake.” What else could explain the military challenging China’s right to build up islands a few hundred miles from its shore, when California is more than 6,000 miles away? What right has the U.S. ruling class to have its Navy conduct patrols in the Pacific region to “ensure freedom of the seas,” but not allow China to promote its interests in the region?

The answer is that it has no right, except the right based on military force by a power that has devastated Asia, beginning with the U.S. intervention in China during the Boxer Rebellion of 1898-1900 followed by the slaughter in the Philippines in 1898-1902 and colonization of that country — to say nothing of the atomic bombing of Japan in World War II, the brutal Korean War, the genocidal Vietnam war, the bombing of Laos and Cambodia, and the CIA-backed massacre of a million people in Indonesia in 1965-66.

Council on Foreign Relations unveils new strategy

The Council on Foreign Relations is the think tank of a major section of the U.S. ruling class. Its members include former Defense secretaries, former heads of the State Department, generals, admirals, ruling-class military intellectuals, strategists, etc.

In April the CFR released a report titled “Revising U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China,” written by Robert D. Blackwill; Henry Kissinger, Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy; and Ashley J. Tellis, Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

The core of the report is summarized as follows:

Strengthen the U.S. military. “Congress should remove sequestration caps and substantially increase the U.S. defense budget. … Washington should intensify a consistent U.S. naval and air presence in the South and East China Seas” and “accelerate the U.S. ballistic-missile defense posture” in the Pacific.

Expand Asian trade networks. “U.S. grand strategy toward China will be seriously weakened without delivering on the TPP [Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement]. A major push by the White House for ratification should therefore begin immediately in the new Congress, including seeking trade promotion authority.”

Create a technology-control regime. “Washington should pay increased attention to limiting China’s access to advanced weaponry and military critical technologies.” The United States should encourage its allies “to develop a coordinated approach to constrict China’s access to all technologies, including dual use.”

Implement effective cyber policies. Washington should “impose costs on China that are in excess of the benefits it receives from its violations in cyberspace … increase U.S. offensive cyber capabilities … continue improving U.S. cyber defenses” and “pass relevant legislation in Congress, such as the Cyber Information Security Protection Act.”

Reinforce Indo-Pacific partnerships. “The United States cannot defend its interests in Asia without support from its allies” and “should build up the power-political capabilities of its friends and allies on China’s periphery.”

The report has the earmarks of the campaign that was devised to bring down the USSR. It is formulated by former Cold Warriors. It aims to promote military encirclement, which would divert economic resources and disrupt national economic planning. During the time of the USSR, the U.S. set up a wide blockade on technology transfer, with the aim of depriving the Soviet Union of modern economic tools for national development. And, of course, Washington fashioned global alliances such as NATO directed at the USSR. What is being proposed by the CFR is a milder version of the Cold War full-court press. But the goal is clearly to undermine the People’s Republic.

The problem for the imperialists is that China already has the technological and industrial capability to withstand such a campaign, should it be implemented. But the important point is to be aware of the aggressive thinking in the highest imperialist circles concerning China. And to note that the recent provocations are not just arbitrary or momentary. They are part of a longer-range plan.

U.S. views Russia and China differently

Washington regards China as a hostile class power — unlike Russia, which is a fully capitalist country with imperialist investments and an upstart oligarchic ruling class. Created on the ruins of the nationalized economy of the Soviet Union, it is looking for its place in the sun of imperialism. Wall Street and the Pentagon have a different idea. They want to take Russia over. Thus Russia is in conflict with the U.S. imperialists on many fronts, and the oppressed countries can and should take full advantage of this.

But China is more or less a compromise of socialism with capitalism. The socialist foundation must be defended against counterrevolution. The planning principle and state-owned enterprises dominate the economy, although it is riddled with capitalism and corruption. The Communist Party of China, the state banks and big state industries are combatting the current economic slowdown and trying to advance employment.

China is managing this slowdown while economic stagnation and recession are plaguing the capitalist world. This includes Russia, which is in the grip of an economic crisis, with its gross domestic product, sales and wages falling — unlike China, where wages are rising.

