超级军网Offensive Airpower with Chinese Characteristics
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/20 04:18:04
Offensive Airpower with Chinese Characteristics
Development, Capabilities, and Intentions
Erik Lin-Greenberg*
Editorial Abstract: Although China has traditionally employed its airpower in largely defensive air operations, this doctrine appears to be undergoing a significant shift. The author contends that China is developing limited capabilities in offensive airpower as a deterrent against its neighbors and American forces in the Pacific. Rather than implement a strategic airpower doctrine, China will develop “offensive airpower with Chinese characteristics,” a doctrine that uses traditionally tactical platforms to carry out strategic operations in China’s periphery.
On the 50th anniversary of the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) in November 1999, Chinese president Jiang Zemin announced that China would “strive to build a powerful, modernized People’s Air Force that is capable of both attacking and defending.”1 This marked a major shift in Chinese strategy. Since its establishment, the PLAAF intended its aircraft acquisitions, personnel training, and doctrine for defensive air operations.2 To carry out the offensive operations described by Jiang Zemin, the PLAAF needed to modernize its aircraft inventory; revise strategic, operational, and tactical doctrine; and revamp training programs. In recent years, the Chinese military has undergone rapid modernization to develop air-warfare capabilities.
This article examines the PLAAF’s air-warfare capabilities and explains the nature of offensive Chinese airpower. In recent years, the PLAAF has acquired new combat platforms and increased joint and combined training but has yet to develop strategic capabilities that allow it to strike targets outside the Pacific region.3 (According to Air Force Doctrine Document [AFDD] 1, Air Force Basic Doctrine, strategic operations consist of “offensive action . . . that most directly achieve our national security objectives by affecting the adversary’s leadership, conflict-sustaining resources, and strategy.”)4 China’s lack of such capabilities leads to questions about its intentions regarding the use of offensive airpower. The PLAAF’s paucity of effective long-range offensive airpower stems from multiple factors, primarily insufficient offensive weapons systems, excessive command centralization, and China’s inexperience in offensive air operations. Geopolitical factors have also limited that country’s desire to develop more significant strategic capabilities.
Additionally, the article posits that China is developing limited offensive-airpower capabilities as a deterrent against actions by its neighbors and American forces in the Pacific. Rather than implement a doctrine of strategic airpower, China will develop “offensive airpower with Chinese characteristics,” a doctrine that uses traditionally tactical platforms to carry out strategic operations in the country’s periphery. The article begins by examining historical factors that contributed to the stagnation of the growth of offensive air warfare and then analyzes the PLAAF’s development and possible intentions for its offensive air force. Lastly, it considers the implications that Chinese airpower has for the United States and the means by which the latter can counter its development in order to maintain regional stability in Asia.
History of the Development of
Chinese Offensive Airpower
Certain events in the history of the PLAAF caused its modern capabilities in offensive air warfare to lag significantly behind those of other world powers. The incompatibility of offensive airpower with Mao Tse-tung’s doctrine of “People’s War” and the withdrawal of Soviet military aid in 1960 during the Sino-Soviet rift hampered the growth of strategic Chinese airpower by preventing the acquisition of new technologies and the development of a doctrine of offensive air warfare.
Prior to a series of doctrinal changes in the 1980s and 1990s, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), seeking guidance on confronting a more technologically advanced enemy, looked to Mao’s concept of People’s War. That concept would defend China from attack by using large numbers of troops armed with low-tech weapons to overwhelm an adversary through quantity rather than quality of personnel and weaponry.5 In such a war, the army, along with paramilitary forces, would work with the populace to engage in both conventional and guerrilla operations to overextend adversary forces. Once this occurred, conventional troops would attack and destroy isolated groups of enemy soldiers.6
The development of offensive airpower proved inherently incompatible with People’s War. Since Mao based his war-fighting doctrine on defense of the Chinese mainland, the PLAAF primarily had responsibility for guarding the nation’s airspace.7 From its formative years during the Korean War, the PLAAF armed and trained its personnel to fly air-superiority missions, focusing only limited attention on development of strategic capabilities. After suffering high casualties during its first bombing mission against a South Korean intelligence facility in November 1951, the PLAAF withdrew from regular service the bombers it had acquired to fly missions against targets in South Korea.8 After this incident, China focused on air superiority.
A nation hoping to effectively employ strategic airpower requires technologically advanced aircraft; command, control, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C2ISR) systems; and significant pilot training, none of which conformed to the low-tech nature of People’s War. PLA troops would overwhelm enemy forces using low-tech weapons—not high-tech systems such as strategic bombers. Thus, rather than develop modern weapons systems for long-range offensive missions, Mao’s air force acquired Soviet tactical aircraft of Korean War vintage. The Soviet Union’s military aid to China in the form of aircraft and training initially helped the fledgling PLAAF establish combat capabilities, but Chinese dependence on Soviet assistance limited the development of indigenous aircraft and doctrine. Soviet aid to the PLAAF began during the Korean War and continued until the Sino-Soviet rift in 1960. Termination of this material aid and the withdrawal of Soviet advisers left China with an antiquated air force and limited resources for modernization. The PLAAF supplemented and replaced Soviet-supplied aircraft with Chinese-produced copies. Through the 1970s, China’s fleet included various platforms, including Chinese versions of the MiG-17 Fresco (J-5) and MiG-19 Farmer (J-6) interceptors as well as the Tu-16 Badger (H-6) intermediate-range bomber.9 Many H-6s remain in service today.
The PLAAF made no significant progress in developing aircraft capable of carrying out offensive air operations until the 1970s. Early in that decade, China attempted to develop an indigenous strategic bomber using British-made Rolls-Royce Spey turbofans.10 After abandoning this project due to technical and financial difficulties, the Chinese launched a program to reengine their H-6 bombers with the Rolls-Royce turbofans but cancelled this project as well for financial reasons.11 Although China upgraded the avionics and electronic-countermeasures systems of its 1950s-era H-6 bombers, the PLAAF did not acquire a long-range strategic bomber capable of projecting airpower beyond the Chinese mainland during this period.12 Concurrently, the United States developed the B-52 Stratofortress, B-1 Lancer, and F-111 Aardvark, all of which it has employed strategically. The low-tech nature of People’s War and China’s reliance on the Soviet Union for military assistance ensured that China would build a fleet of antiquated aircraft rather than a modern air force capable of carrying out offensive operations.
China’s Quest for
Offensive Airpower
After an extended period of minimally developing equipment and doctrine, the PLAAF began to modernize rapidly. This process started in the early 1990s after the first Gulf War demonstrated that US airpower could easily defeat militaries based on the Soviet model, such as those of Iraq and China. The use of strategic airpower by the United States and its allies to strike leadership and military infrastructure in Iraq—and later in the Balkans—forced PLAAF analysts to recognize China’s inability to defeat a modern military.13 To address deficiencies in waging a modern war, the PLA launched a revolution in military affairs to enhance capabilities by acquiring new equipment, improving command and control (C2) infrastructure, and increasing military training.14 A significant portion of this development focused on improving the offensive capabilities of the PLAAF.
Acquiring New Equipment
After a period of limited programs designed to develop indigenous aircraft, the PLAAF has increased its acquisition of both domestic and Russian aircraft. The procurement of advanced strike, refueling, and Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft represents the most visible component of China’s air force modernization. Specifically, it has acquired advanced multirole combat aircraft, including the Russian Sukhoi Su-27 and Su-30, Chinese J-8 and J-10 fighters, Ilyushin transports, and indigenously produced AWACS platforms.15 These aircraft provide China with tactical air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities, but the lack of a long-range bomber prevents it from projecting airpower beyond the Pacific.
The backbone of the current Chinese bomber fleet consists of approximately 120 H‑6 intermediate-range bombers, supplemented by Q-5 and JH-7 fighter-bombers. The H-6, the largest of China’s bombers, has a weapons payload of 20,000 pounds compared to the American B-52’s 60,000. The operational range of the H-6 is also significantly smaller than that of the B-52, restricting the aircraft’s operations to the Pacific. The Q-5 and JH-7 have even smaller payloads and ranges, limiting their reach to nations in China’s periphery. In January 2007, Internet reports indicated that China had begun producing upgraded variants of the H-6 capable of carrying cruise missiles and precision-guided munitions up to 3,000 nautical miles.16 New H-6K aircraft enable China to operate further beyond its borders, but the lack of forward operating bases prevents it from projecting airpower globally.
A second component of China’s equipment-modernization program involves the acquisition of aerial-refueling platforms. The PLAAF considers the ability to extend the range of its combat fleet critical to carrying out operations beyond the Chinese periphery.17 J-8 and J-7 fighters, which comprise most of the PLAAF fleet, have the range to reach potential conflict zones such as the Paracel and Macclesfield Islands, but without aerial refueling, they cannot loiter or engage adversary aircraft. Having too few forward operating bases also limits the PLAAF’s ability to carry out long-range offensive operations. Unlike the United States, which can launch operations from strategically located air bases throughout the world, China has no major air bases outside its mainland. Without aerial refueling, China cannot carry out effective offensive operations, let alone adequately protect what that country considers its territorial airspace.
To address its need for aerial-refueling capabilities, China converted a few H-6 bombers into refueling aircraft in the 1990s and in 2005 ordered eight Russian Il-78 tankers.18 Although China’s aerial refueling has improved, its effectiveness in an operational environment remains questionable. The PLAAF’s and People’s Liberation Army Navy Air Force’s (PLANAF) current refueling fleet represents only a small fraction of the 585 aerial tankers operated by the US Air Force.19 China’s pilots also have limited air-refueling experience. Despite acquiring tankers nearly two decades ago, the PLAAF did not conduct overwater refueling until 2005.20 Furthermore, because most of its combat aircraft cannot be aerially refueled, China needs an extensive upgrade program to remedy this deficiency.
Advancements in Command and Control
Operations that depend on the synergistic effect of aerial tankers, strike aircraft, tactical fighters, and other airborne platforms require significant coordination that can be achieved only through comprehensive and flexible C2. Current Chinese C2 relies on outdated communication systems, delaying the dissemination of orders and directives.21 Development of indigenous airborne C2ISR platforms such as the KJ-2000 and KJ-200 AWACS—a major component of improving C2 technology in the PLAAF—has enabled China to carry out airborne surveillance, C2, and battle management. The crash of a PLAAF KJ-200 during a test flight in June 2006 that killed all 40 people on board set back the Chinese AWACS program since the victims were key technical staff in designing and testing the KJ-200.22 Despite the mishap, China has continued to develop AWACS aircraft for operational use. Indeed, it is likely that the KJ-2000 has recently entered operational service with the PLAAF.23
Although one can improve technology through the acquisition of modern equipment, the PLAAF will need time to alter its C2 philosophy. The Chinese military has not traditionally delegated authority to junior personnel, a situation that leads to a highly centralized C2 infrastructure in which senior officers make tactical decisions.24 Thus, the PLAAF’s intentions with regard to operating its new airborne C2 platforms remain unclear. Typically, junior- and midgrade officers serve as air-battle managers on most non-Chinese C2ISR platforms, but the PLAAF uses senior officers in control towers. To employ its airborne C2ISR technology effectively in offensive operations, the PLAAF must first change its approach to command by delegating authority to junior personnel—something Chinese military leaders may prove reluctant to do.
