Beijing seems to have jumped the shark and done something unusually provocative.  While usually inscrutable, Chinese actions can provide some occasional insight into power/policy disputes within the Communist Party and illuminate concerns that they have with their global position.  In this case, it's the latter, as an hitherto unseen missile intercepted and destroyed an aging  Feng Yun 1C  (Fy-1C)   polar orbiting meteorological satellite.
The ASAT was launched from the Xichang Space Center, or very close by according to  Defense Tech.org .

Details emerging from space sources indicate that the Chinese Feng Yun 1C (FY-1C) polar orbit weather satellite... was attacked by an ASAT [anti-satellite] system launched from or near the Xichang Space Center.

The attack is believe to have occurred as the weather satellite flew at 530 mi. altitude 4 deg. west of Xichang, located in Sichuan province...

Although intelligence agencies must complete confirmation of the test, the attack is believed to have occurred at about 5:28 p.m. EST Jan. 11. U. S. intelligence agencies had been expecting some sort of test that day, sources said....

USAF radar reports on the Chinese FY-1C spacecraft have been posted once or twice daily for years, but those reports jumped to about 4 times per day just before the alleged test.

The USAF radar reports then ceased Jan. 11, but then appeared for a day showing "signs of orbital distress". The reports were then halted again. The Air Force radars may well be busy cataloging many pieces of debris, sources said.

 

Photo Defense Tech.org

As for reasons why that China would do this,  the China Matters Blog  theorizes that China is positioning for a realignment of space superiority.  There is wide spread speculation that China is also sending a message regarding interference in Taiwan .  See here...
* China Space Attack: Unstoppable
* Beijing's Next-Gen Sat Strike
* Satellite Killer's Broad Impact
* Why Did China Smack the Sat?





Meanwhile,  Spacewar.com  is running a story that Japan and the U.S. are considering a joint missile defence system.  Also, it is reporting that India is developing an IRBM/ICBM with the potential to hit anywhere in China.  China has a very modest deterrence force of some two dozen ICBM's , and may be feeling some pressure here, as Beijing must suspect that any U.S. ABM system is certainly meant more to stop Chinese missiles then North Korean missiles.                        


Photo from the Center for Internation Security and Cooperation.

The Chinese are introducing their entry to the global arms export market.  Here are some pix...




From Global Security.Org...

Chengdu J-10 (Jian-10 Fighter aircraft 10) / F-10

There has been much speculation on the development of China's J-10 fighter. Many suggested the aircraft's design was based on the Lavi- the unsuccessful attempt by Israel to develop an indigenous F-16 fighter. Only in December 2006 did China officially acknowledged the fielding of the J-10, when the PLA Air Force (PLAAF) released videos and photos of the aircraft via China Central Television (CCTV) and Xinhua News Agency. By then, it was apparent that the J-10 has the potential of becoming one of the most significant fighters in the next few decades.

Initially developed in 1988, the J-10 bears a strong resemblance to other fighters that came from that same time.  The delta wing configuration confers advantages in stability, stall speed and structural strength and is typical of at least four other contemporary fighters.  By 1993, wind tunnel testing had begun, and the J-10 evolved from an air-superiority fighter to a multi-role fighter that could perform sub-sonic ground attack missions.  The first flight took place in 1996 with the help of a " Russian made AI-31FN turbofan engine."

Production began in 2002, with a PLAAF (People's Liberation Army Air Force) initial order of 300 aircraft.  This may be reduced due to imports of Russian SU-30 fighters.  The Chinese seem intent on expanding the J-10's ground attack capabilities.  Chinese designation of the Jiang-10 (fighter-10) has changed to the Quin Shi-10 (attack-10) to reflect this.  Russian involvement in the program continues, with assistance including "...advanced multifunction radars, navigation and targeting systems, ECM suite, and missile warning and defense systems."