The goal of U.S. and European capitalism is to destroy the state enterprises in China, privatize them, undermine the Chinese Communist Party and politically enthrone the capitalist class.

Both China and Russia must be defended against imperialism when they are under attack. But no one should overlook the difference between a distorted socialist country with capitalist inroads and a state fully in the hands of an exploiting class.

China ignores Vietnam’s sovereignty in island dispute

While the overriding threat in the Pacific right now is the provocation by U.S. imperialism against China, the fact that China is expanding into territory long claimed by Vietnam and within Vietnamese territorial waters must not be lost sight of.

China may have legitimate commercial and defense interests in building up the Spratly Islands/Truong Sa Islands. But it is incumbent upon China, both as a great power and as a country with claims to socialism, to defer to Vietnam and to work out territorial relations under conditions that are mutually acceptable and agreed upon.

It is one thing to expand military and commercial positions to be better able to protect against imperialist incursions. It is another thing to expand territorial claims far beyond any legally recognized boundaries and disregard the territorial claims of Vietnam, or the other nations that have claims on the islands, including the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei.

Acting in a high-handed manner with respect to small nations, especially with respect to a sister socialist country like Vietnam, both demeans China and increases the space for U.S. imperialism to create divisions and conflict.

Washington is fishing in troubled waters by sending its military into a contested region. It has no business in these waters. Its aggressive military and political maneuvers that foster division are meant to serve imperialist purposes and should be shunned by China first of all.

The ninth minute barrier: Pentagon releases Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 failed test report.

With a statement released on Apr. 20, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency said that Mar. 20 failed test was (unsurprisingly) caused by the extremely high speeds.

Launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, the Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 (HTV-2) was expected to travel westward for about 30 minutes before plunging into the ocean near Kwajalein Atoll, some 4,000 miles from departure, after a test flight aimed to test new technology that could boost the Pentagon’s strike power.

However, nine minutes into the test flight, after demonstrating “stable aerodynamically-controlled flight” at speeds up to Mach 20, something went wrong.

As the aircraft travelled nearly 13,000 miles per hour in the higher parts of the atmosphere, larger than expected portions of the Falcon’s skin peeled from the aerostructure. The resulting gaps created strong, impulsive shock waves around the vehicle causing the vehicle to roll abruptly with continued disturbances that exceeded the HTV-2 ability to recover stability.

Such anomaly prompted the flight safety system to opt the vehicle’s aerodynamic systems to perform a controlled descent and splashdown in the ocean.

“The initial shockwave disturbances experienced during second flight, from which the vehicle was able to recover and continue controlled flight, exceeded by more than 100 times what the vehicle was designed to withstand,” said DARPA Acting Director, Kaigham J. Gabriel. “That’s a major validation that we’re advancing our understanding of aerodynamic control for hypersonic flight.”

Mar. 20 failed test was the third such tests for the Falcon. The first HTV-2 flight was conducted on Apr. 22, 2010 and lasted less than expected. Quite weirdly, nine minutes into the mission (just like in the 2012 test) the onboard systems detected an unsafe flight attitude and the vehicle was forced to descend directly into the ocean.

On Aug. 11, 2011, the HTV-2 flew its second test flight, but it lost contact about nine minutes into its planned 30-minute Mach 20 ride and it purposedly impacted the Pacific Ocean along its planned flight path for safety reasons.

 Image credit: DARPA

 

As the analysis of the test flights suggests, something wrong happens nine minutes into the flight causing it to end prematurely, as if the vehicle reaches temperatures and aerodynamic conditions that are still difficult to manage: something that reminds that virtual “sound barrier” jet planes had to break to reach Mach 1 in the ’40s.

Anyway, “the result of these findings is a profound advancement in understanding the areas we need to focus on to advance aerothermal structures for future hypersonic vehicles. Only actual flight data could have revealed this to us” DARPA said.

Nevertheless no more test flights are expected for the HTV-2.