Improved Training
In recent years, the PLAAF has revamped its training program to improve the quality of personnel and enhance combat effectiveness. It has established training exercises that allow Chinese pilots to fly realistic missions in a variety of flying conditions. Moreover, the PLAAF has introduced tactical training that focuses on potential combat confrontations with Taiwan and the United States, enabling pilots to practice both air-to-air and air-to-ground tactics designed to improve China’s precision-strike capabilities.25 During aggressor training (recently added), Chinese Su-27s and J-8s simulate the tactics of Taiwan’s Mirage 2000 and F-16 fighters.26
China has also increased joint and combined training to improve its ability to operate with foreign militaries outside the mainland. The Chinese integrated joint operations plan of 2002 led to an increase in the PLAAF’s joint training.27 Future military operations will likely include more joint operations, meaning that other components of the PLA—primarily the PLANAF—will support the PLAAF in carrying out offensive operations. A Sino-Russian exercise in 2005 emphasized the PLAAF’s precision-attack capabilities, employing aerial tankers, bombers, tactical aircraft, and airborne forces.28 An exercise held with the Tajik military in 2006 demonstrated China’s airlift capabilities.29 Both exercises reflect the country’s ongoing attempts to improve offensive capabilities but also reveal the limitation of current capabilities to nations along China’s periphery.Offensive Airpower with Chinese Characteristics
Development, Capabilities, and Intentions
Erik Lin-Greenberg*
Editorial Abstract: Although China has traditionally employed its airpower in largely defensive air operations, this doctrine appears to be undergoing a significant shift. The author contends that China is developing limited capabilities in offensive airpower as a deterrent against its neighbors and American forces in the Pacific. Rather than implement a strategic airpower doctrine, China will develop “offensive airpower with Chinese characteristics,” a doctrine that uses traditionally tactical platforms to carry out strategic operations in China’s periphery.
On the 50th anniversary of the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) in November 1999, Chinese president Jiang Zemin announced that China would “strive to build a powerful, modernized People’s Air Force that is capable of both attacking and defending.”1 This marked a major shift in Chinese strategy. Since its establishment, the PLAAF intended its aircraft acquisitions, personnel training, and doctrine for defensive air operations.2 To carry out the offensive operations described by Jiang Zemin, the PLAAF needed to modernize its aircraft inventory; revise strategic, operational, and tactical doctrine; and revamp training programs. In recent years, the Chinese military has undergone rapid modernization to develop air-warfare capabilities.
This article examines the PLAAF’s air-warfare capabilities and explains the nature of offensive Chinese airpower. In recent years, the PLAAF has acquired new combat platforms and increased joint and combined training but has yet to develop strategic capabilities that allow it to strike targets outside the Pacific region.3 (According to Air Force Doctrine Document [AFDD] 1, Air Force Basic Doctrine, strategic operations consist of “offensive action . . . that most directly achieve our national security objectives by affecting the adversary’s leadership, conflict-sustaining resources, and strategy.”)4 China’s lack of such capabilities leads to questions about its intentions regarding the use of offensive airpower. The PLAAF’s paucity of effective long-range offensive airpower stems from multiple factors, primarily insufficient offensive weapons systems, excessive command centralization, and China’s inexperience in offensive air operations. Geopolitical factors have also limited that country’s desire to develop more significant strategic capabilities.
Additionally, the article posits that China is developing limited offensive-airpower capabilities as a deterrent against actions by its neighbors and American forces in the Pacific. Rather than implement a doctrine of strategic airpower, China will develop “offensive airpower with Chinese characteristics,” a doctrine that uses traditionally tactical platforms to carry out strategic operations in the country’s periphery. The article begins by examining historical factors that contributed to the stagnation of the growth of offensive air warfare and then analyzes the PLAAF’s development and possible intentions for its offensive air force. Lastly, it considers the implications that Chinese airpower has for the United States and the means by which the latter can counter its development in order to maintain regional stability in Asia.
History of the Development of
Chinese Offensive Airpower
Certain events in the history of the PLAAF caused its modern capabilities in offensive air warfare to lag significantly behind those of other world powers. The incompatibility of offensive airpower with Mao Tse-tung’s doctrine of “People’s War” and the withdrawal of Soviet military aid in 1960 during the Sino-Soviet rift hampered the growth of strategic Chinese airpower by preventing the acquisition of new technologies and the development of a doctrine of offensive air warfare.
Prior to a series of doctrinal changes in the 1980s and 1990s, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), seeking guidance on confronting a more technologically advanced enemy, looked to Mao’s concept of People’s War. That concept would defend China from attack by using large numbers of troops armed with low-tech weapons to overwhelm an adversary through quantity rather than quality of personnel and weaponry.5 In such a war, the army, along with paramilitary forces, would work with the populace to engage in both conventional and guerrilla operations to overextend adversary forces. Once this occurred, conventional troops would attack and destroy isolated groups of enemy soldiers.6
The development of offensive airpower proved inherently incompatible with People’s War. Since Mao based his war-fighting doctrine on defense of the Chinese mainland, the PLAAF primarily had responsibility for guarding the nation’s airspace.7 From its formative years during the Korean War, the PLAAF armed and trained its personnel to fly air-superiority missions, focusing only limited attention on development of strategic capabilities. After suffering high casualties during its first bombing mission against a South Korean intelligence facility in November 1951, the PLAAF withdrew from regular service the bombers it had acquired to fly missions against targets in South Korea.8 After this incident, China focused on air superiority.
A nation hoping to effectively employ strategic airpower requires technologically advanced aircraft; command, control, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C2ISR) systems; and significant pilot training, none of which conformed to the low-tech nature of People’s War. PLA troops would overwhelm enemy forces using low-tech weapons—not high-tech systems such as strategic bombers. Thus, rather than develop modern weapons systems for long-range offensive missions, Mao’s air force acquired Soviet tactical aircraft of Korean War vintage. The Soviet Union’s military aid to China in the form of aircraft and training initially helped the fledgling PLAAF establish combat capabilities, but Chinese dependence on Soviet assistance limited the development of indigenous aircraft and doctrine. Soviet aid to the PLAAF began during the Korean War and continued until the Sino-Soviet rift in 1960. Termination of this material aid and the withdrawal of Soviet advisers left China with an antiquated air force and limited resources for modernization. The PLAAF supplemented and replaced Soviet-supplied aircraft with Chinese-produced copies. Through the 1970s, China’s fleet included various platforms, including Chinese versions of the MiG-17 Fresco (J-5) and MiG-19 Farmer (J-6) interceptors as well as the Tu-16 Badger (H-6) intermediate-range bomber.9 Many H-6s remain in service today.
The PLAAF made no significant progress in developing aircraft capable of carrying out offensive air operations until the 1970s. Early in that decade, China attempted to develop an indigenous strategic bomber using British-made Rolls-Royce Spey turbofans.10 After abandoning this project due to technical and financial difficulties, the Chinese launched a program to reengine their H-6 bombers with the Rolls-Royce turbofans but cancelled this project as well for financial reasons.11 Although China upgraded the avionics and electronic-countermeasures systems of its 1950s-era H-6 bombers, the PLAAF did not acquire a long-range strategic bomber capable of projecting airpower beyond the Chinese mainland during this period.12 Concurrently, the United States developed the B-52 Stratofortress, B-1 Lancer, and F-111 Aardvark, all of which it has employed strategically. The low-tech nature of People’s War and China’s reliance on the Soviet Union for military assistance ensured that China would build a fleet of antiquated aircraft rather than a modern air force capable of carrying out offensive operations.
China’s Quest for
Offensive Airpower
After an extended period of minimally developing equipment and doctrine, the PLAAF began to modernize rapidly. This process started in the early 1990s after the first Gulf War demonstrated that US airpower could easily defeat militaries based on the Soviet model, such as those of Iraq and China. The use of strategic airpower by the United States and its allies to strike leadership and military infrastructure in Iraq—and later in the Balkans—forced PLAAF analysts to recognize China’s inability to defeat a modern military.13 To address deficiencies in waging a modern war, the PLA launched a revolution in military affairs to enhance capabilities by acquiring new equipment, improving command and control (C2) infrastructure, and increasing military training.14 A significant portion of this development focused on improving the offensive capabilities of the PLAAF.
Acquiring New Equipment
After a period of limited programs designed to develop indigenous aircraft, the PLAAF has increased its acquisition of both domestic and Russian aircraft. The procurement of advanced strike, refueling, and Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft represents the most visible component of China’s air force modernization. Specifically, it has acquired advanced multirole combat aircraft, including the Russian Sukhoi Su-27 and Su-30, Chinese J-8 and J-10 fighters, Ilyushin transports, and indigenously produced AWACS platforms.15 These aircraft provide China with tactical air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities, but the lack of a long-range bomber prevents it from projecting airpower beyond the Pacific.
The backbone of the current Chinese bomber fleet consists of approximately 120 H‑6 intermediate-range bombers, supplemented by Q-5 and JH-7 fighter-bombers. The H-6, the largest of China’s bombers, has a weapons payload of 20,000 pounds compared to the American B-52’s 60,000. The operational range of the H-6 is also significantly smaller than that of the B-52, restricting the aircraft’s operations to the Pacific. The Q-5 and JH-7 have even smaller payloads and ranges, limiting their reach to nations in China’s periphery. In January 2007, Internet reports indicated that China had begun producing upgraded variants of the H-6 capable of carrying cruise missiles and precision-guided munitions up to 3,000 nautical miles.16 New H-6K aircraft enable China to operate further beyond its borders, but the lack of forward operating bases prevents it from projecting airpower globally.
A second component of China’s equipment-modernization program involves the acquisition of aerial-refueling platforms. The PLAAF considers the ability to extend the range of its combat fleet critical to carrying out operations beyond the Chinese periphery.17 J-8 and J-7 fighters, which comprise most of the PLAAF fleet, have the range to reach potential conflict zones such as the Paracel and Macclesfield Islands, but without aerial refueling, they cannot loiter or engage adversary aircraft. Having too few forward operating bases also limits the PLAAF’s ability to carry out long-range offensive operations. Unlike the United States, which can launch operations from strategically located air bases throughout the world, China has no major air bases outside its mainland. Without aerial refueling, China cannot carry out effective offensive operations, let alone adequately protect what that country considers its territorial airspace.
To address its need for aerial-refueling capabilities, China converted a few H-6 bombers into refueling aircraft in the 1990s and in 2005 ordered eight Russian Il-78 tankers.18 Although China’s aerial refueling has improved, its effectiveness in an operational environment remains questionable. The PLAAF’s and People’s Liberation Army Navy Air Force’s (PLANAF) current refueling fleet represents only a small fraction of the 585 aerial tankers operated by the US Air Force.19 China’s pilots also have limited air-refueling experience. Despite acquiring tankers nearly two decades ago, the PLAAF did not conduct overwater refueling until 2005.20 Furthermore, because most of its combat aircraft cannot be aerially refueled, China needs an extensive upgrade program to remedy this deficiency.
Advancements in Command and Control
Operations that depend on the synergistic effect of aerial tankers, strike aircraft, tactical fighters, and other airborne platforms require significant coordination that can be achieved only through comprehensive and flexible C2. Current Chinese C2 relies on outdated communication systems, delaying the dissemination of orders and directives.21 Development of indigenous airborne C2ISR platforms such as the KJ-2000 and KJ-200 AWACS—a major component of improving C2 technology in the PLAAF—has enabled China to carry out airborne surveillance, C2, and battle management. The crash of a PLAAF KJ-200 during a test flight in June 2006 that killed all 40 people on board set back the Chinese AWACS program since the victims were key technical staff in designing and testing the KJ-200.22 Despite the mishap, China has continued to develop AWACS aircraft for operational use. Indeed, it is likely that the KJ-2000 has recently entered operational service with the PLAAF.23
Although one can improve technology through the acquisition of modern equipment, the PLAAF will need time to alter its C2 philosophy. The Chinese military has not traditionally delegated authority to junior personnel, a situation that leads to a highly centralized C2 infrastructure in which senior officers make tactical decisions.24 Thus, the PLAAF’s intentions with regard to operating its new airborne C2 platforms remain unclear. Typically, junior- and midgrade officers serve as air-battle managers on most non-Chinese C2ISR platforms, but the PLAAF uses senior officers in control towers. To employ its airborne C2ISR technology effectively in offensive operations, the PLAAF must first change its approach to command by delegating authority to junior personnel—something Chinese military leaders may prove reluctant to do.
