When China began testing its first aircraft carrier earlier this month, Washington was quick to issue a stern rebuke, scolding Beijing for its lack of transparency regarding the vessel’s purpose. ‘We would welcome any kind of explanation,’ US State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said.
But in an increasingly tense western Pacific, both the United States and China are guilty of obfuscation about their military capabilities. It recently came to light the Pentagon appears to have lied about the condition of its small fleet of radar-evading B-2 stealth bombers, one of its most important weapon systems in its campaign of deterrence against a rising China.
The US Air Force possesses some 160 long-range bombers – the biggest fleet of bombers in the world. But only 20 are the latest B-2 model, designed to be largely invisible to enemy radars. The Air Force stations a dozen or so bombers at a time at its large air base on Guam, where they form a major part of the United States’ Pacific arsenal.
In 2008, a B-2 crashed at Guam, reducing the stealth fleet to its current level. In the wake of the accident, critics bemoaned the Pentagon’s tendency to concentrate increasing combat power in a decreasing number of ultra-expensive ‘platforms.’
In February 2010, there was another incident involving a Guam-based B-2 – a fire in one of the bomber’s two engines. At the time, the Air Force reported the damage as ‘minor.’ And that was the last any outsider heard of the incident for more than a year.
Then, last week, the Air Force admitted that the damaged bomber had been so badly burned that it had been unable to fly for more than a year. The damage was, in fact, ‘horrific.’ Engineers had to custom-manufacture replacement components at Guam in order to partially rebuild the plane and allow it to return to the United States for more extensive rework on Aug. 16.
In other words, for 18 months America’s stealth-bomber fleet included 19 working airplanes, rather than 20, as most people believed. The Air Force’s deliberate obfuscation boosted the B-2 fleet’s apparent strength by more than 5 percent.
China’s strategists ‘believe that as the weaker party it must use ambiguity to compensate for technological inferiority,’ says Andrew Erickson, a professor and analyst at the US Naval War College. Despite broad (though eroding) superiority over the People’s Liberation Army, the Pentagon appears to have misled about the condition of its stealth bombers apparently for a similar reason: to project an exaggerated image of strength.
Rather than misrepresenting the delicacy of its dangerously over-concentrated combat power, the United States could take Erickson’s advice, and ‘consider shifting at least some operations from large, tightly-grouped targets … to smaller, dispersed, networked elements.’
As far as bombers are concerned, in the future the Air Force should build more than 21 at a time, stresses Marine Corps Maj. Gen. James Cartwright. ‘Building five or 10 of something isn’t going to do something for us.’
The Pentagon aims to build as many as 100 new, stealthy ‘Long-Range Strike’ bombers to begin replacing existing planes, starting in around a decade. With that many new stealth bombers, hopefully the Air Force won’t feel compelled to act like China, and hide it when one of its planes suffers an accident.
Sam
John Chan’s top three ‘words of wisdom’ in his best English style
‘You are not only delusional, you are deadly insane.You are using foul language because someone exposes your insanity? You are sick.’
‘You are regurgitating everything I read on the internet made up by the racist neo-con bigots about China with insidious intent. You are bringing those toxic inflammatory troll into this site. I merely asked you some questions, yet you went berserk like overdosed thug. Instead of question the wrongdoing the westerners had committed, you make up false accusations against China to white wash the sins of the westerners.When you are challenged about you lies, your response is you are answerable to anybody. What a hubris you have.CCP is made up by Chinese who are elected thru a Chinese election system. Who the hell do you think you are? Are you still living the era of unequal treaties, every Chinese business is Whiteman’s business. Sam you are born too late.Sam, people like you with intolerant nature, and racist bigotry mindset are the danger to the peace and prosperity of mankind.’
‘I believe you are financially illiterate; how can making Chinese goods, which most low income Americans rely on, more expensive help the American poor? Your logic is beyond me, only redneck like you who does not care his country fellows can say such heartless things as in your comment. Chinese hire locals as many as possible wherever they carry out projects in other nations. It is well documented by international NGOs. You are smearing China shamelessly. China raised the living standards for the minorities in China including Tibetans. Culture Revolution was a mistake. Why can’t you (the rep of Westpac) admit the atrocity you have been conducting around the world? Particular why didn’t the British show remorse for the tens of thousands of Tibetans they had killed and raped, as well the monasteries they burnt and sucked? Sam, you are lying with eyes wide open, where does you number come from, thru the thin air like the Fed printing the USD? Only the Westpac can achieve such horrendous atrocity through two world wars and other bombings and killings ever since the industrial revolution. Sam why don’t you tell us about number of people killed in the US derailing last week? Or about the number killed by radiation in the Fukushima? And how did USA and Japan cover those disasters up? Only pointing finger on a scapegoat is your way of avoiding responsibility and accountability for your disasters?’
‘It seems USA unable to solve problems on its own, USA always asks China to do things for the USA to solve problems. Sam, I have better idea to solve USA’s problems for good, then USA does not need to keep on bitching China. Why doesn’t USA ask China to run USA as a trust for 100 years, after Chinese has fixed all the problems then returns USA to the Americans.’
Because John, China has a history of never returning anything it manages to get its hands on, ever.
From Mrs Robinson with apologies to Simon and Garfunkel
Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon
Going to the Chinese candidates’ debate
Laugh about it, shout about it
When you’ve got to choose
Ev’ry way you look at it, you lose
Where have you gone, (John Chan) DiMaggio
A nation turns it’s lonely eyes to you (Woo, woo, woo)
What’s that you say, Mrs. Robinson
Joltin’ John has left and gone away
(Hey, hey, hey…hey, hey, hey)
vivek
@sam
nice, that was real nice :@
Sam
Thanks! Every once in a while one gets carried away
Sam
@ozivan I see what you mean. I was talking about sources that someone like John Chan can use to back up his ‘facts’ and if western sources are suspect come up with Chinese sources with attribution (not some faceless nameless bureaucrat). These do not change especially historical ones as they have already occurred and unless new evidence comes to light are unchanging just like scientific information in a patent application, many times they are scientific information or forensic information. Either I found say, 20,000 skulls or I did not, that’s not interpretation, that is fact and corroborated fact especially if a multi-country team is reporting it.
Sam
@ozivan
You have again confused content with process. What I said was that we can access sources that someone quotes even if they are in Chinese (or Hindi or …)and everybody does not understand the language by following a process like the Patent Office does. The original patent application in a local language is published so people who understand the language can read it directly without outside help. Then for people who do not understand it, a translation is included in a common language like English and people who know both languages can judge and report on how good the translation is and even provide a better one if they disagree with it. This again is all about process not content. Everything you write about art and science (and anything else, since you range quite freely, especially when you think you have found a chink to sneak through like your latest posts;)), still applies. But then again the problem is that some of us do not feel the need to provide sources, just demand others provide them which is somewhat one sided and far from balanced.