The hypersonic strike vehicle the Pentagon dreams of, capable to fly from New York City and Los Angeles in less than 12 minutes, is still far from becoming a reality.

Religion-based grooming standards okayed by Pentagon

The Pentagon has finally relaxed its rules governing the religious apparel and facial hair the troops can wear or maintain while in uniform. 

From now on beards, turbans, religious body art and other manifestations of spiritual devotion can be allowed throughout the military. Yet, it all can be practiced so long it doesn't affect military readiness, unit cohesion or good order and discipline. 

US Air Force Plans To Arm Sixth Generation Fighters With Laser Weapons

The Pentagon wants to put high-powered lasers on its fleet of fighter jets in the not-so-distant future to ensure that enemies of the United States don’t stand a chance against America’s state-of-the-art arsenal.

A request for information document posted by the US Air Force on the Federal Business Opportunities website last week indicates that the Department of Defense is already interested in acquiring weaponry that would be used on next-generation aircraft years down the road in anti-access and area denial, or A2/AD, environments in order to safeguard certain interests.

6th generation fighter

“The Air Force Research Lab (AFRL) is requesting information describing concepts for airborne laser systems for future air dominance platforms,” the request begins. “The emphasis of this effort is to identify potential laser systems that could be integrated into a platform that will provide air dominance in the 2030+ highly contested Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) environment.”

According to the November 15 request, of particular interest to the Pentagon are laser systems that would be at a technology readiness level of at least category 4 by next October and ready to be demonstrated at a level of TRL 5 or higher by 2022. The DoD’s own rubric with regards to TRL criteria indicates that the Air Force intends to have a laser system in under a decade where “The basictechnological components are integrated with reasonably realistic supporting elements so they can be tested in a simulated environment.”

Ranking Serials And Insignias of US Armed Forces

Its Not A Whisper Its Clear & Loud To Say That Pentagon Report Reveals Chinese Military Developments

 

Last year's annual report on Chinese military developments was widely criticized. What does the 2013 version offer?

After a year-long hiatus, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD)’s annual report on Chinese military developments is back and better than ever. Its 43-page 2012 predecessor was widely criticized for arriving far later than Congress requested and containing little substance or new data. But this year’s expeditiously-issued 92-page document continues a tradition of detailed, sophisticated, publicly-available U.S. government analysis previously seen in the 2011 DoD report, the 2010 National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC) report on China’s air force, and the 2009 and 2007 Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) reports on China’s navy.

Like these other landmark reports, this year’s DoD iteration clearly and understandably comes from a U.S. military perspective, yet strives to provide a comprehensive picture of Chinese military developments and the strategic concerns that motivate them. This represents an admirable effort to offer a balanced assessment, as can be seen in remarks at the time of its release by David F. Helvey, deputy assistant secretary of defense for East Asia. Useful data are presented on everything from Chinese sea- and -land based energy access to apparent ambiguities in Beijing’s “no first use” nuclear doctrine to members of the Central Military Commission and their key professional relationships.

All this context matters deeply, and should be commended. But arguably the report’s greatest contribution lies in more specific areas: providing authoritative assessments of key People’s Liberation Army (PLA) developments that are difficult, if not impossible, to achieve or confirm via other publicly-available sources, such as Beijing’s own recently-released 2013 Defense White Paper—which, like many Chinese public strategic documents, offers few specifics. Chinese government representatives are already out in force criticizing this year’s DoD report and claiming that its content is distorted or inaccurate, but as usual do not offer credible evidence to clarify or counter even the report’s most important assertions. Yet it is precisely in such areas—which include hard-to-attribute cyber activities and other types of espionage—that observers of China’s military development need the greatest governmental assistance. After all, as a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed argues cogently: “In the long run Beijing usually does what it says it is going to do, although the execution may be concealed with deception.”