Improved Training
In recent years, the PLAAF has revamped its training program to improve the quality of personnel and enhance combat effectiveness. It has established training exercises that allow Chinese pilots to fly realistic missions in a variety of flying conditions. Moreover, the PLAAF has introduced tactical training that focuses on potential combat confrontations with Taiwan and the United States, enabling pilots to practice both air-to-air and air-to-ground tactics designed to improve China’s precision-strike capabilities.25 During aggressor training (recently added), Chinese Su-27s and J-8s simulate the tactics of Taiwan’s Mirage 2000 and F-16 fighters.26
China has also increased joint and combined training to improve its ability to operate with foreign militaries outside the mainland. The Chinese integrated joint operations plan of 2002 led to an increase in the PLAAF’s joint training.27 Future military operations will likely include more joint operations, meaning that other components of the PLA—primarily the PLANAF—will support the PLAAF in carrying out offensive operations. A Sino-Russian exercise in 2005 emphasized the PLAAF’s precision-attack capabilities, employing aerial tankers, bombers, tactical aircraft, and airborne forces.28 An exercise held with the Tajik military in 2006 demonstrated China’s airlift capabilities.29 Both exercises reflect the country’s ongoing attempts to improve offensive capabilities but also reveal the limitation of current capabilities to nations along China’s periphery.
Development, Capabilities, and Intentions
Erik Lin-Greenberg*
Editorial Abstract: Although China has traditionally employed its airpower in largely defensive air operations, this doctrine appears to be undergoing a significant shift. The author contends that China is developing limited capabilities in offensive airpower as a deterrent against its neighbors and American forces in the Pacific. Rather than implement a strategic airpower doctrine, China will develop “offensive airpower with Chinese characteristics,” a doctrine that uses traditionally tactical platforms to carry out strategic operations in China’s periphery.
On the 50th anniversary of the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) in November 1999, Chinese president Jiang Zemin announced that China would “strive to build a powerful, modernized People’s Air Force that is capable of both attacking and defending.”1 This marked a major shift in Chinese strategy. Since its establishment, the PLAAF intended its aircraft acquisitions, personnel training, and doctrine for defensive air operations.2 To carry out the offensive operations described by Jiang Zemin, the PLAAF needed to modernize its aircraft inventory; revise strategic, operational, and tactical doctrine; and revamp training programs. In recent years, the Chinese military has undergone rapid modernization to develop air-warfare capabilities.
This article examines the PLAAF’s air-warfare capabilities and explains the nature of offensive Chinese airpower. In recent years, the PLAAF has acquired new combat platforms and increased joint and combined training but has yet to develop strategic capabilities that allow it to strike targets outside the Pacific region.3 (According to Air Force Doctrine Document [AFDD] 1, Air Force Basic Doctrine, strategic operations consist of “offensive action
Additionally, the article posits that China is developing limited offensive-airpower capabilities as a deterrent against actions by its neighbors and American forces in the Pacific. Rather than implement a doctrine of strategic airpower, China will develop “offensive airpower with Chinese characteristics,” a doctrine that uses traditionally tactical platforms to carry out strategic operations in the country’s periphery. The article begins by examining historical factors that contributed to the stagnation of the growth of offensive air warfare and then analyzes the PLAAF’s development and possible intentions for its offensive air force. Lastly, it considers the implications that Chinese airpower has for the United States and the means by which the latter can counter its development in order to maintain regional stability in Asia.
History of the Development of
Chinese Offensive Airpower
Certain events in the history of the PLAAF caused its modern capabilities in offensive air warfare to lag significantly behind those of other world powers. The incompatibility of offensive airpower with Mao Tse-tung’s doctrine of “People’s War” and the withdrawal of Soviet military aid in 1960 during the Sino-Soviet rift hampered the growth of strategic Chinese airpower by preventing the acquisition of new technologies and the development of a doctrine of offensive air warfare.
Prior to a series of doctrinal changes in the 1980s and 1990s, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), seeking guidance on confronting a more technologically advanced enemy, looked to Mao’s concept of People’s War. That concept would defend China from attack by using large numbers of troops armed with low-tech weapons to overwhelm an adversary through quantity rather than quality of personnel and weaponry.5 In such a war, the army, along with paramilitary forces, would work with the populace to engage in both conventional and guerrilla operations to overextend adversary forces. Once this occurred, conventional troops would attack and destroy isolated groups of enemy soldiers.6
The development of offensive airpower proved inherently incompatible with People’s War. Since Mao based his war-fighting doctrine on defense of the Chinese mainland, the PLAAF primarily had responsibility for guarding the nation’s airspace.7 From its formative years during the Korean War, the PLAAF armed and trained its personnel to fly air-superiority missions, focusing only limited attention on development of strategic capabilities. After suffering high casualties during its first bombing mission against a South Korean intelligence facility in November 1951, the PLAAF withdrew from regular service the bombers it had acquired to fly missions against targets in South Korea.8 After this incident, China focused on air superiority.
A nation hoping to effectively employ strategic airpower requires technologically advanced aircraft; command, control, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C2ISR) systems; and significant pilot training, none of which conformed to the low-tech nature of People’s War. PLA troops would overwhelm enemy forces using low-tech weapons—not high-tech systems such as strategic bombers. Thus, rather than develop modern weapons systems for long-range offensive missions, Mao’s air force acquired Soviet tactical aircraft of Korean War vintage. The Soviet Union’s military aid to China in the form of aircraft and training initially helped the fledgling PLAAF establish combat capabilities, but Chinese dependence on Soviet assistance limited the development of indigenous aircraft and doctrine. Soviet aid to the PLAAF began during the Korean War and continued until the Sino-Soviet rift in 1960. Termination of this material aid and the withdrawal of Soviet advisers left China with an antiquated air force and limited resources for modernization. The PLAAF supplemented and replaced Soviet-supplied aircraft with Chinese-produced copies. Through the 1970s, China’s fleet included various platforms, including Chinese versions of the MiG-17 Fresco (J-5) and MiG-19 Farmer (J-6) interceptors as well as the Tu-16 Badger (H-6) intermediate-range bomber.9 Many H-6s remain in service today.
The PLAAF made no significant progress in developing aircraft capable of carrying out offensive air operations until the 1970s. Early in that decade, China attempted to develop an indigenous strategic bomber using British-made Rolls-Royce Spey turbofans.10 After abandoning this project due to technical and financial difficulties, the Chinese launched a program to reengine their H-6 bombers with the Rolls-Royce turbofans but cancelled this project as well for financial reasons.11 Although China upgraded the avionics and electronic-countermeasures systems of its 1950s-era H-6 bombers, the PLAAF did not acquire a long-range strategic bomber capable of projecting airpower beyond the Chinese mainland during this period.12 Concurrently, the United States developed the B-52 Stratofortress, B-1 Lancer, and F-111 Aardvark, all of which it has employed strategically. The low-tech nature of People’s War and China’s reliance on the Soviet Union for military assistance ensured that China would build a fleet of antiquated aircraft rather than a modern air force capable of carrying out offensive operations.
China’s Quest for
Offensive Airpower
After an extended period of minimally developing equipment and doctrine, the PLAAF began to modernize rapidly. This process started in the early 1990s after the first Gulf War demonstrated that US airpower could easily defeat militaries based on the Soviet model, such as those of Iraq and China. The use of strategic airpower by the United States and its allies to strike leadership and military infrastructure in Iraq—and later in the Balkans—forced PLAAF analysts to recognize China’s inability to defeat a modern military.13 To address deficiencies in waging a modern war, the PLA launched a revolution in military affairs to enhance capabilities by acquiring new equipment, improving command and control (C2) infrastructure, and increasing military training.14 A significant portion of this development focused on improving the offensive capabilities of the PLAAF.
Acquiring New Equipment
After a period of limited programs designed to develop indigenous aircraft, the PLAAF has increased its acquisition of both domestic and Russian aircraft. The procurement of advanced strike, refueling, and Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft represents the most visible component of China’s air force modernization. Specifically, it has acquired advanced multirole combat aircraft, including the Russian Sukhoi Su-27 and Su-30, Chinese J-8 and J-10 fighters, Ilyushin transports, and indigenously produced AWACS platforms.15 These aircraft provide China with tactical air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities, but the lack of a long-range bomber prevents it from projecting airpower beyond the Pacific.
The backbone of the current Chinese bomber fleet consists of approximately 120 H‑6 intermediate-range bombers, supplemented by Q-5 and JH-7 fighter-bombers. The H-6, the largest of China’s bombers, has a weapons payload of 20,000 pounds compared to the American B-52’s 60,000. The operational range of the H-6 is also significantly smaller than that of the B-52, restricting the aircraft’s operations to the Pacific. The Q-5 and JH-7 have even smaller payloads and ranges, limiting their reach to nations in China’s periphery. In January 2007, Internet reports indicated that China had begun producing upgraded variants of the H-6 capable of carrying cruise missiles and precision-guided munitions up to 3,000 nautical miles.16 New H-6K aircraft enable China to operate further beyond its borders, but the lack of forward operating bases prevents it from projecting airpower globally.
A second component of China’s equipment-modernization program involves the acquisition of aerial-refueling platforms. The PLAAF considers the ability to extend the range of its combat fleet critical to carrying out operations beyond the Chinese periphery.17 J-8 and J-7 fighters, which comprise most of the PLAAF fleet, have the range to reach potential conflict zones such as the Paracel and Macclesfield Islands, but without aerial refueling, they cannot loiter or engage adversary aircraft. Having too few forward operating bases also limits the PLAAF’s ability to carry out long-range offensive operations. Unlike the United States, which can launch operations from strategically located air bases throughout the world, China has no major air bases outside its mainland. Without aerial refueling, China cannot carry out effective offensive operations, let alone adequately protect what that country considers its territorial airspace.
To address its need for aerial-refueling capabilities, China converted a few H-6 bombers into refueling aircraft in the 1990s and in 2005 ordered eight Russian Il-78 tankers.18 Although China’s aerial refueling has improved, its effectiveness in an operational environment remains questionable. The PLAAF’s and People’s Liberation Army Navy Air Force’s (PLANAF) current refueling fleet represents only a small fraction of the 585 aerial tankers operated by the US Air Force.19 China’s pilots also have limited air-refueling experience. Despite acquiring tankers nearly two decades ago, the PLAAF did not conduct overwater refueling until 2005.20 Furthermore, because most of its combat aircraft cannot be aerially refueled, China needs an extensive upgrade program to remedy this deficiency.
Advancements in Command and Control
Operations that depend on the synergistic effect of aerial tankers, strike aircraft, tactical fighters, and other airborne platforms require significant coordination that can be achieved only through comprehensive and flexible C2. Current Chinese C2 relies on outdated communication systems, delaying the dissemination of orders and directives.21 Development of indigenous airborne C2ISR platforms such as the KJ-2000 and KJ-200 AWACS—a major component of improving C2 technology in the PLAAF—has enabled China to carry out airborne surveillance, C2, and battle management. The crash of a PLAAF KJ-200 during a test flight in June 2006 that killed all 40 people on board set back the Chinese AWACS program since the victims were key technical staff in designing and testing the KJ-200.22 Despite the mishap, China has continued to develop AWACS aircraft for operational use. Indeed, it is likely that the KJ-2000 has recently entered operational service with the PLAAF.23
Although one can improve technology through the acquisition of modern equipment, the PLAAF will need time to alter its C2 philosophy. The Chinese military has not traditionally delegated authority to junior personnel, a situation that leads to a highly centralized C2 infrastructure in which senior officers make tactical decisions.24 Thus, the PLAAF’s intentions with regard to operating its new airborne C2 platforms remain unclear. Typically, junior- and midgrade officers serve as air-battle managers on most non-Chinese C2ISR platforms, but the PLAAF uses senior officers in control towers. To employ its airborne C2ISR technology effectively in offensive operations, the PLAAF must first change its approach to command by delegating authority to junior personnel—something Chinese military leaders may prove reluctant to do.
