China Fires Secret Laser - to Disable U.S. Satellites

[QueEx]

<font size="6"><center>Beijing secretly fires lasers
to disable US satellites</font size></center>
<font size="4"><center>unreported attacks have been kept secret by the Bush
administration for fear that it would damage attempts to co-opt
China in diplomatic offensives against North Korea and Iran</font size></center>

The Telegraph
By Francis Harris in Washington
(Filed: 26/09/2006)

China has secretly fired powerful laser weapons designed to disable American spy satellites by "blinding" their sensitive surveillance devices, it was reported yesterday.

The hitherto unreported attacks have been kept secret by the Bush administration for fear that it would damage attempts to co-opt China in diplomatic offensives against North Korea and Iran.

Sources told the military affairs publication Defense News that there had been a fierce internal battle within Washington over whether to make the attacks public. In the end, the Pentagon's annual assessment of the growing Chinese military build-up barely mentioned the threat.

"After a contentious debate, the White House directed the Pentagon to limit its concern to one line," Defense News said.

The document said that China could blind American satellites with a ground-based laser firing a beam of light to prevent spy photography as they pass over China.

According to senior American officials: "China not only has the capability, but has exercised it." American satellites like the giant Keyhole craft have come under attack "several times" in recent years.

Although the Chinese tests do not aim to destroy American satellites, the laser attacks could make them useless over Chinese territory.

The American military has been so alarmed by the Chinese activity that it has begun test attacks against its own satellites to determine the severity of the threat.

Satellites are especially vulnerable to attack because they have predetermined orbits, allowing an enemy to know where they will appear.

"The Chinese are very strategically minded and are extremely active in this arena. They really believe all the stuff written in the 1980s about the high frontier," said one senior former Pentagon official.

There has been increasing alarm in parts of the American military establishment over China's growing military ambitions.

Military experts have already noted that Chinese military expenditure is increasingly designed to challenge American military pre-eminence by investing in weaponry that can attack key systems such as aircraft carriers and satellites.

At the same time, China is engaged in a large-scale espionage effort against American high-tech firms working on projects such as the multibillion-pound DD(X) destroyer programme.

Several spy rings have been cracked and the FBI is increasing the number of counter-intelligence staff tracking the Chinese effort.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/26/wchina226.xml

 

[Greed]

no worries. china will get their's soon.

 

[QueEx]

[frame]http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2121111&C=america[/frame]

