Latest news with #IndoPacific
Daily Mail
13 hours ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
China's Star Wars technology is advancing 'breathtakingly fast' and could leapfrog US in space arms race, Washington warns
China 's space-based military technology is developing 'breathtakingly fast' with US forces at risk of the 'kill chain', Washington has warned. Beijing have been catching up in the arms race to develop missile technology that can be sent from space at a 'very concerning rate', the top commander of the US Space Force (USSF) added. The so-called kill chain - which identifies, tracks and attacks a target - could be used on US and allied forces in the Indo-Pacific as well as 'over-the-horizon' precision strikes, General Stephen Whiting told The Telegraph. The warning comes only a month after Donald Trump unveiled his own plans for a $175 billion 'Golden Dome' defence system which he says will protect the US from the world's most powerful weapons. The integration of space-tech with China's army, navy and air force has made them 'more lethal, more precise and more far-ranging' - and could take the lead from the US in the space-arms race. Earlier this year, the USSF said that China had conducted several synchronised satellite manoeuvres in low Earth orbit, also known as 'dogfighting'. 'They are practicing tactics, techniques, and procedures to do on-orbit space operations from one satellite to another,' General Michael Guetlein, the Deputy Chief of US Space Operations at the USSF, said. He added: 'There used to be a significant capability gap between the United States and our adversaries, driven by our technological advantage. 'That gap, once massive, has narrowed considerably. 'If we don't change our approach to space operations, we risk seeing that gap reverse, putting us at a disadvantage.' China has more than 500 satellites capable of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), with 67 sent up in the last year alone, the USSF said in 2024. The 'space enabled services' are broken down into three units - a cyberspace army, an aerospace force, and an information support arm. While America have around 8,000 satellites in space compared to China's 1,000 in total, Chinese scientists have also recently developed what is considered the world's most powerful satellite tracking camera. The technology is able to take pictures with millimetre level accuracy more than 60 miles away. Chinese satellites are also working towards counter-weapons development that would see other satellites jammed, destroyed or 'spoofed' - which is where the GPS receiver is misled or manipulated. Exerts have previously warned that the US is underprepared for such developments, with the first test done in 2008 where a satellite in space was shot down with a missile on the ground. But the latest developments could redirect drones, disable munitions or missiles and shut down crucial infrastructures. China's long-range weapons that strike with precision 'depend on space' and is how Beijing 'closes its kill chain', the USSF commander of the Indo-Pacific region, Gen Anthony Mastalir, has previously warned. Trump's Golden Dome proposal was 'long overdue' and 'absolutely necessary' amid growing threats from China, North Korea and Russia, experts said at the time. But Beijing warned that the plan to put US weapons into the earth's orbit for the first time 'heightens the risk of space becoming a battlefield, fuels an arms race, and undermines international security.' Meanwhile Moscow called for Washington to make contact regarding the programme - to which Trump said he would do so 'at the right time'. Following talks between the allies earlier this month, Beijing and Moscow released a joint statement condemning Washington's plans as being 'deeply destabilising' and turning space into 'an arena for armed confrontation.' An unclassified DIA report released in May stated that China and Russia 'are developing an array of novel delivery systems,' to exploit gaps in US defences, while traditional ballistic missiles are expected to remain the primary threat to American soil.
South China Morning Post
17 hours ago
- Politics
- South China Morning Post
Philippines and Malaysia sidestep South China Sea claims, seek closer naval ties
The heads of the Philippine and Malaysian navies have pledged to deepen maritime cooperation, reflecting growing trust between both sides and mutual concerns over regional security despite their overlapping claims in the South China Sea Admiral Tansri Zulhelmy Bin Ithnain, chief of Malaysia's Royal Navy, met with vice-admiral Jose Ma Ambrosio Ezpeleta, flag officer in command of the Philippine Navy, during a courtesy call in Manila on Wednesday. He also held talks with the Philippine military chief, General Romeo Brawner Jnr. The visit 'reaffirmed the strong and enduring ties' between the two countries' naval forces, according to a Philippine Navy's statement, which said both sides had exchanged views on joint maritime operations, regional security and naval modernisation. The navies committed to enhance maritime cooperation and discussed future training and capability development efforts. They also highlighted the coming 19th Asean meeting of navy chiefs – to be hosted by Malaysia in August – as a key platform to advance collaboration. 'This engagement underscores the Philippine Navy's continued commitment to building strong defence partnerships, advancing regional cooperation, and promoting maritime security in the Indo-Pacific region,' the statement said. The renewed push for naval collaboration comes as both countries face overlapping maritime claims in parts of the South China Sea, even as China's growing assertiveness in the disputed waterways has fuelled regional unease.