Improved Training
In recent years, the PLAAF has revamped its training program to improve the quality of personnel and enhance combat effectiveness. It has established training exercises that allow Chinese pilots to fly realistic missions in a variety of flying conditions. Moreover, the PLAAF has introduced tactical training that focuses on potential combat confrontations with Taiwan and the United States, enabling pilots to practice both air-to-air and air-to-ground tactics designed to improve China’s precision-strike capabilities.25 During aggressor training (recently added), Chinese Su-27s and J-8s simulate the tactics of Taiwan’s Mirage 2000 and F-16 fighters.26
China has also increased joint and combined training to improve its ability to operate with foreign militaries outside the mainland. The Chinese integrated joint operations plan of 2002 led to an increase in the PLAAF’s joint training.27 Future military operations will likely include more joint operations, meaning that other components of the PLA—primarily the PLANAF—will support the PLAAF in carrying out offensive operations. A Sino-Russian exercise in 2005 emphasized the PLAAF’s precision-attack capabilities, employing aerial tankers, bombers, tactical aircraft, and airborne forces.28 An exercise held with the Tajik military in 2006 demonstrated China’s airlift capabilities.29 Both exercises reflect the country’s ongoing attempts to improve offensive capabilities but also reveal the limitation of current capabilities to nations along China’s periphery.Offensive Airpower with Chinese Characteristics
Development, Capabilities, and Intentions
Erik Lin-Greenberg*
Editorial Abstract: Although China has traditionally employed its airpower in largely defensive air operations, this doctrine appears to be undergoing a significant shift. The author contends that China is developing limited capabilities in offensive airpower as a deterrent against its neighbors and American forces in the Pacific. Rather than implement a strategic airpower doctrine, China will develop “offensive airpower with Chinese characteristics,” a doctrine that uses traditionally tactical platforms to carry out strategic operations in China’s periphery.
On the 50th anniversary of the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) in November 1999, Chinese president Jiang Zemin announced that China would “strive to build a powerful, modernized People’s Air Force that is capable of both attacking and defending.”1 This marked a major shift in Chinese strategy. Since its establishment, the PLAAF intended its aircraft acquisitions, personnel training, and doctrine for defensive air operations.2 To carry out the offensive operations described by Jiang Zemin, the PLAAF needed to modernize its aircraft inventory; revise strategic, operational, and tactical doctrine; and revamp training programs. In recent years, the Chinese military has undergone rapid modernization to develop air-warfare capabilities.
This article examines the PLAAF’s air-warfare capabilities and explains the nature of offensive Chinese airpower. In recent years, the PLAAF has acquired new combat platforms and increased joint and combined training but has yet to develop strategic capabilities that allow it to strike targets outside the Pacific region.3 (According to Air Force Doctrine Document [AFDD] 1, Air Force Basic Doctrine, strategic operations consist of “offensive action
Additionally, the article posits that China is developing limited offensive-airpower capabilities as a deterrent against actions by its neighbors and American forces in the Pacific. Rather than implement a doctrine of strategic airpower, China will develop “offensive airpower with Chinese characteristics,” a doctrine that uses traditionally tactical platforms to carry out strategic operations in the country’s periphery. The article begins by examining historical factors that contributed to the stagnation of the growth of offensive air warfare and then analyzes the PLAAF’s development and possible intentions for its offensive air force. Lastly, it considers the implications that Chinese airpower has for the United States and the means by which the latter can counter its development in order to maintain regional stability in Asia.
History of the Development of
Chinese Offensive Airpower
Certain events in the history of the PLAAF caused its modern capabilities in offensive air warfare to lag significantly behind those of other world powers. The incompatibility of offensive airpower with Mao Tse-tung’s doctrine of “People’s War” and the withdrawal of Soviet military aid in 1960 during the Sino-Soviet rift hampered the growth of strategic Chinese airpower by preventing the acquisition of new technologies and the development of a doctrine of offensive air warfare.
Prior to a series of doctrinal changes in the 1980s and 1990s, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), seeking guidance on confronting a more technologically advanced enemy, looked to Mao’s concept of People’s War. That concept would defend China from attack by using large numbers of troops armed with low-tech weapons to overwhelm an adversary through quantity rather than quality of personnel and weaponry.5 In such a war, the army, along with paramilitary forces, would work with the populace to engage in both conventional and guerrilla operations to overextend adversary forces. Once this occurred, conventional troops would attack and destroy isolated groups of enemy soldiers.6
The development of offensive airpower proved inherently incompatible with People’s War. Since Mao based his war-fighting doctrine on defense of the Chinese mainland, the PLAAF primarily had responsibility for guarding the nation’s airspace.7 From its formative years during the Korean War, the PLAAF armed and trained its personnel to fly air-superiority missions, focusing only limited attention on development of strategic capabilities. After suffering high casualties during its first bombing mission against a South Korean intelligence facility in November 1951, the PLAAF withdrew from regular service the bombers it had acquired to fly missions against targets in South Korea.8 After this incident, China focused on air superiority.
A nation hoping to effectively employ strategic airpower requires technologically advanced aircraft; command, control, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C2ISR) systems; and significant pilot training, none of which conformed to the low-tech nature of People’s War. PLA troops would overwhelm enemy forces using low-tech weapons—not high-tech systems such as strategic bombers. Thus, rather than develop modern weapons systems for long-range offensive missions, Mao’s air force acquired Soviet tactical aircraft of Korean War vintage. The Soviet Union’s military aid to China in the form of aircraft and training initially helped the fledgling PLAAF establish combat capabilities, but Chinese dependence on Soviet assistance limited the development of indigenous aircraft and doctrine. Soviet aid to the PLAAF began during the Korean War and continued until the Sino-Soviet rift in 1960. Termination of this material aid and the withdrawal of Soviet advisers left China with an antiquated air force and limited resources for modernization. The PLAAF supplemented and replaced Soviet-supplied aircraft with Chinese-produced copies. Through the 1970s, China’s fleet included various platforms, including Chinese versions of the MiG-17 Fresco (J-5) and MiG-19 Farmer (J-6) interceptors as well as the Tu-16 Badger (H-6) intermediate-range bomber.9 Many H-6s remain in service today.
The PLAAF made no significant progress in developing aircraft capable of carrying out offensive air operations until the 1970s. Early in that decade, China attempted to develop an indigenous strategic bomber using British-made Rolls-Royce Spey turbofans.10 After abandoning this project due to technical and financial difficulties, the Chinese launched a program to reengine their H-6 bombers with the Rolls-Royce turbofans but cancelled this project as well for financial reasons.11 Although China upgraded the avionics and electronic-countermeasures systems of its 1950s-era H-6 bombers, the PLAAF did not acquire a long-range strategic bomber capable of projecting airpower beyond the Chinese mainland during this period.12 Concurrently, the United States developed the B-52 Stratofortress, B-1 Lancer, and F-111 Aardvark, all of which it has employed strategically. The low-tech nature of People’s War and China’s reliance on the Soviet Union for military assistance ensured that China would build a fleet of antiquated aircraft rather than a modern air force capable of carrying out offensive operations.
China’s Quest for
Offensive Airpower
After an extended period of minimally developing equipment and doctrine, the PLAAF began to modernize rapidly. This process started in the early 1990s after the first Gulf War demonstrated that US airpower could easily defeat militaries based on the Soviet model, such as those of Iraq and China. The use of strategic airpower by the United States and its allies to strike leadership and military infrastructure in Iraq—and later in the Balkans—forced PLAAF analysts to recognize China’s inability to defeat a modern military.13 To address deficiencies in waging a modern war, the PLA launched a revolution in military affairs to enhance capabilities by acquiring new equipment, improving command and control (C2) infrastructure, and increasing military training.14 A significant portion of this development focused on improving the offensive capabilities of the PLAAF.
Acquiring New Equipment
After a period of limited programs designed to develop indigenous aircraft, the PLAAF has increased its acquisition of both domestic and Russian aircraft. The procurement of advanced strike, refueling, and Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft represents the most visible component of China’s air force modernization. Specifically, it has acquired advanced multirole combat aircraft, including the Russian Sukhoi Su-27 and Su-30, Chinese J-8 and J-10 fighters, Ilyushin transports, and indigenously produced AWACS platforms.15 These aircraft provide China with tactical air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities, but the lack of a long-range bomber prevents it from projecting airpower beyond the Pacific.
The backbone of the current Chinese bomber fleet consists of approximately 120 H‑6 intermediate-range bombers, supplemented by Q-5 and JH-7 fighter-bombers. The H-6, the largest of China’s bombers, has a weapons payload of 20,000 pounds compared to the American B-52’s 60,000. The operational range of the H-6 is also significantly smaller than that of the B-52, restricting the aircraft’s operations to the Pacific. The Q-5 and JH-7 have even smaller payloads and ranges, limiting their reach to nations in China’s periphery. In January 2007, Internet reports indicated that China had begun producing upgraded variants of the H-6 capable of carrying cruise missiles and precision-guided munitions up to 3,000 nautical miles.16 New H-6K aircraft enable China to operate further beyond its borders, but the lack of forward operating bases prevents it from projecting airpower globally.
A second component of China’s equipment-modernization program involves the acquisition of aerial-refueling platforms. The PLAAF considers the ability to extend the range of its combat fleet critical to carrying out operations beyond the Chinese periphery.17 J-8 and J-7 fighters, which comprise most of the PLAAF fleet, have the range to reach potential conflict zones such as the Paracel and Macclesfield Islands, but without aerial refueling, they cannot loiter or engage adversary aircraft. Having too few forward operating bases also limits the PLAAF’s ability to carry out long-range offensive operations. Unlike the United States, which can launch operations from strategically located air bases throughout the world, China has no major air bases outside its mainland. Without aerial refueling, China cannot carry out effective offensive operations, let alone adequately protect what that country considers its territorial airspace.
To address its need for aerial-refueling capabilities, China converted a few H-6 bombers into refueling aircraft in the 1990s and in 2005 ordered eight Russian Il-78 tankers.18 Although China’s aerial refueling has improved, its effectiveness in an operational environment remains questionable. The PLAAF’s and People’s Liberation Army Navy Air Force’s (PLANAF) current refueling fleet represents only a small fraction of the 585 aerial tankers operated by the US Air Force.19 China’s pilots also have limited air-refueling experience. Despite acquiring tankers nearly two decades ago, the PLAAF did not conduct overwater refueling until 2005.20 Furthermore, because most of its combat aircraft cannot be aerially refueled, China needs an extensive upgrade program to remedy this deficiency.
Advancements in Command and Control
Operations that depend on the synergistic effect of aerial tankers, strike aircraft, tactical fighters, and other airborne platforms require significant coordination that can be achieved only through comprehensive and flexible C2. Current Chinese C2 relies on outdated communication systems, delaying the dissemination of orders and directives.21 Development of indigenous airborne C2ISR platforms such as the KJ-2000 and KJ-200 AWACS—a major component of improving C2 technology in the PLAAF—has enabled China to carry out airborne surveillance, C2, and battle management. The crash of a PLAAF KJ-200 during a test flight in June 2006 that killed all 40 people on board set back the Chinese AWACS program since the victims were key technical staff in designing and testing the KJ-200.22 Despite the mishap, China has continued to develop AWACS aircraft for operational use. Indeed, it is likely that the KJ-2000 has recently entered operational service with the PLAAF.23
Although one can improve technology through the acquisition of modern equipment, the PLAAF will need time to alter its C2 philosophy. The Chinese military has not traditionally delegated authority to junior personnel, a situation that leads to a highly centralized C2 infrastructure in which senior officers make tactical decisions.24 Thus, the PLAAF’s intentions with regard to operating its new airborne C2 platforms remain unclear. Typically, junior- and midgrade officers serve as air-battle managers on most non-Chinese C2ISR platforms, but the PLAAF uses senior officers in control towers. To employ its airborne C2ISR technology effectively in offensive operations, the PLAAF must first change its approach to command by delegating authority to junior personnel—something Chinese military leaders may prove reluctant to do.