[hide]China Attempted To Blind U.S. Satellites With Laser

DefenseNews
By VAGO MURADIAN


China has fired high-power lasers at U.S. spy satellites flying over its territory in what experts see as a test of Chinese ability to blind the spacecraft, according to sources.
It remains unclear how many times the ground-based laser was tested against U.S. spacecraft or whether it was successful.
But the combination of China’s efforts and advances in Russian satellite jamming capabilities illustrate vulnerabilities to the U.S. space network are at the core of U.S. Air Force plans to develop new space architectures and highly classified systems, according to sources.
According to experts, lasers — depending on their power level — could blind electro-optical satellites like the giant Keyhole spacecraft or even interfere with radar satellites like the Lacrosse. Blinding, one source said, is different than disabling given the enormous power required to shoot a laser through the dense lower atmosphere and reach a fast-moving satellite in space. The hardware on the spacecraft can’t be changed given they’re in orbit, but software changes can help them weather disruptive attacks.
Russian jamming systems are publicly known — the Air Force destroyed such a system deployed to Iraq to keep American GPS guided bombs from finding their targets during the 2003. The site was destroyed by GPS guided bombs.
Pentagon officials, however, have kept quiet regarding China’s efforts as part of a Bush administration policy to keep from angering Beijing, which is a leading U.S. trading partner and seen as key to dealing with onerous states like North Korea and Iran.
Even the Pentagon’s recent China report failed to mention Beijing’s efforts to blind U.S. reconnaissance satellites. Rather, after a contentious debate, the White House directed the Pentagon to limit its concern to one line. In that one line, the report merely acknowledges China has the ability to blind U.S. satellites, thanks to a powerful ground-based laser capable of firing a beam of light at an optical reconnaissance satellite to keep it from taking pictures as it passes overhead.
According to top officials, however, China not only has the capability, but has exercised it. It is not clear when China first used lasers to attack American satellites. Sources would only say that there have been several tests over the past several years.
“The Chinese are very strategically minded and are extremely active in this arena,” said one senior former Pentagon official. “They really believe all the stuff written in the 1980s about the high frontier and are looking at symmetrical and asymmetrical means to offset American dominance in space.”
China’s burgeoning anti-satellite capabilities are further evidence of Beijing’s focused military strategy that aims not to engage the United States in direct confrontation, but through asymmetric means, according to Andrew Krepinevich of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington.
Krepinevich points out that China has outlined a set of capabilities it refers to as “Assassins Mace” to keep U.S. forces in the region at risk and away from China’s borders, and tailored to undermine each U.S. advantage from submarine to satellite capabilities.
For their part, service officials are not expressing alarm at efforts to counter the U.S. space advantage, explaining that such moves are predictable and understandable. But they are taking it seriously enough to test ground-based lasers against their own spacecraft to determine their efficacy and map space architectures that are resilient enough to resist such attacks.
The problem, according to sources, is that current satellites are large, on predictable orbits that are easy to track and have scant defenses against lasers.
The United States operates three large optical reconnaissance satellites of the Keyhole-series by Lockheed Martin that were introduced some three decades ago. The loss of any of the three would prove a blow to U.S. space capabilities, sources said, which is why they will be replaced by a large constellation of spacecraft under the Future Imagery Architecture program by Boeing and Lockheed.
Top officials, among them Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne, flatly declined to comment on whether China has attempted to blind its satellites. Chinese officials could not be reached for comment at press time.
Wynne did, however, acknowledge that the Air Force’s space plans are shaped recognizing that potential foes will seek asymmetric means to harm a U.S. space network that gives the American military an enormous edge.
The goal, Wynne said, is to minimize the impact that real-life attacks would have on U.S. space capabilities through a networked architecture that can lose nodes but keep functioning.
Wynne stressed that what’s at stake isn’t merely U.S. military superiority, but the fate of global commerce because signals from Air Force GPS satellites are critical to everything from airline and maritime commerce to car navigation systems.
And unlike the 1980’s threat from Soviet anti-satellite plans, future space attacks will be limited in scope, Wynne said.
“At the time, the Soviets were always talking about a bald-faced assault,” he said. Future “asymmetric attacks are going to be local to try to mask out our capabilities in one region. The trick to winning asymmetrical warfare is to make it irrelevant.”
He said a new generation of GPS 3 satellite “will make further assaults and jamming efforts irrelevant.”
Doing “space and ISR through very different means … means asking good questions,” he said. “Do 22,200-mile-high orbits make sense? Does an orbital periodicity that is well known to any adversary have any relevance today? What you really want is assured situational awareness, position location and communications capabilities.”
But analysts, executives and even officials within the Pentagon have criticized the Air Force, arguing that the service is talking a good game but falling short on execution — largely for lack of budget.
One veteran space industry executive expressed shock at how limited the debate has been to better secure U.S. spacecraft, given the evidence that nations are investing in systems to blind American leaders in a future crisis.
The reason, executives and analysts said, is that such safeguards are complicated and expensive, and become targets when programs go over budget or fall behind schedule.
Case in point? One source said the Pentagon is so thirsty for more bandwidth to handle burgeoning communications demands that it has been short-changing security, which consumes bandwidth.
“It’s a tradeoff,” said one industry source. “And so far, the pressure has been for capacity over security.”
According to analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, the Air Force is making poor investment choices not only in space, but ISR programs.
“The U.S. Air Force’s ambitious plan for fielding orbital and airborne reconnaissance systems has begun to come unhinged in the budget process from Space Radar, to missile warning to future radar planes, the whole mission area seems to be melting down,” Thompson said.
Wynne contends that space programs are merely in the process of being restructured to rein in cost increases and schedule slips. Wynne also argues that the F-22 fighter’s powerful radar and electronic capabilities allow it to perform the roles of larger existing aircraft like the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System, the Airborne Warning and Control System and the Rivet Joint, allowing the service to forgo investment in aircraft that are vulnerable to a new generation of powerful surface-to-air missiles.
“I’m probably the biggest supporter of the F-22 outside the Air Force, and while it’s the best fighter ever and can do these jobs, but not as well as dedicated assets that have the ability to stay on station far longer,” Thompson said. “Osama bin Laden is still at large and there are known vulnerabilities to our space systems. In this environment, it’s odd that the Air Force is cutting its orbital, manned and unmanned reconnaissance assets while presenting the F-22 as a reconnaissance platform. The point is, where are we deficient, firepower or finding the enemy?”
As for China specifically, Thompson said the country has a right to defend itself.
“If you keep looking over the fence at you neighbor’s back yard, you’re going to get poked in the eye, so it’s not surprising that China might be worried about U.S. forces stationed on their doorstep,” Thompson said. “They don’t like it and are figuring out how to poke us in the eye. Now I’m no great admirer of the Chinese leadership, but how would we feel if the Chinese had their aircraft carriers off Long Island. That’s why we have to do a better job of protecting ourselves and I’m afraid that’s not what we’re doing.”
The former Pentagon official put it more bluntly.
“The Air Force is trying to put a happy face on this,” he said. “It’s not that they don’t know what do. It’s that they don’t have the money in their space budget. It’s that simple.”
Another factor is the sheer complexity of building satellites that has fueled cost overruns and schedule delays. For example, the Air Force originally envisioned the National Polar Orbiting Environmental Observation Satellite as a powerful new climate spacecraft. But departments across the government added their unique payloads to the spacecraft, causing integration challenges and cost growth.
The same happens on classified spacecraft as intelligence agencies pile on payloads. Then there is the challenge of ensuring that the technology that is on the spacecraft is the best possible given it will be in orbit for a decade or more.
“Unlike an airplane, once you launch something into space you can’t upgrade it again, so when it comes to technology, you are often reworking your system to get the best available in there because you know that it’s going to be around for a long time once it’s in orbit,” the former official said. “So when people talk about cost, that’s a piece of it. It’s even harder when you’re trying to protect yourself against threats over the next 50 years.”