The National
a day ago
- Politics
- The National
Cancel Aukus? The silver linings if Australia's $239 billion submarine deal with the US gets scrapped
When Aukus, the trilateral security partnership between Australia, the UK, and the US, was announced in 2021, the then Australian prime minister Scott Morrison hailed it as 'an historic opportunity for the three nations, with like-minded allies and partners, to protect shared values and promote security and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region.' Under the deal the US would provide Canberra with three to five Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines, with delivery from 2032 onwards, while Australia would be able to build its own version of a new British 'Aukus' submarine by the early 2040s. Not everyone was convinced. In 2023, the former Australian prime minister Paul Keating called the $239 billion plan the 'worst deal in all history' and said, 'the proposal is irrational in every dimension'. Last year, a former foreign minister, Gareth Evans, said that 'Australia's no-holds-barred embrace of Aukus is more likely than not to prove one of the worst defence and foreign policy decisions our country has made,' and put its sovereign independence 'at profound risk'. The agreement is currently under a 30-day review by the Trump administration, and since it is being led by US Under Secretary of Defence for Policy Elbridge Colby, a known Aukus-sceptic, the deal may well be scuttled. Here's why I think that would be a positive move, and why other countries should take notice if it does unravel. Australia previously had a far cheaper deal with France to supply 12 submarines, and when Canberra abruptly cancelled the deal the French were livid, with Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian describing it as 'a stab in the back'. To be fair, it had been subject to delays. Nevertheless, the arrival time of the Aukus subs is lengthy, to put it mildly. I've talked about this several times with a friend who was a longstanding member of the Australian Government's Foreign Affairs Council, and we agreed that 'you'd better be careful with us, we've got some top-grade submarines coming in, er, nearly 10 to 20 years' was not the greatest of deterrents to a would-be aggressor. For Australia, the only sensible path is to try to build an Asia-Pacific security architecture that includes China The Aukus submarines are also too big. Concerns have been raised about how they would operate in Australia's shallow coastal areas. Mr Keating was clear. The new subs were, he said, 'designed to attack in China's peripheral waters'. The purpose of Aukus, in his view, was to tie Australia 'unambiguously, unqualifiedly and solely arraigning itself' to the most China-hawkish of American positions, and the agreement constituted 'the last shackle in the long chain the United States has laid out to contain China'. Quite apart from the issue of sovereignty – it is almost certain Australia will not be able to use these subs without 'interoperability' with America – it is unclear if they're ever going to arrive. Another former Australian foreign minister, Bob Carr, is sure of it. 'The evidence is mounting that we're not going to get Virginia-class subs from the United States,' Mr Carr said in March, 'for the simple reason they're not building enough for their own needs and will not, in the early 2030s, be peeling off subs from their own navy to sell to us'. This is partly a matter of law. Before transferring any submarines to Australia, the US president must certify that this would not diminish American naval capability. Mr Colby has publicly expressed doubts on this front. But it's also a matter of inclination. The Department of Defence has said that the review is to ensure 'that this initiative of the previous administration is aligned with the president's 'America first' agenda'. We know that 'America first' considers itself to be unbound by anything, including international law – as the Trump administration's strikes on Iran showed. Assuming 'America first' continues to be the guiding ideology of a possible JD Vance presidency in the future, why should it keep to the Aukus agreement if it is not deemed in the US's best interests? So, I agree with Mr Keating and Mr Evans. Their country is best out of it, and Mr Colby's review 'might very well be the moment Washington saves Australia from itself', as Mr Keating put it. The broader point to be taken from this is that many countries need to be thinking about taking care of themselves, including seeking more collective security, rather than relying on an America safety net that may not be there if push comes to shove. For Australia, the only sensible path is to try to build an Asia-Pacific security architecture that includes China. For Europe, it means looking further ahead of the current war on the continent and imagining Russia as a common neighbour, not an enemy. And for the Middle East, if Mr Trump could assist the creation of a region in which Israel, a Palestinian state, and Iran all live in peace, he would deserve the Nobel prize that he covets. For now, however, the US President may think he's pulled off a brilliant manoeuvre in terms of Iran and Israel, but his contradictory behaviour inevitably unnerves other countries, some allies perhaps especially so. On the other hand, if they need to stand on their own feet rather more in the future, that may not be a bad thing – even if it's a consequence of 'America first' in all its stark reality. It's a lesson Australia is learning. Other countries should take note.