Improved Training
In recent years, the PLAAF has revamped its training program to improve the quality of personnel and enhance combat effectiveness. It has established training exercises that allow Chinese pilots to fly realistic missions in a variety of flying conditions. Moreover, the PLAAF has introduced tactical training that focuses on potential combat confrontations with Taiwan and the United States, enabling pilots to practice both air-to-air and air-to-ground tactics designed to improve China’s precision-strike capabilities.25 During aggressor training (recently added), Chinese Su-27s and J-8s simulate the tactics of Taiwan’s Mirage 2000 and F-16 fighters.26
China has also increased joint and combined training to improve its ability to operate with foreign militaries outside the mainland. The Chinese integrated joint operations plan of 2002 led to an increase in the PLAAF’s joint training.27 Future military operations will likely include more joint operations, meaning that other components of the PLA—primarily the PLANAF—will support the PLAAF in carrying out offensive operations. A Sino-Russian exercise in 2005 emphasized the PLAAF’s precision-attack capabilities, employing aerial tankers, bombers, tactical aircraft, and airborne forces.28 An exercise held with the Tajik military in 2006 demonstrated China’s airlift capabilities.29 Both exercises reflect the country’s ongoing attempts to improve offensive capabilities but also reveal the limitation of current capabilities to nations along China’s periphery.
Offensive Airpower with
Chinese Characteristics
China’s pattern of aircraft acquisitions suggests that a doctrinal shift has occurred in the PLAAF. Following the first Gulf War, China’s unsuccessful attempt to purchase Tu-22 long-range bombers from the Russian government likely represented an effort to develop strategic aerial capabilities similar to those of the United States. Despite this failure, the Chinese continued to develop air-warfare capabilities through the 1990s. NATO air operations during Operation Allied Force in 1999 further influenced PLAAF modernization, reflected in the fact that Chinese strategists focused on the role of airpower and long-range strike in diminishing the use of ground forces.30 Following the Balkan war, China accelerated its acquisition of platforms that the US Air Force had employed in Allied Force, such as multirole fighter aircraft and aerial tankers.31 This acquisition program continues today.
Although offensive airpower can be either tactical or strategic, the US government classifies China’s quest for offensive airpower as strategic.32 The Department of Defense believes that PLAAF modernization will result in a Chinese air force with strategic capabilities, but China’s current aircraft acquisition and development tell a different story. Most of the PLAAF’s new Russian and indigenous aircraft are air-superiority fighters and fighter-bombers, both characteristic of tactical operations. Even with the support of C2 aircraft and tankers, the PLAAF’s short-range tactical aircraft would have difficulty traveling far beyond the Chinese periphery. In 2005 Russia offered to sell China long-range Tu-22 and Tu-95 bombers, the same aircraft the Chinese attempted to obtain in the mid-1990s; however, China has yet to purchase those platforms.33 China’s decision to acquire short-range aircraft rather than strategic bombers indicates the current limitation of its airpower projection to the Pacific.
The acquisition of multirole fighters and AWACS aircraft, along with China’s deficit in long-range strategic bombers, forces outsiders to question how Chinese military leaders define offensive airpower, which currently appears to combine tactical platforms with tactical and strategic doctrine—referred to in this article as offensive airpower with Chinese characteristics. This doctrine uses tactical multirole fighters to attack traditionally strategic targets, including C2, industrial, and leadership infrastructure; additionally, they carry out tactical missions such as close air support and air superiority.
The nature of China’s development of offensive airpower indicates that the country limits its view of potential threats to nations along its periphery and does not currently seek to project airpower beyond the region. Despite the restricted nature of its capabilities, China will likely continue to modernize its air force and may eventually develop global power projection.
Implications and Responses
for the United States
The possibility of China’s ever employing offensive air capabilities against its neighbors or American forces in the region remains questionable. The country’s white paper on national defense of 2004 states that PLAAF doctrine has shifted from air defense to both defensive and offensive missions; it also indicates, however, that China adheres to a national policy of a defensive nature and “will never go for expansion.”34 Although this policy implies a mission of purely territorial defense, development of the PLAAF’s offensive capabilities appears to contradict this assertion. Recently acquired platforms such as the H-6K, supported by AWACS aircraft and aerial refuelers, enable China to project its power regionally into hot spots such as Taiwan and the Spratly Islands, over which China and Vietnam clashed in 1988. If China is indeed committed to building a defensive military, offensive airpower with Chinese characteristics would find use only as a deterrent.
As part of its “peaceful rise,” China ostensibly hopes to improve relations with other Pacific nations. Military conflict in the Pacific would impede trade in the region, hurting China’s export-dependent economy. Japan and Taiwan, the nations that Chinese defense analysts consider the most threatening, are among China’s top trade partners.35 Relying on exports and foreign investment for domestic modernization, the Chinese probably would not attack their neighbors since a war instigated by Beijing could result in sanctions and jeopardize foreign investment, thereby devastating China’s growing economy.36 In addition to causing economic harm, an unprovoked attack on Taiwan or other key US regional allies could possibly lead to an American-led military response. The potential economic harm and military repercussions of such conflict have led Beijing to rely on diplomacy rather than force. In recent years, China has increased cooperation with regional economic and security organizations such as the Association of South East Asian Nations. In 2002 the Chinese demonstrated their commitment to diplomacy by signing the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, a document intended to prevent conflict over the Spratly Islands and other disputed islands.37
Even though the likelihood of China’s initiating a war in the Pacific region remains small, offensive development of the PLAAF still poses a threat to regional stability. The ability of China to project military power throughout the Pacific jeopardizes American influence in the region. The United States has maintained military dominance in the Pacific since the end of World War II, but recent Chinese military development has the potential to shift the balance of power there. Even with China’s promise of a peaceful rise, its acquisition of platforms such as the J-10 and Su-27 fighters may lead the PLAAF to become a regional, technological peer competitor to the United States and other Pacific nations. Chinese militarization may lead neighboring states such as Japan and Korea, which recently expressed concern over the lack of transparency in China’s military buildup, to develop more aggressive military postures.38 China might respond by increasing its own military capabilities, resulting in a spiral process that could lead to intense diplomatic or military confrontations.39 It might also use airpower to project power to Central Asian states, such as Kazakhstan, that supply China’s burgeoning energy demand.40 Any form of PLAAF involvement in these nations could produce tension with the United States and Russia, both of which wish to gain influence in the geostrategically important region.41
To maintain the current balance of power in the Pacific, the United States must limit the PLAAF’s ability to wage offensive air operations. Adm Dennis C. Blair, former commander of US Pacific Command, declared, “We respect the authority of the People’s Liberation Army in their mainland. Yet we must make them understand that the ocean and sky [are] ours.”42 The Chinese have an inherent right to defend their sovereignty, but the United States must work with its global allies to limit the development of China’s offensive air capabilities.
Limiting the Transfer of Military Technology
China depends heavily on foreign nations for the PLAAF’s modernization, looking to Russia, Israel, France, and Germany for the preponderance of its military technology. Outsourcing the development of the Chinese air force to foreign nations allows the United States to influence many of China’s weapons suppliers through incentives or punitive measures. Legally, the United States can block the transfer of weapons systems containing American technology. In recent years, however, it has even stopped the sale of advanced military hardware that does not contain American equipment.
The fact that Israel, China’s second-largest supplier, relies heavily on US military aid gives the United States significant leverage over Israel’s program of weapons sales. In 2000 pressure from the United States prevented Israel from selling its Phalcon AWACS to China. The Israeli cancellation, which followed a US threat to withhold $2.8 billion in military aid, delayed the introduction of an AWACS platform into the PLAAF until 2006.43 In late 2004, Israel attempted to upgrade spare parts for Harpy unmanned aircraft, which Israel Aircraft Industries had sold to China in 1994. Although Israel did not send the upgraded parts to China, the United States froze Israeli participation in the US-led development of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter due to security concerns—a decision in line with recommendations made by the US-China Commission in 2004.44 The commission suggested that Congress restrict foreign defense contractors who sell military-use technology to China from participating in research and development by the US defense community.
The commission also urged Congress to press for continuation of the European Union’s (EU) arms embargo on China, believing that lifting the embargo, imposed after the Tiananmen Square Massacre of 1989, would accelerate modernization of the PLA.45 Even with the embargo in place, EU sales of military equipment to China increased from 54 million euros in 2001 to 416 million in 2003.46 Equipment sold to the Chinese military includes British-manufactured propellers used on the Chinese Y-8 Airborne Early Warning System, Italian Aspide air-to-air missiles, components of the French AS-365 Dauphin military helicopters, and advanced British and Italian avionics for the F-7 fighter aircraft.47 The export of military technology to China continues despite the embargo because the EU left interpretation and enforcement of that action to member states.48 Although some EU nations prohibit the sale of all military items to China, others, such as the United Kingdom, limit their embargoes to lethal weapons and military equipment that could be used for internal repression; those countries continue to export nonlethal military technology, such as avionics, radars, and aircraft-propulsion systems.49
To limit the development of China’s offensive capabilities, the United States must continue to pressure the EU to continue its ban on weapons sales. In addition, it should urge EU nations to standardize the guidelines regarding technologies that can be sold to China. States that abide by these guidelines and halt the transfer of military technology to China should receive incentives such as military aid and the right to participate in US-led joint weapons-development programs (e.g., the Joint Strike Fighter project). States that choose to continue to sell advanced military hardware to China should face restrictions similar to those imposed on Israel in 2004.
Limited Engagement
To discourage the offensive development of the PLAAF, the United States must couple military deterrence and embargoes with limited cooperation with the Chinese military. Some Americans fear that cooperatively engaging with China’s armed forces would allow the Chinese to learn doctrine and tactics that could improve their ability to wage war against the United States.50 Although these concerns are justified, engagement promotes greater transparency in military affairs, improves mutual understanding between the United States and China, and helps establish lines of communication among senior leaders that can reduce the possibility of accidents between US and Chinese forces.51
Primarily, the US Navy has carried out current US military engagement with China. That service has successfully monopolized recent Sino-US engagement efforts because a Navy admiral traditionally heads US Pacific Command and because naval forces conduct a significant portion of US military operations in the region. Developing ties between naval forces remains important, but the Chinese consider both the navy and the air force priorities in PLA modernization. Given China’s emphasis on strengthening its air force, the US Air Force should play a role equal to that of the Navy in engaging the Chinese military. Interaction between the US Air Force and the PLAAF should avoid exposing US military capabilities in areas such as force projection and C2ISR operations. Instead, it should focus on conducting professional exchanges and developing capabilities that enable China and the United States to respond collectively to regional humanitarian and security issues.
Promoting transparency and mutual understanding between the PLAAF’s and US Air Force’s leadership is fundamental to building trust between China and the United States. High-level meetings between senior officers and defense ministers can further this objective, provide an environment where senior leaders can establish lines of communications to reduce chances of misunderstanding in the event of a crisis, and plan future exercises as well as professional-development exchanges, the latter allowing personnel from both the PLAAF and US Air Force to learn about the other’s operations and leadership systems. The US Air Force should invite PLAAF personnel to participate in professional military education programs at all levels, on the condition that China reciprocate by providing Americans similar access to PLAAF training programs. Bilateral exchanges should occur throughout the spectrum of leadership, from enlisted schools and officer accession programs through senior education institutions such as the National Defense University. These programs allow for the direct interaction of military personnel without political interference. Direct military-exchange programs at all levels contribute to mutual trust and understanding.52
Recognizing China as a critical global actor, the United States is encouraging that nation to act as an international stakeholder.53 The US Air Force can help China achieve this status through combined training in humanitarian relief. Since its creation, the US Air Force has provided airlift support to relief operations following disasters. These missions offer vital assistance and improve the image of the nation that carries them out.54 The US Air Force should initiate exercises with the PLAAF that allow Chinese and American airmen to work together while responding to simulated large-scale humanitarian crises. This direct interaction will increase mutual understanding and respect between the air forces and may encourage China to participate as a responsible actor in the Pacific region. A Chinese decision to employ military aircraft in humanitarian operations would increase the legitimacy of China’s peaceful rise.
Critics may argue that combined exercises will strengthen China’s military capabilities by increasing the PLAAF’s ability to deploy personnel and equipment rapidly. The PLAAF already possesses airlift capabilities, as demonstrated by recent Sino-Tajik and Sino-Russian military exercises. Instead of providing the Chinese with additional military capabilities, combined relief exercises with the United States would serve as a catalyst for China to play a more active role in assisting its neighbors during humanitarian crises. The increased transparency and understanding that will result from interaction between American and Chinese airmen greatly outweigh the minimal national-security risks of limited combined training with the PLAAF.