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2121111&C=america[/hide]

 

[gene cisco]

Dont america owe china like 100 trillion dollars?

No wonder they aint saying shit.

On a serious note china is a threat, military wise and money wise.

I read alot about china, while we are wasting military resources in iraq and afghanistan they are building top notch subs and other shit.

 

[QueEx]

Dont america owe china like 100 trillion dollars?

No wonder they aint saying shit.

no worries. china will get their's soon.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/suINzE-qYSE&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/suINzE-qYSE&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

 

[thoughtone]

I condemn this.

 

[QueEx]

Lol

 

[GreedySmurf]

Perhaps this is the reason why america has been so gung ho about shooting down that satellite. They wanted to show the Chinese their own military superiority with regards to space based warfare.

I was wondering why they didn't just go up there and fix it like they have with other satellites that had problems.

 

[QueEx]

Of course, I don't know whether the ailing satellite could have been fixed in space (or whether it was one designed to be repaired in space) but you certainly raise a good question. There has been at least one (and probably more) satellites that we've had an interest in that was allowed to re-enter our atmosphere, so, maybe this is one of those that couldn't be fixed.

Frankly, its my opinion that (1) the military wanted to shoot the satellite down; and (2) it wanted to demostrate to Russia and China that it could. I think further that not only did the shootdown demostrate an ability to shootdown satellites in nearer space (the Chinese shootdown was in deeper space) but I think it demostrates, at least in part, our abibility to shoot down some ICBM's at or near the same altitude as the satellite (I heard someone say that ICBM's while smaller than satellites travel slower that the 17,500 MPH that the satellite was travelilng).

I'm not a war monger but I do believe in (1) beiing and staying prepared; and (2) not letting potential opponents catch up. Ithink thats safer, especially when the other side knows it, than having to engage and prove it. Its like former President Roosevelt once say, "Speak softly, but carry a Big Dick."

QueEx

 

[thoughtone]

Perhaps this is the reason why america has been so gung ho about shooting down that satellite. They wanted to show the Chinese their own military superiority with regards to space based warfare.

I was wondering why they didn't just go up there and fix it like they have with other satellites that had problems.

Eisenhower knew with the U2 flights over the Soviet Union that they had no advantage in nuclear weapons. It was all a bluff. This was confirmed in the 1960s with the first spy satellite photographs. There is no logical end to the extent of how the military industrial complex will play on people’s fears to extort public funds. I really don't see how most people cannot recognize this.

 

[cbm_redux]

I was wondering why they didn't just go up there and fix it like they have with other satellites that had problems.

The reason they couldn't fix it is because it was tumbling at a rate of approximately one revolution per second. There would be no safe way to approach it.