News.com.au
a day ago
- Business
- News.com.au
White House takes thinly veiled shot at Australia on defence spending
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has taken a thinly veiled shot at Australia, saying if European countries can agree to hike defence spending, then US allies in the Indo Pacific 'can do it as well'. The comment came after all 32 NATO members agreed to dramatically hike their defence budgets to 5 per cent of GDP. It is a major win for Donald Trump, who has threatened to drop US military support for Europe if it did not splash more cash. For Anthony Albanese, it has only added to mounting pressure to invest more in Australia's security, with the Coalition calling for a target of 3 per cent of GDP. Speaking to reporters at the White House overnight, Ms Leavitt was asked how the NATO result might affect defence negotiations with allies in the Indo Pacific. 'I mean, look, if our allies in Europe and our NATO allies can do it, I think our allies and our friends in the Asia-Pacific region can do it as well,' she said, responding to an Australian journalist. 'But as for our specific relations and discussions, I will let the President speak on those.' The Prime Minister and his cabinet have resisted Washington's call to boost the defence budget to 3.5 per cent of GDP, arguing Australia would first establish its needs and then fund accordingly. But it is a departure from how governments have approached it in the past – generally, a percentage of GDP was used as an indicator of what the budget should be. The government's line has also made Canberra an outlier in the West, with critics pointing out Australia has China as its main regional rival. Fronting media on Friday, Mr Albanese responded to Ms Leavitt's comment. 'We have lifted our spending,' he said. 'We are providing for our defence investment, including $57bn of additional investment. 'I have said very clearly, we will invest in the capability that Australia needs.' Earlier, opposition defence spokesman Angus Taylor said Australia needed to spend more because 'authoritarian regimes around the world' are 'flexing their muscles'. 'We're seeing it, of course, with Russia, we have seen it with Iran and their proxies,' he told the ABC. 'We're seeing it with the military build-up of the Chinese Communist Party and all of this means we are in a more uncertain world than at any time since the Second World War. 'And so it's essential Australia be in a position to stand on its own two feet alongside our allies like the United States and the UK and that does mean we have to spend more on defence.' The Coalition's proposed 3 per cent increase is still tens of billions short of what Washington has asked for. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth earlier this month warned of an 'imminent' threat from China in the Indo Pacific. 'Let me be clear, any attempt by Communist China to conquer Taiwan by force would result in devastating consequences for the Indo Pacific and the world,' Mr Hegseth told the Shangri La Dialogue. 'There's no reason to sugar-coat it. The threat China poses is real and it could be imminent. 'We hope not but certainly could be.' Speaking with Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles on the sidelines of the conference, Mr Hegseth called on the Albanese government to lift defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP. It ignited a major debate in Canberra and fuelled criticisms that Australia was ill-prepared to defend itself against an increasingly aggressive China. While the Albanese government has committed record cash for the defence budget, much of it would not kick in until after 2029. With Australia itself predicting a major global conflict by 2034 and some analysts warning of a US-China conflict before 2030, critics have argued the money is not flowing fast enough and instead tied up in longer-term projects at the cost of combat readiness.
South China Morning Post
a day ago
- Politics
- South China Morning Post
Blow for Japan's Indo-Pacific hopes as Nato shelves Tokyo office plan
Nato has shelved plans to open a liaison office in Tokyo, dealing a symbolic blow to Japan 's hopes of cementing the alliance's presence in the Indo-Pacific and exposing divisions among member states over how directly they should confront China's rising power. The proposal had been strongly backed by former prime minister Fumio Kishida 's government, which viewed the planned office as a step towards closer coordination with Nato and its partners in the region, including Australia, South Korea and New Zealand. But officials confirmed on the sidelines of the alliance's ongoing summit in The Hague that the plan had been dropped – at least for now. Analysts say the decision is unlikely to derail growing military cooperation between Japan and key Nato members, but note that it will be perceived in Tokyo as a missed opportunity to formalise Japan's role as a trusted partner in global security. 'Yes, there will be disappointment in Japan as they were very much in favour of this, but Tokyo knows there are many ways to enhance the relationship with Nato rather than through the opening of an office,' said Ryo Hinata-Yamaguchi, associate professor at Tokyo International University's Institute for International Strategy. 'It is not clear exactly why this decision was reached and there will be questions over whether Nato did not want an office in the Asia-Pacific region or Japan specifically,' he said. 'But things can change in the future and it would be fairly easy to resurrect the plan again.'