Combined training should be supplemented by high-visibility exchanges such as participation of the US Air Force’s aerial-demonstration teams in Chinese air shows. The Thunderbirds, which performed in Beijing in September 1987, continue to appear in numerous international air shows.55 Prominent events such as air shows and port visits by naval vessels demonstrate to both the Chinese and American publics the enhanced relationship between the two militaries without revealing advanced capabilities. All instances of the US Air Force and the PLAAF’s working together should be publicized in both the United States and China to demonstrate increasing cooperation and friendship between the two countries.
Military Readiness
China ostensibly seeks to avoid using offensive military force, but the element of surprise remains a pillar of Chinese doctrine.56 Thus, the US military must prepare itself to respond to any offensive action taken by China. The US Air Force currently forward-deploys B-1, B-2, and B-52 bombers to Andersen AFB in Guam, 1,800 miles southeast of China. These aircraft, along with others in Japan, Korea, and Hawaii, serve as a powerful deterrent to offensive action by the Chinese.
In addition to deploying advanced aircraft to the Pacific, the United States must maintain a qualitative advantage over Chinese weapons systems and doctrine. Although US Air Force equipment currently is technologically superior to that of the PLAAF, recent modernization of Chinese equipment may lead the PLAAF to become a peer competitor to its US counterpart. Thus, the US Air Force must develop tactics that enable effective employment of its weapons against China in a potential conflict. Chinese military leaders question the effectiveness of current American tactics because, since the end of the Cold War, the United States has lacked a peer competitor to guide the development of tactics. Lt Gen Liu Yazhou of the PLAAF described the US Air Force’s tactical development as “crossing a river by feeling the stones in it,” referring to a phrase coined by Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping that describes modernization through cautious experimentation.57 Liu may have a valid point about US Air Force tactics, given that its aggressor training is still largely based on fighting the no-longer-extant Soviet Air Force.58 To ensure continued military superiority in the Pacific, the United States must couple the acquisition of new war-fighting platforms with tactical development that prepares American forces for a potential military conflict with China.
Chinese Characteristics
China’s pattern of aircraft acquisitions suggests that a doctrinal shift has occurred in the PLAAF. Following the first Gulf War, China’s unsuccessful attempt to purchase Tu-22 long-range bombers from the Russian government likely represented an effort to develop strategic aerial capabilities similar to those of the United States. Despite this failure, the Chinese continued to develop air-warfare capabilities through the 1990s. NATO air operations during Operation Allied Force in 1999 further influenced PLAAF modernization, reflected in the fact that Chinese strategists focused on the role of airpower and long-range strike in diminishing the use of ground forces.30 Following the Balkan war, China accelerated its acquisition of platforms that the US Air Force had employed in Allied Force, such as multirole fighter aircraft and aerial tankers.31 This acquisition program continues today.
Although offensive airpower can be either tactical or strategic, the US government classifies China’s quest for offensive airpower as strategic.32 The Department of Defense believes that PLAAF modernization will result in a Chinese air force with strategic capabilities, but China’s current aircraft acquisition and development tell a different story. Most of the PLAAF’s new Russian and indigenous aircraft are air-superiority fighters and fighter-bombers, both characteristic of tactical operations. Even with the support of C2 aircraft and tankers, the PLAAF’s short-range tactical aircraft would have difficulty traveling far beyond the Chinese periphery. In 2005 Russia offered to sell China long-range Tu-22 and Tu-95 bombers, the same aircraft the Chinese attempted to obtain in the mid-1990s; however, China has yet to purchase those platforms.33 China’s decision to acquire short-range aircraft rather than strategic bombers indicates the current limitation of its airpower projection to the Pacific.
The acquisition of multirole fighters and AWACS aircraft, along with China’s deficit in long-range strategic bombers, forces outsiders to question how Chinese military leaders define offensive airpower, which currently appears to combine tactical platforms with tactical and strategic doctrine—referred to in this article as offensive airpower with Chinese characteristics. This doctrine uses tactical multirole fighters to attack traditionally strategic targets, including C2, industrial, and leadership infrastructure; additionally, they carry out tactical missions such as close air support and air superiority.
The nature of China’s development of offensive airpower indicates that the country limits its view of potential threats to nations along its periphery and does not currently seek to project airpower beyond the region. Despite the restricted nature of its capabilities, China will likely continue to modernize its air force and may eventually develop global power projection.
Implications and Responses
for the United States
The possibility of China’s ever employing offensive air capabilities against its neighbors or American forces in the region remains questionable. The country’s white paper on national defense of 2004 states that PLAAF doctrine has shifted from air defense to both defensive and offensive missions; it also indicates, however, that China adheres to a national policy of a defensive nature and “will never go for expansion.”34 Although this policy implies a mission of purely territorial defense, development of the PLAAF’s offensive capabilities appears to contradict this assertion. Recently acquired platforms such as the H-6K, supported by AWACS aircraft and aerial refuelers, enable China to project its power regionally into hot spots such as Taiwan and the Spratly Islands, over which China and Vietnam clashed in 1988. If China is indeed committed to building a defensive military, offensive airpower with Chinese characteristics would find use only as a deterrent.
As part of its “peaceful rise,” China ostensibly hopes to improve relations with other Pacific nations. Military conflict in the Pacific would impede trade in the region, hurting China’s export-dependent economy. Japan and Taiwan, the nations that Chinese defense analysts consider the most threatening, are among China’s top trade partners.35 Relying on exports and foreign investment for domestic modernization, the Chinese probably would not attack their neighbors since a war instigated by Beijing could result in sanctions and jeopardize foreign investment, thereby devastating China’s growing economy.36 In addition to causing economic harm, an unprovoked attack on Taiwan or other key US regional allies could possibly lead to an American-led military response. The potential economic harm and military repercussions of such conflict have led Beijing to rely on diplomacy rather than force. In recent years, China has increased cooperation with regional economic and security organizations such as the Association of South East Asian Nations. In 2002 the Chinese demonstrated their commitment to diplomacy by signing the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, a document intended to prevent conflict over the Spratly Islands and other disputed islands.37
Even though the likelihood of China’s initiating a war in the Pacific region remains small, offensive development of the PLAAF still poses a threat to regional stability. The ability of China to project military power throughout the Pacific jeopardizes American influence in the region. The United States has maintained military dominance in the Pacific since the end of World War II, but recent Chinese military development has the potential to shift the balance of power there. Even with China’s promise of a peaceful rise, its acquisition of platforms such as the J-10 and Su-27 fighters may lead the PLAAF to become a regional, technological peer competitor to the United States and other Pacific nations. Chinese militarization may lead neighboring states such as Japan and Korea, which recently expressed concern over the lack of transparency in China’s military buildup, to develop more aggressive military postures.38 China might respond by increasing its own military capabilities, resulting in a spiral process that could lead to intense diplomatic or military confrontations.39 It might also use airpower to project power to Central Asian states, such as Kazakhstan, that supply China’s burgeoning energy demand.40 Any form of PLAAF involvement in these nations could produce tension with the United States and Russia, both of which wish to gain influence in the geostrategically important region.41
To maintain the current balance of power in the Pacific, the United States must limit the PLAAF’s ability to wage offensive air operations. Adm Dennis C. Blair, former commander of US Pacific Command, declared, “We respect the authority of the People’s Liberation Army in their mainland. Yet we must make them understand that the ocean and sky [are] ours.”42 The Chinese have an inherent right to defend their sovereignty, but the United States must work with its global allies to limit the development of China’s offensive air capabilities.
Limiting the Transfer of Military Technology
China depends heavily on foreign nations for the PLAAF’s modernization, looking to Russia, Israel, France, and Germany for the preponderance of its military technology. Outsourcing the development of the Chinese air force to foreign nations allows the United States to influence many of China’s weapons suppliers through incentives or punitive measures. Legally, the United States can block the transfer of weapons systems containing American technology. In recent years, however, it has even stopped the sale of advanced military hardware that does not contain American equipment.
The fact that Israel, China’s second-largest supplier, relies heavily on US military aid gives the United States significant leverage over Israel’s program of weapons sales. In 2000 pressure from the United States prevented Israel from selling its Phalcon AWACS to China. The Israeli cancellation, which followed a US threat to withhold $2.8 billion in military aid, delayed the introduction of an AWACS platform into the PLAAF until 2006.43 In late 2004, Israel attempted to upgrade spare parts for Harpy unmanned aircraft, which Israel Aircraft Industries had sold to China in 1994. Although Israel did not send the upgraded parts to China, the United States froze Israeli participation in the US-led development of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter due to security concerns—a decision in line with recommendations made by the US-China Commission in 2004.44 The commission suggested that Congress restrict foreign defense contractors who sell military-use technology to China from participating in research and development by the US defense community.
The commission also urged Congress to press for continuation of the European Union’s (EU) arms embargo on China, believing that lifting the embargo, imposed after the Tiananmen Square Massacre of 1989, would accelerate modernization of the PLA.45 Even with the embargo in place, EU sales of military equipment to China increased from 54 million euros in 2001 to 416 million in 2003.46 Equipment sold to the Chinese military includes British-manufactured propellers used on the Chinese Y-8 Airborne Early Warning System, Italian Aspide air-to-air missiles, components of the French AS-365 Dauphin military helicopters, and advanced British and Italian avionics for the F-7 fighter aircraft.47 The export of military technology to China continues despite the embargo because the EU left interpretation and enforcement of that action to member states.48 Although some EU nations prohibit the sale of all military items to China, others, such as the United Kingdom, limit their embargoes to lethal weapons and military equipment that could be used for internal repression; those countries continue to export nonlethal military technology, such as avionics, radars, and aircraft-propulsion systems.49
To limit the development of China’s offensive capabilities, the United States must continue to pressure the EU to continue its ban on weapons sales. In addition, it should urge EU nations to standardize the guidelines regarding technologies that can be sold to China. States that abide by these guidelines and halt the transfer of military technology to China should receive incentives such as military aid and the right to participate in US-led joint weapons-development programs (e.g., the Joint Strike Fighter project). States that choose to continue to sell advanced military hardware to China should face restrictions similar to those imposed on Israel in 2004.
Limited Engagement
To discourage the offensive development of the PLAAF, the United States must couple military deterrence and embargoes with limited cooperation with the Chinese military. Some Americans fear that cooperatively engaging with China’s armed forces would allow the Chinese to learn doctrine and tactics that could improve their ability to wage war against the United States.50 Although these concerns are justified, engagement promotes greater transparency in military affairs, improves mutual understanding between the United States and China, and helps establish lines of communication among senior leaders that can reduce the possibility of accidents between US and Chinese forces.51
Primarily, the US Navy has carried out current US military engagement with China. That service has successfully monopolized recent Sino-US engagement efforts because a Navy admiral traditionally heads US Pacific Command and because naval forces conduct a significant portion of US military operations in the region. Developing ties between naval forces remains important, but the Chinese consider both the navy and the air force priorities in PLA modernization. Given China’s emphasis on strengthening its air force, the US Air Force should play a role equal to that of the Navy in engaging the Chinese military. Interaction between the US Air Force and the PLAAF should avoid exposing US military capabilities in areas such as force projection and C2ISR operations. Instead, it should focus on conducting professional exchanges and developing capabilities that enable China and the United States to respond collectively to regional humanitarian and security issues.