 

[cbm_redux]

Dont america owe china like 100 trillion dollars?

No wonder they aint saying shit.

On a serious note china is a threat, military wise and money wise.

I read alot about china, while we are wasting military resources in iraq and afghanistan they are building top notch subs and other shit.

The country at the greatest risk from China is China. They are going to hell in a hand basket in terms of economics, the environment and especially civil unrest. Mark my words, the shit will hit the fan in China within the next 50 years.

All of those hundreds of millions of mother fuckers in China are only going to sit back eating dirt while a select few get rich for so long.

 

[thoughtone]

The country at the greatest risk from China is China. They are going to hell in a hand basket in terms of economics, the environment and especially civil unrest. Mark my words, the shit will hit the fan in China within the next 50 years.

All of those hundreds of millions of mother fuckers in China are only going to sit back eating dirt while a select few get rich for so long.

China has been around for 4000 years. You think the next 50 years is going to ruin them? You need to open your mind and realize that the United States is not the only country that has any brains and that one of the most aggressive nations is the United States.

 

[LennyNero1972]

Man I just saw this story and it was posted in 2006!!! This puts a new spin on that US satellite situation.

 

[QueEx]

<IFRAME SRC="http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB351/index.htm" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB351/index.htm">link</A>

</IFRAME>

 

[QueEx]

Pentagon Contractor Caught Illegally
Selling Military Technology to China




A six-year U.S. probe found that Pratt & Whitney, a key military hardware
supplier to the U.S., sold China the software and engines needed to make
its first-ever modern attack helicopter.

SOURCE: http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...-selling-military-technology-to-china/259469/

 

[actinanass]

Call me when China gets a blue water navy that's in the 21st century.

 

[QueEx]

You might want to leave your number.

 

[actinanass]

You might want to leave your number.

911-5555

Nah seriously, if China had a legit, blue water navy, Taiwan would be the property of the Chinese.

 

[Jim_Browski]

USA vs China...

We whip their asses quickly...if everyone plays by the rules.

The Chinese only have ONE exit to the rest of the world without it potentially causing WWIII, and that is the coastline that releases into the Pacific Ocean. Any other action is flying over a country's airspace to attack America (Russia, South East Asia, Europe, Africa). If this occurs...trust me, the 5th, 6th, and 7th fleets will tear their asses up.

Really...why do you really think China isn't talking shit about the money the US owes it?

Could it be because the USA could say, "FUCK YO COUCH NIGGA!!!"

And China couldn't do shit but eat it....

 

[QueEx]

911-5555

Nah seriously, if China had a legit, blue water navy, Taiwan would be the property of the Chinese.

IDK, blue-water navy and a Taiwan strategy are not one and the same nor are they inter-dependent.

I don't know what your definition of B-W navy is (I would appreciate knowing) but China's Taiwan strategy appears to be built around "denial" -- which doesn't require a B-W navy. That is, if you look at China's naval modernization program, more emphasis is placed on fast-attack littoral craft with fewer submarines and larger guided craft on the perimeter. That configuration to me (when all the parts and quantity are in place) seems to be aimed at making it difficult for the U.S. to resupply Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack (which the Chinese may very well contemplate, one day).

Note, that there are a couple of zillion (not really, but damn near) land-based missiles in China aimed at Taiwan. Note also that China's amphibious capability is not well developed -- which could mean that a large land invasion is not the preferred means of taking Taiwan. Instead, a blistering missile strike coupled with a slow invasion build-up -- and an isolation strategy where supply/re-supply by outside forces (U.S.) would either be denied or made prohibitively difficult without serious casualties. Such a scheme would be prosecuted in the littoral and would not require a far-flung B-W capability. No ???

 

[QueEx]

911-5555

Nah seriously, if China had a legit, blue water navy, Taiwan would be the property of the Chinese.

IDK, blue-water navy and a Taiwan strategy are not one and the same nor inter-dependent.

I don't know what your definition of B-W navy is (I would appreciate knowing) but China's Taiwan strategy appears to be built around "denial" -- which doesn't require a B-W navy. That is, if you look at the China's naval modernization program, more emphasis is placed on fast-attack littoral craft with fewer submarines and larger guided craft on the perimeter. That configuration to me (when all the parts and quantity are in place) seems to be aimed at making it difficult for the U.S. to resupply Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack (which the Chinese may very well contemplate, one day).