With respect to obfuscation, the report documents that China has conducted multiple naval operations in the undisputed U.S. Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of a nature that it would oppose a foreign military such as that of the U.S. conducting in its own claimed EEZ—which it is projected to fill with increasing numbers of maritime law enforcement vessels. While the report states that China is conducting such activities in the EEZs of multiple states, a reference that almost certainly includes Japan, it is worth noting the report’s exact wording with respect to the United States: “the United States has observed over the past year several instances of Chinese naval activities in the EEZ around Guam and Hawaii. One of those instances was during the execution of the annual Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise in July/August 2012. While the United States considers the PLA Navy activities in its EEZ to be lawful, the activity undercuts China’s decades-old position that similar foreign military activities in China’s EEZ are unlawful.” It will be particularly interesting to see how Beijing responds to such revelations, which further underscore the emerging contradictions between China’s promotion of restrictive approaches vis-à-vis foreign military and governmental activities in the Near Seas (Yellow, East, and South China Seas) even as it pursues increasing access to such other strategic seas as the Western Pacific and the Arctic. Given this complexity, perhaps Beijing’s approach for now will be to denounce the report generally while avoiding this specific issue.

Perhaps the report’s single greatest contribution to what is known publicly about the PLA concerns China’s nuclear submarine programs. It states that China’s three already-operational Type 094 Jin-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) may be joined by “as many as two more in various stages of construction.” The Type 094 “will give the PLA Navy its first credible sea-based nuclear deterrent” once its 7,400+ km-range JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missile (SSBN) is deployed effectively. “After a round of successful testing in 2012, the JL-2 appears ready to reach initial operational capability in 2013,” DoD explains. “JIN-class SSBNs based at Hainan Island in the South China Sea would then be able to conduct nuclear deterrence patrols.” After as many as 5 Type 094 SSBNs are operational, China is slated to “[proceed] to its next generation SSBN (Type 096) over the next decade.” This improved variant may finally offer acoustic qualities suitable for long-range patrols.

Additionally, “China is building four improved variants” of the Type 093 Shang-class nuclear-powered attack submarine (SSN) to add to the two already deployed. Within “the next decade, China will likely construct the Type 095 guided-missile attack submarine (SSGN), which may enable a submarine-based land-attack capability,” the report adds. Not only will the Type 095 employ “better quieting technologies,” it will also “fulfill traditional anti-ship roles with the incorporation of torpedoes and anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs).” With respect to conventional attack submarines, DoD states that the Yuan-class (Type 039A), which may grow to twenty hulls in total, has air-independent power, hence its designation as an “SSP.” These developments will afford the People's Liberation Army (PLAN) new force deployment options and significantly enhance its undersea warfare and strike capabilities.

Another area of significance is the report’s coverage of China’s anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) program, which is part of a major Chinese emphasis on missile development, particularly of conventional ballistic and cruise missiles. While many details can and have been assembled from previous U.S. government announcements, this is the most definitive, comprehensive statement concerning the program’s current status and capability yet available. “China continues to field” the DF-21D ASBM with its 1,500+ km-range and maneuverable warhead, the report asserts, which “it began deploying in 2010.” The DF-21D “gives the PLA the capability to attack large ships, including aircraft carriers, in the western Pacific Ocean.” Also, “The PLA Navy is also improving its over-the-horizon (OTH) targeting capability with sky wave and surface wave OTH radars, which can be used in conjunction with reconnaissance satellites to locate targets at great distances from China (thereby supporting long-range precision strikes, including employment of ASBMs).” In a hint that Beijing may build longer-range ASBMs, DoDstates: “Beijing is investing in military programs and weapons designed to improve extended-range power projection… Key systems that have been either deployed or in development include ballistic missiles (including anti-ship variants)….”

On the nuclear side, Beijing is trying to achieve/consolidate secure second-strike capability. China has engaged in major efforts over the past decade to construct advanced, deeply-buried facilities to enable “all aspects of its military forces, including C2 [command and control], logistics, missile, and naval forces” to survive a nuclear first strike.