Promoting transparency and mutual understanding between the PLAAF’s and US Air Force’s leadership is fundamental to building trust between China and the United States. High-level meetings between senior officers and defense ministers can further this objective, provide an environment where senior leaders can establish lines of communications to reduce chances of misunderstanding in the event of a crisis, and plan future exercises as well as professional-development exchanges, the latter allowing personnel from both the PLAAF and US Air Force to learn about the other’s operations and leadership systems. The US Air Force should invite PLAAF personnel to participate in professional military education programs at all levels, on the condition that China reciprocate by providing Americans similar access to PLAAF training programs. Bilateral exchanges should occur throughout the spectrum of leadership, from enlisted schools and officer accession programs through senior education institutions such as the National Defense University. These programs allow for the direct interaction of military personnel without political interference. Direct military-exchange programs at all levels contribute to mutual trust and understanding.52
Recognizing China as a critical global actor, the United States is encouraging that nation to act as an international stakeholder.53 The US Air Force can help China achieve this status through combined training in humanitarian relief. Since its creation, the US Air Force has provided airlift support to relief operations following disasters. These missions offer vital assistance and improve the image of the nation that carries them out.54 The US Air Force should initiate exercises with the PLAAF that allow Chinese and American airmen to work together while responding to simulated large-scale humanitarian crises. This direct interaction will increase mutual understanding and respect between the air forces and may encourage China to participate as a responsible actor in the Pacific region. A Chinese decision to employ military aircraft in humanitarian operations would increase the legitimacy of China’s peaceful rise.
Critics may argue that combined exercises will strengthen China’s military capabilities by increasing the PLAAF’s ability to deploy personnel and equipment rapidly. The PLAAF already possesses airlift capabilities, as demonstrated by recent Sino-Tajik and Sino-Russian military exercises. Instead of providing the Chinese with additional military capabilities, combined relief exercises with the United States would serve as a catalyst for China to play a more active role in assisting its neighbors during humanitarian crises. The increased transparency and understanding that will result from interaction between American and Chinese airmen greatly outweigh the minimal national-security risks of limited combined training with the PLAAF.
Combined training should be supplemented by high-visibility exchanges such as participation of the US Air Force’s aerial-demonstration teams in Chinese air shows. The Thunderbirds, which performed in Beijing in September 1987, continue to appear in numerous international air shows.55 Prominent events such as air shows and port visits by naval vessels demonstrate to both the Chinese and American publics the enhanced relationship between the two militaries without revealing advanced capabilities. All instances of the US Air Force and the PLAAF’s working together should be publicized in both the United States and China to demonstrate increasing cooperation and friendship between the two countries.
Military Readiness
China ostensibly seeks to avoid using offensive military force, but the element of surprise remains a pillar of Chinese doctrine.56 Thus, the US military must prepare itself to respond to any offensive action taken by China. The US Air Force currently forward-deploys B-1, B-2, and B-52 bombers to Andersen AFB in Guam, 1,800 miles southeast of China. These aircraft, along with others in Japan, Korea, and Hawaii, serve as a powerful deterrent to offensive action by the Chinese.
In addition to deploying advanced aircraft to the Pacific, the United States must maintain a qualitative advantage over Chinese weapons systems and doctrine. Although US Air Force equipment currently is technologically superior to that of the PLAAF, recent modernization of Chinese equipment may lead the PLAAF to become a peer competitor to its US counterpart. Thus, the US Air Force must develop tactics that enable effective employment of its weapons against China in a potential conflict. Chinese military leaders question the effectiveness of current American tactics because, since the end of the Cold War, the United States has lacked a peer competitor to guide the development of tactics. Lt Gen Liu Yazhou of the PLAAF described the US Air Force’s tactical development as “crossing a river by feeling the stones in it,” referring to a phrase coined by Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping that describes modernization through cautious experimentation.57 Liu may have a valid point about US Air Force tactics, given that its aggressor training is still largely based on fighting the no-longer-extant Soviet Air Force.58 To ensure continued military superiority in the Pacific, the United States must couple the acquisition of new war-fighting platforms with tactical development that prepares American forces for a potential military conflict with China.
Conclusion
The PLAAF’s increasing offensive capabilities, combined with the uncertainty of China’s military intentions, create a potential threat to the United States and its regional allies. After an extended period of stagnation in the development of offensive airpower, the PLAAF has entered a period of rapid modernization that includes the acquisition of platforms such as Su-27 and J-10 fighters, modernized H-6 bombers, aerial-refueling aircraft, and AWACS platforms. It could use these systems to carry out both strategic and tactical missions in a manner this article has referred to as offensive airpower with Chinese characteristics.
Although China’s offensive capabilities are currently limited to regional operations, the PLAAF likely will attempt to develop global strategic capabilities. The acquisition of platforms such as aerial tankers and the upgraded H-6 bomber suggests that China hopes to increase its long-range offensive capabilities. A key component of such development would involve acquisition of a long-range bomber. Development of such an aircraft may find help in China’s growing aviation industry, which hopes to produce a large commercial jet by 2020.59 Since technology and research from the civilian project could be applied to developing a long-range bomber, production of an indigenous bomber would likely begin in the same time frame as its civilian counterpart. Refining aerial refueling and C2 today may become part of a larger plan to strengthen the support infrastructure required for long-range projection of airpower in the future.
Even if used only as a strategic deterrent, China’s ability to project airpower globally in the form of long-range bombers capable of striking North America would pose a significant threat to the United States. Increased power-projection capabilities could also enhance China’s influence in geostrategically important regions of the world such as Africa and Latin America, where China has a growing interest. Because future intentions of the Chinese military remain largely unknown, the United States must limit China’s offensive development and encourage development of a responsible Chinese air force by restricting the PLAAF’s access to offensive weapons systems while promoting mutual understanding between the US Air Force and the PLAAF through bilateral engagement. Given China’s potential to change the balance of global airpower, the United States must act decisively to limit and contain China’s offensive-airpower capabilities before the PLAAF can project airpower globally.
The PLAAF’s increasing offensive capabilities, combined with the uncertainty of China’s military intentions, create a potential threat to the United States and its regional allies. After an extended period of stagnation in the development of offensive airpower, the PLAAF has entered a period of rapid modernization that includes the acquisition of platforms such as Su-27 and J-10 fighters, modernized H-6 bombers, aerial-refueling aircraft, and AWACS platforms. It could use these systems to carry out both strategic and tactical missions in a manner this article has referred to as offensive airpower with Chinese characteristics.