Note, that there are a couple of zillion (not really, but damn near) land-based missiles in China aimed at Taiwan. Note also that China's amphibious capability is not well developed -- which could mean that a large land invasion is not the preferred means of taking Taiwan. Instead, a blistering missile strike coupled with a slow invasion build-up -- and an isolation strategy where supply/re-supply by outside forces (U.S.) would either be denied or made prohibitively difficult without serious casualties. Such a scheme would be prosecuted in the littoral and would not require a far-flung B-W capability. No ???

 

[Jim_Browski]

IDK, blue-water navy and a Taiwan strategy are not one and the same nor inter-dependent.

I don't know what your definition of B-W navy is (I would appreciate knowing) but China's Taiwan strategy appears to be built around "denial" -- which doesn't require a B-W navy. That is, if you look at the China's naval modernization program, more emphasis is placed on fast-attack littoral craft with fewer submarines and larger guided craft on the perimeter. That configuration to me (when all the parts and quantity are in place) seems to be aimed at making it difficult for the U.S. to resupply Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack (which the Chinese may very well contemplate, one day).

Note, that there are a couple of zillion (not really, but damn near) land-based missiles in China aimed at Taiwan. Note also that China's amphibious capability is not well developed -- which could mean that a large land invasion is not the preferred means of taking Taiwan. Instead, a blistering missile strike coupled with a slow invasion build-up -- and an isolation strategy where supply/re-supply by outside forces (U.S.) would either be denied or made prohibitively difficult without serious casualties. Such a scheme would be prosecuted in the littoral and would not require a far-flung B-W capability. No ???

Aside from the notion that China has out it's business suit on for the past decade, or so, and the sanctions placed on it by the UN would put a serious speedbump in their plans (set up by the Western interests that have propped them up)...an outright military strike on Taiwan would bring a response from the US . and a short "war" will ensue...until the corporations understand that the US military will destroy everything in sight...inclduing their valued assets...because you know the war will be fough on/in mainland China.

 

[actinanass]

USA vs China...

We whip their asses quickly...if everyone plays by the rules.

The Chinese only have ONE exit to the rest of the world without it potentially causing WWIII, and that is the coastline that releases into the Pacific Ocean. Any other action is flying over a country's airspace to attack America (Russia, South East Asia, Europe, Africa). If this occurs...trust me, the 5th, 6th, and 7th fleets will tear their asses up.

Really...why do you really think China isn't talking shit about the money the US owes it?

Could it be because the USA could say, "FUCK YO COUCH NIGGA!!!"

And China couldn't do shit but eat it....

my point exactly. China is happy making that money.

IDK, blue-water navy and a Taiwan strategy are not one and the same nor are they inter-dependent.

I don't know what your definition of B-W navy is (I would appreciate knowing) but China's Taiwan strategy appears to be built around "denial" -- which doesn't require a B-W navy. That is, if you look at China's naval modernization program, more emphasis is placed on fast-attack littoral craft with fewer submarines and larger guided craft on the perimeter. That configuration to me (when all the parts and quantity are in place) seems to be aimed at making it difficult for the U.S. to resupply Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack (which the Chinese may very well contemplate, one day).

Note, that there are a couple of zillion (not really, but damn near) land-based missiles in China aimed at Taiwan. Note also that China's amphibious capability is not well developed -- which could mean that a large land invasion is not the preferred means of taking Taiwan. Instead, a blistering missile strike coupled with a slow invasion build-up -- and an isolation strategy where supply/re-supply by outside forces (U.S.) would either be denied or made prohibitively difficult without serious casualties. Such a scheme would be prosecuted in the littoral and would not require a far-flung B-W capability. No ???

Right now, they can attack Taiwan in the way you describe. However, once they take Taiwan, our Navy would destroy them. That's my point of having a legit blue water navy.

Aside from the notion that China has out it's business suit on for the past decade, or so, and the sanctions placed on it by the UN would put a serious speedbump in their plans (set up by the Western interests that have propped them up)...an outright military strike on Taiwan would bring a response from the US . and a short "war" will ensue...until the corporations understand that the US military will destroy everything in sight...inclduing their valued assets...because you know the war will be fough on/in mainland China.

This dude proves my point.