The J-10 is expected to become a serious competitor with late model Sukhoi fighters in the export market, as well as bolstering the PLAAF's offensive capability against Taiwan.

Here are some views of similar fighters to give you an idea of how similar the J-10 is to other aircraft.  First up is the SAAB Gripen...




Next we have the French Rafale...



This is the EuroFighter Typhoon...



And finally, we have the F-16XL, which was the primary competitor with the F-15 E Strike Eagle for the replacement of the F-111.  Beautiful fighter, and a shame we didn't see more of it, but you can see it reflected in the J-10 all the same...

The particulars are in, the pundits have gossiped, and the President has spoken.






Here is some sample feedback.:

Thad at American Princess says: However, I give the president credit for what appears, at least on paper, to be a better plan, a plan with clear guidelines and goals. Furthermore, I commend him for finally setting a timetable of sorts with the Iraqis to get their crap together. My main concern is that the 18 Iraqi brigades may not come about. The performance of Iraqis has been scattershot at best and hideous at worst. And even 20,000 more troops is ultimately a drop in the bucket. The Powell Doctrine was scoffed by Don Rumsfeld, but he turned out to be right about how to run a war. I hope the plan works. I hope that we can turn this around. I'm trying as hard as possible to be positive and optimistic, even though I feel deep down that we don't have the level of armed forces we realistically needed to make this work.


Sic Semper Tyrannis  is pessimistic.

Last night President Bush announced his adoption of a tri-partite plan for the pacification of Iraq in the context of his vision of the world as a Manichean array of the righteous opposed by the evil, a moiety reminiscent of the war in heaven described so ably by Milton, among others.

His plan represents the application of the counterinsurgency doctrine followed with mixed results by the United States in the 20th Century after its development by the French Army.  This doctrine has now been "discovered?" by General Petraeus and friends and described in prettier words and a more literary style than the nasty old "paras" of my experience could ever have managed. 

As Bernard Fall elucidated the doctrine: "Counterinsurgency = Counter-guerrilla operations + Political Action + Civic Action." 

The Armchair Generalist didn't like it at all.

Once More Unto the Breach, Dear Friends

Well, the president has made his speech. I didn't watch it, I really have trouble listening to that voice when he gives long talks. Personal issue - besides, that's what the newspapers are for. Matt at MountainRunner has a good list of the major initiatives within the president's plan. Also see this DefenseTech post. Frankly, I don't think 21,500 more troops is enough to do the job, and I really question the statement that that number is what the Joint Chiefs recommended.

The Anchoress approved, and has links...

I’m probably the last kid to write something on the president’s speech last night - had other stuff going on - so I’m going to assume you guys have seen most of the “big fish” reactions.

My own? I thought it was a good speech, not delivered as well as some past Bush speeches, but well enough. I was glad to hear that this new tactic would also mean a change in how some things are done. I pray it will be enough to turn things around so that we might finally see the light at the end of the tunnel. But I think it will be a hard year.

Andrew Sullivan is deeply skeptical.

The premise of the speech, and of the strategy, is that there is a national democratic government in Baghdad, defending itself against Jihadist attacks. The task, in the president's mind, is therefore to send more troops to defend such a government. But the reality facing us each day is a starkly different one from the scenario assumed by the president. The government of which Bush speaks, to put it bluntly, does not exist. The reality illumined by the lynching of Saddam is that the Maliki government is a front for Shiite factions and dependent for its future on Shiite death squads. U.S. support for the government is not, therefore, a defense of democracy in a unified country, whatever our intentions. It is putting the lives of American soldiers in defense of the Shiite side in an increasingly brutal civil war.

As for my thoughts?  I don't think this will work.  It feels like a half measure, done half heartedly.  It relies on "allies" whose past performance is nothing short of disastrous.  It assumes that Nouri al Maliki, who has admirably imitated a cephalopod until now, will miraculously change species, grow a backbone and actually turn on the militias and death squads who are part of his power base.  It might happen...and I may wake up to find that I'm a Chinese jet pilot tomorrow as well.
A fascinating essay on the "natural order" of political systems give a vote of 'no confidence' that political reform of Iraqi society is even possible.

Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a limited-access order, or "natural state." NWW claim that such states resist the change to open-access orders. They resist our attempts to stimulate economic development, because true economic development requires fair competition, which threatens the privileges that are the stabilizing element in limited-access orders. Although NWW do not discuss "nation-building," it seems reasonable to infer that they would take an equally dim view of that notion.

Iraq was never on the "doorstep" of becoming an open-access order. The major factions are not willing to give up their weapons and concede military power to a central coalition. There are no perpetual-lived organizations that can make long-term contractual commitments. There is not even a willingness among factions to grant one another rights under the rule of law.

Accordingly, I would say that there is no chance that the United States will succeed in its objective of establishing an open-access order in Iraq. The best we can hope to do is restore Iraq to a natural state, meaning a limited-access order where rights and power are exclusive to certain elites, who will be subject neither to economic nor political competition as we know it.

I suspect that some of the Iraqi units will actually perform...and many will not.  I think that al Sadr's Mahdi Army will be weakened substantially, but most of the other Shiite militias will "go to ground" and hide under the patronage of their government benefactors.  Maliki may be overthrown if he goes too far to antagonize his Shiite base, and he knows it.  Sadr has become a liability because of his public pronouncements and open hostility, so al Maliki cannot protect him now.  Look for other warlords to rise if the Mahdi Army is badly weakened.

In the end, nothing will actually change, and the ethnic cleansing/civil war will get back to business as usual when the pesky Americans get through playing "surge".  We could have made a difference, but what is done is done.  I have little hope that this last gasp of a plan will be effectual, but I pray I am wrong.

You can't make these things up...



Can we get these guys for proms and Bar Mitztva's?

From the blog for WFMU, and also "Arms and Influence"...

Woodstock Comes To North Korea March 1-4, 2007

Kim Jong Il is looking for bands to rock out in Pyongyang this coming March. From the Voice of Korea website:

If you are a band playing any kind of rock, including heavy metal, then you can participate 'ROCK FOR PEACE' in Pyong Yang, the capital city of North Korea. This is the very first time in history that North Korea allows western musicians in the heart of DPRK territory to play capitalist popular music. There are few restrictions and conditions on participation but any band will be considered even though you are from USA. The lyrics should not contain admirations on war, sex, violence, murder, drug, rape, non-governmental society, imperialism, colonialism, racism, anti-DPRK, and anti-socialism. The concert will be held from March 01 to March 04, 2007 under the management of Voice of Korea. We currently received requests of 35 bands from 19 countries and participations are increasing everyday. ROCK FOR PEACE will be the 2007 version of Woodstock rock festival in 1969 but in different location and in different goals, We welcome every musician as long as they are purely music based without political intentions. For inquiries, email to Jean-Baptiste Kim, the head of Voice of Korea.

And if the Rock For Peace concert isn't enough to make you want to visit, the Voice of Korea also exhorts us Merkins:

Hey Americans, You Should Learn A Lot From Our Norweigan Friends Who Are Having Really Good Time With North Korean Young School Boys.

The party has been canceled.  Thank God.

No matter what I say about the Russians, they do know how to build a gorgeous aircraft.  Check out some of these pictures...







Designed by the Sukhoi Design Bureau, the Su-34 will replace the Su-24 Fencer frontline bombers. Sukhoi says the new bomber has the potential to become the best plane in its class for years to come. The $36 million Su-34 fighter-bomber is a two-seat strike aircraft equipped with twin AL-31MF afterburning turbojet engines. It is designed to deliver high-precision strikes on heavily defended targets in any weather conditions, day or night, and fields weaponry that includes a 30mm GSh-301 cannon, up to 12 Alamo or Archer AAMs, ASMs, and bombs.