Although China’s offensive capabilities are currently limited to regional operations, the PLAAF likely will attempt to develop global strategic capabilities. The acquisition of platforms such as aerial tankers and the upgraded H-6 bomber suggests that China hopes to increase its long-range offensive capabilities. A key component of such development would involve acquisition of a long-range bomber. Development of such an aircraft may find help in China’s growing aviation industry, which hopes to produce a large commercial jet by 2020.59 Since technology and research from the civilian project could be applied to developing a long-range bomber, production of an indigenous bomber would likely begin in the same time frame as its civilian counterpart. Refining aerial refueling and C2 today may become part of a larger plan to strengthen the support infrastructure required for long-range projection of airpower in the future.
Even if used only as a strategic deterrent, China’s ability to project airpower globally in the form of long-range bombers capable of striking North America would pose a significant threat to the United States. Increased power-projection capabilities could also enhance China’s influence in geostrategically important regions of the world such as Africa and Latin America, where China has a growing interest. Because future intentions of the Chinese military remain largely unknown, the United States must limit China’s offensive development and encourage development of a responsible Chinese air force by restricting the PLAAF’s access to offensive weapons systems while promoting mutual understanding between the US Air Force and the PLAAF through bilateral engagement. Given China’s potential to change the balance of global airpower, the United States must act decisively to limit and contain China’s offensive-airpower capabilities before the PLAAF can project airpower globally.
]]
埃里克对美国应当采取的遏止措施提出了详尽的建议。他认为，中国空军的现代化进程对于外国军事技术的依赖非常严重，俄罗斯、以色列、法国和德国是中国最主要的军用技术来源。美国应对中国的武器供应链施加影响，比如鼓励那些国家中止同中国的武器和技术交易，甚至对那些不听话的公司实施制裁等。另外，美国也可以“依法”阻止别国向中国出售使用了美国技术的武器系统。他还得意地赞扬了最近几年里美国政府的几次成功举措。他写道：最近几年，白宫有效阻止了外国公司向中国出口先进武器，尽管这些武器并没有采用美国的技术。
美国著名保守派智囊团——美中经济与安全评估委员会一直在敦促美国国会向欧盟施压，继续维持对中国的军售禁令，他们相信一旦军售禁令解除，必将进一步加快解放军的现代化速度。美国相信，由于欧盟缺乏相关的司法解释和强制力，因此对华军事技术的出口一直都没有停止。
埃里克认为，为了限制中国空军的战略进攻能力进一步提高，美国政府必须继续对欧盟施加压力以迫使后者维持对华军售禁令。对于那些遵守标准规定和拒绝向中国出售武器技术的国家，美国政府应当加以鼓励，比如向其提供军事援助或者允许其参加美国主导的新型武器联合研制项目等（如联合战斗攻击机项目），而对于那些继续向中国出售先进武器装备和技术的国家则要进行制裁，以色列就是前车之鉴。
鉴于中国对于加强空军作战能力的重视，美国空军也应当在中美军事交流中扮演一个重要的角色。但是在两国空军的交流过程中，美国空军需要避免暴露本国关键的军事信息，如远程武力投送能力和C2ISR作战能力等。
提高中美两国空军高层之间的相互理解和透明是使两国建立互信的基础。两国高层官员和防务长官之间不定期举行的高级别会谈会有效增进双方的互信感，进而为建立两国高层领导人之间的直通联系创造良好的环境。更进一步的话还可以适当放宽双方专业人员的交流限制，使得来自中美两国空军的专业人才有机会学到对方的作战经验和领导体系。美国空军应当邀请中国空军官员参加美国方面举办的任何级别的专业军事教育项目，当然前提是中国也愿意向美国空军提供参与中国空军军事训练项目的机会。双边军事交流的范围一定要广，从征兵站、训练营这些低层次的军事机构直至国防大学这样的高级军官培训机构都要开放。各个层面的直接交流将十分有助于加强彼此间的互信和理解。
批评家们可能会担心联合演习将会增强中国的军事实力，提高中国空军的反应速度和技战术水平，这种担心是没有必要的。从近两年来相继举行的中-塔和中-俄联合军事演习来看，中国空军已经具备了相当强的空域能力。而与美国空军举行的联合救援演习将会成为一支催化剂，使中国在对其邻国进行人道主义救援时能够扮演更加积极主动的角色，而不会对中国军事实力的提高提供多大的助益。实际上，随着中美两国联合救援演习次数的增多，双方的透明度将会提高，相互间的理解也会进一步加深，这对于美国国防安全和国家利益所带来的好处远远超过了这有限的交流对美国国家安全可能造成的、微乎其微的伤害。
除了联合训练外，高透明度的军事交流活动也是不可少的，美国空军可以派遣飞行表演队参加中国举行的航空展。美国空军的“雷鸟”飞行表演队在1987年9月曾经在北京进行过飞行表演，之后又多次在国际航展上献艺。在航展上进行飞行表演和派遣舰队访问外国港口都能够向两国公众传递出双方关系不断升温的信息。中美两国空军间所有的友好活动都应当被大肆宣传，以便向国内民众证明两国间的合作和友谊在不断加深。
埃里克认为，表面上中国似乎正在努力寻求避免使用进攻型军事力量，但是在中国的军事学说中，实则虚之、攻敌不备一直都是一个十分重要的观点。因此，美国军队必须做好充足的准备以应对中国发起的任何主动进攻。目前，在关岛的安德森空军基地，美国空军已经部署了强大的攻击力量，其中包括B-52“同温层堡垒”，B -1“枪骑兵”和从未在本土以外地区部署的B-2“幽灵”等大型战略轰炸机，需要指出的是，关岛位于中国大陆东南方面，距离中国本土只有1800英里的距离。这些轰炸机，以及其他部署在日本、韩国和夏威夷的美国空军战斗机组成了一支强大的威慑力量，足以吓阻住中国任何主动发起进攻的想法。
除了在亚太地区部署大量性能先进的战斗机外，美国空军还必须维持其在武器系统性能和军事思想方面的绝对优势。尽管目前美国空军装备的技术水平要远远高于中国空军，但是随着时间的推移和中国空军现代化水平的不断提高，预计很快中国空军在这一方面就将接近甚至赶上美国。因此，美国空军必须不断地研究新的战术，以充分发挥武器系统的性能优势，从而在可能爆发的军事冲突中取得胜利。中国军方高层对于目前美国空军所使用的战术的有效性表示怀疑，这种怀疑是有理由的，毕竟从冷战结束以来，由于缺乏一个势均力敌的对手，美国空军的战术思想已经多年没有得到任何发展了。
中国空军中将刘亚洲曾借用邓小平的一句名言来形容美国空军的战术发展现状：“摸着石头过河”。刘对于美国空军战术发展状况的看法或许是正确的，要知道美国空军的反击敌军入侵的训练在很大程度上仍是以现已不复存在的前苏联空军为假想敌设计的，时过境迁，早已不合时宜了。为了维护美国空中力量在亚太地区的绝对优势地位，美国军方必须在大力采购新型战机的同时加强空军战术思想的发展，以便为中美两国空军间可能爆发的军事冲突做好准备。
中国空军攻势作战力量咄咄逼人的发展势头和令外界难以确定的军事战略意图使其对美国及其亚太盟国形成了一个巨大的潜在威胁。中国空军攻势作战力量的发展在经历了多年的原地踏步之后，现在已经进入了快速发展的时期，大量性能先进的新型作战飞机——如苏-27、J-10战斗机，改进型H-6轰炸机，空中加油机和国产预警机等——相继服役，空军的现代化水平正迅速提高。这些新型飞机的服役不仅大大提升了中国空军的战术作战能力，也赋予了它一定的战略打击能力，有中国特色的进攻型空军正在形成。
中国自行改进的歼11B，已经成为苏27家族中最具战斗力的型号。尽管按照远洋作战的标准来看，目前中国的攻势作战能力还比较有限，其作战半径充其量只能覆盖亚太地区，但是中国空军似乎正在努力发展全球战略打击能力。空中加油机和改进型H-6轰炸机等远洋作战平台的服役表明了中国增强远程攻击能力的愿望。而最能体现中国空军进攻型战略打击能力的莫过于远程战略轰炸机的服役了。预计到2020年，国产大型客机将能够实现量产，中国发展迅猛的航空工业使得自行研制战略轰炸机成为可能。从这个角度看来，目前中国空军下血本发展的空中加油能力和先进的指挥控制系统可能只是一个更加庞大的计划的一部分，其目的是为将来实施远程攻势作战做好充足的准备。
即便中国空军发展全球打击能力只是出于战略威慑的目的，但是一旦中国掌握了这一能力，那么也就意味着它能够使用远程轰炸机对美国本土实施攻击，这对于美国来说无疑是一个难以容忍的威胁。不断提高的武力投送能力也将显著增强中国在非洲和拉丁美洲国家中的影响力，这些地区从地缘政治角度来讲非常重要，中国对它们的兴趣正不断加强。因为对于中国军方未来的战略意图尚不清楚，因此美国必须采取措施限制中国进攻能力的进一步发展并鼓励中国空军在人道主义救援活动中发挥更大的作用，美国需要阻止中国空军获得进攻性武器系统，同时通过双边合作加强两国空军间的相互理解和尊重。鉴于中国空中力量的发展有可能会改变目前的全球航空力量的平衡，美国必须赶在中国空军具备真正的全球战略打击能力之前采取断然措施遏止并牵制中国进攻型空中力量的发展。
美国著名保守派智囊团——美中经济与安全评估委员会一直在敦促美国国会向欧盟施压，继续维持对中国的军售禁令，他们相信一旦军售禁令解除，必将进一步加快解放军的现代化速度。美国相信，由于欧盟缺乏相关的司法解释和强制力，因此对华军事技术的出口一直都没有停止。
埃里克认为，为了限制中国空军的战略进攻能力进一步提高，美国政府必须继续对欧盟施加压力以迫使后者维持对华军售禁令。对于那些遵守标准规定和拒绝向中国出售武器技术的国家，美国政府应当加以鼓励，比如向其提供军事援助或者允许其参加美国主导的新型武器联合研制项目等（如联合战斗攻击机项目），而对于那些继续向中国出售先进武器装备和技术的国家则要进行制裁，以色列就是前车之鉴。
鉴于中国对于加强空军作战能力的重视，美国空军也应当在中美军事交流中扮演一个重要的角色。但是在两国空军的交流过程中，美国空军需要避免暴露本国关键的军事信息，如远程武力投送能力和C2ISR作战能力等。
提高中美两国空军高层之间的相互理解和透明是使两国建立互信的基础。两国高层官员和防务长官之间不定期举行的高级别会谈会有效增进双方的互信感，进而为建立两国高层领导人之间的直通联系创造良好的环境。更进一步的话还可以适当放宽双方专业人员的交流限制，使得来自中美两国空军的专业人才有机会学到对方的作战经验和领导体系。美国空军应当邀请中国空军官员参加美国方面举办的任何级别的专业军事教育项目，当然前提是中国也愿意向美国空军提供参与中国空军军事训练项目的机会。双边军事交流的范围一定要广，从征兵站、训练营这些低层次的军事机构直至国防大学这样的高级军官培训机构都要开放。各个层面的直接交流将十分有助于加强彼此间的互信和理解。
批评家们可能会担心联合演习将会增强中国的军事实力，提高中国空军的反应速度和技战术水平，这种担心是没有必要的。从近两年来相继举行的中-塔和中-俄联合军事演习来看，中国空军已经具备了相当强的空域能力。而与美国空军举行的联合救援演习将会成为一支催化剂，使中国在对其邻国进行人道主义救援时能够扮演更加积极主动的角色，而不会对中国军事实力的提高提供多大的助益。实际上，随着中美两国联合救援演习次数的增多，双方的透明度将会提高，相互间的理解也会进一步加深，这对于美国国防安全和国家利益所带来的好处远远超过了这有限的交流对美国国家安全可能造成的、微乎其微的伤害。
除了联合训练外，高透明度的军事交流活动也是不可少的，美国空军可以派遣飞行表演队参加中国举行的航空展。美国空军的“雷鸟”飞行表演队在1987年9月曾经在北京进行过飞行表演，之后又多次在国际航展上献艺。在航展上进行飞行表演和派遣舰队访问外国港口都能够向两国公众传递出双方关系不断升温的信息。中美两国空军间所有的友好活动都应当被大肆宣传，以便向国内民众证明两国间的合作和友谊在不断加深。
埃里克认为，表面上中国似乎正在努力寻求避免使用进攻型军事力量，但是在中国的军事学说中，实则虚之、攻敌不备一直都是一个十分重要的观点。因此，美国军队必须做好充足的准备以应对中国发起的任何主动进攻。目前，在关岛的安德森空军基地，美国空军已经部署了强大的攻击力量，其中包括B-52“同温层堡垒”，B -1“枪骑兵”和从未在本土以外地区部署的B-2“幽灵”等大型战略轰炸机，需要指出的是，关岛位于中国大陆东南方面，距离中国本土只有1800英里的距离。这些轰炸机，以及其他部署在日本、韩国和夏威夷的美国空军战斗机组成了一支强大的威慑力量，足以吓阻住中国任何主动发起进攻的想法。
除了在亚太地区部署大量性能先进的战斗机外，美国空军还必须维持其在武器系统性能和军事思想方面的绝对优势。尽管目前美国空军装备的技术水平要远远高于中国空军，但是随着时间的推移和中国空军现代化水平的不断提高，预计很快中国空军在这一方面就将接近甚至赶上美国。因此，美国空军必须不断地研究新的战术，以充分发挥武器系统的性能优势，从而在可能爆发的军事冲突中取得胜利。中国军方高层对于目前美国空军所使用的战术的有效性表示怀疑，这种怀疑是有理由的，毕竟从冷战结束以来，由于缺乏一个势均力敌的对手，美国空军的战术思想已经多年没有得到任何发展了。
中国空军中将刘亚洲曾借用邓小平的一句名言来形容美国空军的战术发展现状：“摸着石头过河”。刘对于美国空军战术发展状况的看法或许是正确的，要知道美国空军的反击敌军入侵的训练在很大程度上仍是以现已不复存在的前苏联空军为假想敌设计的，时过境迁，早已不合时宜了。为了维护美国空中力量在亚太地区的绝对优势地位，美国军方必须在大力采购新型战机的同时加强空军战术思想的发展，以便为中美两国空军间可能爆发的军事冲突做好准备。
中国空军攻势作战力量咄咄逼人的发展势头和令外界难以确定的军事战略意图使其对美国及其亚太盟国形成了一个巨大的潜在威胁。中国空军攻势作战力量的发展在经历了多年的原地踏步之后，现在已经进入了快速发展的时期，大量性能先进的新型作战飞机——如苏-27、J-10战斗机，改进型H-6轰炸机，空中加油机和国产预警机等——相继服役，空军的现代化水平正迅速提高。这些新型飞机的服役不仅大大提升了中国空军的战术作战能力，也赋予了它一定的战略打击能力，有中国特色的进攻型空军正在形成。
中国自行改进的歼11B，已经成为苏27家族中最具战斗力的型号。尽管按照远洋作战的标准来看，目前中国的攻势作战能力还比较有限，其作战半径充其量只能覆盖亚太地区，但是中国空军似乎正在努力发展全球战略打击能力。空中加油机和改进型H-6轰炸机等远洋作战平台的服役表明了中国增强远程攻击能力的愿望。而最能体现中国空军进攻型战略打击能力的莫过于远程战略轰炸机的服役了。预计到2020年，国产大型客机将能够实现量产，中国发展迅猛的航空工业使得自行研制战略轰炸机成为可能。从这个角度看来，目前中国空军下血本发展的空中加油能力和先进的指挥控制系统可能只是一个更加庞大的计划的一部分，其目的是为将来实施远程攻势作战做好充足的准备。
即便中国空军发展全球打击能力只是出于战略威慑的目的，但是一旦中国掌握了这一能力，那么也就意味着它能够使用远程轰炸机对美国本土实施攻击，这对于美国来说无疑是一个难以容忍的威胁。不断提高的武力投送能力也将显著增强中国在非洲和拉丁美洲国家中的影响力，这些地区从地缘政治角度来讲非常重要，中国对它们的兴趣正不断加强。因为对于中国军方未来的战略意图尚不清楚，因此美国必须采取措施限制中国进攻能力的进一步发展并鼓励中国空军在人道主义救援活动中发挥更大的作用，美国需要阻止中国空军获得进攻性武器系统，同时通过双边合作加强两国空军间的相互理解和尊重。鉴于中国空中力量的发展有可能会改变目前的全球航空力量的平衡，美国必须赶在中国空军具备真正的全球战略打击能力之前采取断然措施遏止并牵制中国进攻型空中力量的发展。
………………LZ不厚道………………
我读了好几段英文，之后不想读了，才发现后边有翻译…………
我读了好几段英文，之后不想读了，才发现后边有翻译…………
天天看一堆人举着红白裤衩吵架，还是来看看真正的美国专家怎么说吧。
上面不算是翻译，不一定准确反映了原文的意思，劝大家还是直接读英文原文比较好。
另外，如果有人不愿意相信美国研究人员的，总认为别人是在鼓吹中国威胁论，或是向国会忽悠要钱的，请你最好不要乱发议论。我在网络上看到的粪土专家的人多了，各行各业的都有，不缺您一个。
上面不算是翻译，不一定准确反映了原文的意思，劝大家还是直接读英文原文比较好。
另外，如果有人不愿意相信美国研究人员的，总认为别人是在鼓吹中国威胁论，或是向国会忽悠要钱的，请你最好不要乱发议论。我在网络上看到的粪土专家的人多了，各行各业的都有，不缺您一个。
原帖由 sstoryy 于 2007-10-23 22:34 发表
………………LZ不厚道………………
我读了好几段英文，之后不想读了，才发现后边有翻译…………
那个也不算是全文翻译，还是读英文比较好
World Defence | 世界防务观察版块欢迎楼主:$
http://bbs.cjdby.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=92
http://bbs.cjdby.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=92
列兵凶猛:L :L
原帖由 sstoryy 于 2007-10-23 22:34 发表
………………LZ不厚道………………
我读了好几段英文，之后不想读了，才发现后边有翻译…………
:handshake