 

[dasmybikepunk]

AMERICA NEEDS TO:

AND STOP!!!!FUCKING WITH FOREIGN OIL:

HELL!!!! OIL PERIOD...:

THERE'S OTHER THINGS TO DO BUT THESE ARE BIG PROBLEMS...CHINA WOULD BE CRIPPLED...DAMN ON SECOND THOUGHT MAYBE THAT WOULD START A WAR

 

[QueEx]

China accuses Obama of hypocrisy in remarks on South China Sea

China accuses Obama of hypocrisy
in remarks on South China Sea

According to the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative report, this image dated March 16, 2015,shows a
chain of artificial land formations, along with new structures, fortified seawalls and construction equipment.
PHOTO COURTESY CSIS ASIA MARITIME TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE AND DIGITALGLOBE — TNS
​

McClatchy Foreign Staff
April 10, 2015


BEIJING — China accused the United States of hypocrisy Friday over President Barack Obama’s comments that the rising Asian power is using its “sheer size and muscle” to intimidate other nations in the South China Sea.

Satellite photos published this week showed that Chinese dredgers are effectively building an island of sand on a reef in the Spratly Islands, which the Chinese call the Nansha Islands. The area – appropriately named Mischief Reef – sits off the coasts of Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia, all of which have claims on the Spratlys, as do Brunei and Taiwan.

“Where we get concerned with China is where it is not necessarily abiding by international norms and rules and is using its sheer size and muscle to force countries into subordinate positions,” Obama said Thursday in response to a question at a forum in Kingston, Jamaica.

“We think this can be solved diplomatically, but just because the Philippines or Vietnam are not as large as China doesn’t mean that they can just be elbowed aside,” he said.

Asked about Obama’s comments, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying suggested that the United States should consider its own history of bullying other countries.

“I think everyone can see very clearly who it is in the world who is using the greatest size and muscle,” she said. She urged the United States to act constructively in resolving the region’s territorial disputes.

China claims about 80 percent of the South China Sea, which serves as a vital shipping route and fishing area for all of Asia. Last year, Chinese and Vietnamese vessels clashed over an oil rig China had installed in a section of the sea called the Paracel Islands. The two countries have since been trying to patch up relations.

The latest dispute involves China’s massive dredging and piling up of sand on Mischief Reef, possibly a precursor to some sort of military installation.

Last week, Adm. Harry Harris, the commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, took aim at China’s attempt to shore up its territorial claims by creating land where previously there was none.

“China is creating a great wall of sand, with dredges and bulldozers,” Harris said in a speech in Canberra, Australia.

In response, Hua said Thursday that China had “ indisputable sovereignty over the Nansha Islands and their adjacent waters.” She acknowledged that building up the islands would serve military needs, but noted it also would allow China to provide maritime assistance in a remote area during emergencies, such as following a typhoon.

“China sticks to the path of peaceful development and upholds a defense policy that is defensive in nature,” Hua said. “Peace and stability of the South China Sea serves China’s interests of development and security.”

A recent article in the independent Defense News detailed how a new seaplane China is developing may allow it to solidify its hold over the South China Sea.

The aircraft – the Jiaolong (Water Dragon) AG600, developed by China Aviation Industry General Aircraft – will be China’s largest operational seaplane, easily able to hop from island to island in the Spratlys, Defense News said, citing military experts.

One of these was Richard Bitzinger, coordinator of the Military Transformations Program at Singapore’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, who said: “Amphibious planes like the AG600 would be perfect for resupplying the new artificial islands that the Chinese are building.”

While the Obama administration has said the United States is neutral on maritime disputes in the region, U.S. officials have stepped up their criticism of Beijing in recent days.

“China’s land reclamation and construction activities are fueling greater anxiety within the region about China’s intentions amid concerns that they might militarize outposts on disputed land features in the South China Sea,” Jeff Rathke, a State Department spokesman, said Thursday in a briefing in Washington.

China has all but rejected U.S. claims of neutrality in settling territorial disputes in a region with thousands of years of conflict.

On Thursday, the state-run Xinhua news service published a commentary that said U.S. officials were “fishing for trouble” with their recent comments about the South China Sea.

“Washington has repeatedly violated its pledge to remain neutral regarding disputes on the South China Sea,” said the commentary by Wang Haiqing, a Xinhua writer. “Moreover, it has never missed an opportunity to talk about the ‘China threat’ when it comes to the issue, and tries to pit other countries against China.”
​

Email: sleavenworth@mcclatchydc.com; Twitter: @sleavenworth.