From Global Security.Org  


The newest fighter-bomber to join the Russian Air and Naval Forces, the new Su-34 "Fullback" is a replacement for aging Fencer, Fitter and Flogger attack fighters from the seventies and eighties.  Although the Su-34 was developed in the eighties, and first flew some fifteen years ago, budget constraints and other priorities have kept the aircraft from full scale production until now.  Three weeks ago, the first two operational aircraft were delivered in a ceremony in Siberia, and some two hundred are expected to be purchased by Russian forces over the next two decades.
The Fullback is a derivative of the highly successful Su-27 air superiority fighter.  However, rather then just making some avionics and weapons fit changes, the airframe itself has been widened to accommodate the aircrew sitting side by side instead of tandem, and significant changes have been made to avionics, sensors and fuel storage. (note the prominent fairing extending from between the afterburner assemblies).  Considerable thought has been given to crew comfort and rest, with the addition of a pressurized cockpit, massage units in the seats, and a crew rest area just aft of the flight seats for long duration missions.  The new Fulback fighter-bomber is expected to be in service for the next forty years, and aggressive overseas marketing is very likely.



Quite a change for Sukhoi, who was barely even known in the West while making obscure interceptors such as the Su-11 "Fishpot" and the Su-15 "Flagon" (which gained some notoriety as the aircraft that shot down KAL 007 over the Kamchatka Peninsula.).  Today, Sukhoi fighters are flown the world over.  As much as I admire their aircraft, I wish that the Russians would be somewhat more discrete in who they sell them to.

Algeria is buying quite a bit more then T-90 MBT's from Russia, it seems.  According to Jane's:

Under these deals, Russia will deliver dozens of advanced warplanes including 28 Su-30MK interdictors, 36 MiG-29SMT fighters and 16 Yak-130 training aircraft. Russian companies will also provide 300 T-90S main battle tanks, eight battalions of S-300 PMU Almaz-Antei surface-to-air missile systems, as well as other weapons systems. Russian firms also will upgrade or repair certain Soviet-era weapons, such as Algerian T-72 tanks.







Jane's Business...

Speculation seems to center on energy protection concerns that Algeria has, although an invasion from Morocco seems wildly unlikely. When questioned, Russian Government spokesman Ivanov said:  "No one is preventing Morocco from buying our arms and we are ready to consider such proposals, all the more so, since we already have military and technical co-operation with Morocco."

Says it all, doesn't it?  This is influence peddling of the worst sort.  As I have said before, Russia will sell virtually anything to anybody, and this does not bode well for our war on terrorism.

Armed Forces Journal is a great source for current thought from both academics and front line warriors in TGWOT.  Ralph Peters gives us a fascinating essay on wars of faith in the past and the present.

Quote:

The lessons of all these transitions from unaddressed discontents to religious fanaticism hold true for violent outbreaks down the centuries on virtually every continent and in all major faiths. When regimes insist that time must hold still and deny traditional or perceived rights, fundamentalist religion is always lurking nearby. At the beginning of "The Plague," Albert Camus speaks of how a bacillus can lurk, dormant and undetected, only to reappear unexpectedly when conditions are right. Extremist religion has its own bacillus, and it has proven impossible to exterminate: There are no proven antibiotics for the plague of fanaticism. When political sanitation goes wanting, it strikes.

Yet, that does not mean religious extremism can be addressed strictly through political measures (or through diplomacy, that great Western superstition). The only chance to minimize the violence is to intervene early on to create political and social breathing space for restive populations. Once religious extremism has taken hold, the pattern cannot be reversed. This is an absolutely vital point for American leaders to grasp. If the banner of jihad (or a crusade) has been raised successfully, the peaceable kingdom is finished. Only shedding blood ruthlessly can eliminate or at least reduce the problem — the enemy enraptured by faith must become more terrified of you than he is of his god. Usually, you must kill him.

Check out the entire essay here in the commentary section...