This is part of a larger array of “current and projected force structure improvements” that “will provide the PLA with systems that can engage adversary surface ships up to 1,000 nm from China’s coast.” The PLAN “will also develop a new capability for ship-based land-attack using cruise missiles.” The report judges China’s defense industry to enjoy significant resources.The report credits China with having deployed one of the world’s largest advanced long-range surface-to-air missile (SAM) forces. In a sea change from a decade ago, DoD assesses that PLA missile and other developments have already “largely negated” many of Taiwan’s traditional defensive advantages of technological superiority and geography even as Taipei’s military spending is a tenth that of the mainland’s official defense budget.

Areas of particular Chinese defense industrial capability include missiles, space, and shipbuilding. The report characterizes China as being “among the top ship-producing nations in the world” and China’s ballistic and cruise missile industries to be “comparable to other international top-tier producers” and well-positioned for further development. China’s missile and space industry has benefitted from “upgrades to primary final assembly and rocket motor production facilities.” A burgeoning space launch industry enabled 18 space launches in 2012 that lofted, among many other systems, 11 new remote sensing satellites. Meanwhile, Chinese shipyards have improved in capacity and sophistication, e.g., through improvement management and software, allowing them to develop increasing varieties of platforms and systems and reducing reliance on foreign assistance. Other Chinese research and development trends stand out. The report documents a significant focus on developing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), both for PLA use and to market to foreign countries; as well as on development/acquisition of unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs).

China’s navy also “has the largest force of major combatants, submarines, and amphibious warfare ships in Asia.” Looking forward, DoD estimates that “China will probably build several aircraft carriers over the next 15 years.” It projects that Beijing “will likely establish several access points… in the next 10 years,” possibly in the Malacca, Lombok, and Sunda Straits, in “the form of agreements for refueling, replenishment, crew rest, and low-level maintenance” to address logistical limitations that currently restrict the level of PLAN distant operations. The report is careful to emphasize, however, that “the services provided will likely fall short of U.S.-style agreements permitting the full spectrum of support from repair to re-armament.”

Despite these areas of progress, the PLA faces areas of enduring weakness, and even new emerging challenges. Present limitations, albeit which the PLA is struggling to surmount, include lack of “a robust, deep water anti- submarine warfare capability….”A related uncertainty is “whether China has the capability to collect accurate targeting information and pass it to launch platforms in time for successful strikes in sea areas beyond the first island chain.” Other developments will themselves force difficult questions upon the PLA. Generally speaking, “to fully implement ‘informatized’ command and control, the PLA will need to overcome a shortage of trained personnel and its culture of centralized, micro-managed command.” More specifically, “Further increases in the number of mobile ICBMs and the beginning of SSBN deterrence patrols will force the PLA to implement more sophisticated command and control systems and processes that safeguard the integrity of nuclear release authority for a larger, more dispersed force.”

Finally, as part of a clear effort to address Chinese military development comprehensively, the report is not all doom and gloom in its coverage. It enumerates both PLA bilateral and multilateral military exercises and Sino-American military contacts and exchanges. One imagines that the report’s authors have been tempered by the reality that Beijing often limits or cancels such exchanges to express political differences, but remain duty bound to pursue a U.S. government policy that preserves the possibility of such exchanges building trust and habits of cooperation and in doing so avoids a still-worse alternative. Whatever uncertainties and concerns may underlie it, this is not a document that is all zero-sum in its approach.

While the U.S. intelligence community has access to a wide range of data on specific developments, other observers who lack access to such information because of nationality or societal station must depend in part on open government publications to raise and clarify specific issues. Given the dynamism and importance of the matters at stake, it is essential that a full range of individuals and foreign governments alike have access to substantive reports. U.S. taxpayers must be informed as to why they are being asked to fund the development and maintenance of military capabilities, and to exercise the civilian oversight on which a democracy depends. Allied and friendly governments and their citizens must keep abreast of relevant developments and maintain military relations with Washington on the basis of mutual understanding and interest. And China itself needs to know how its military progress is being perceived, even as it remains free to publish whatever reports of its own it might wish. Given these factors, DoD is to be commended for having released such a substantive and timely report on China’s military development. Its contents should be discussed and debated constructively with regard to specific substance, in lieu of political sloganeering or sweeping but unsubstantiated charges that fail to further understanding.