2010年8月份一期的美国《空军杂志》(AIR FORCE magazine)发表主编罗伯特-达德尼(Robert S. Dudney)的社论文章，题为“中国鸿沟”(The China Gap) 。

　　题记——美国或正在与中国军事制空权的较量，但这只是一场单边竞赛。

　　文章首先说，近期，美国参谋长联席会议主席麦克尔-G-马伦(Michael G. Mullen)上将呼吁人们对中国在超前的“军事远征、海事和空中战力”方面的“重大军事投资”有所警惕。他指出，这与北京“国土防卫的战略目标” 在步调上离奇地不一致。马伦暗示中国有着更加“凶险”的目的。6月9日，马伦对美国亚洲协会(Asia Society，当前亚太地区最具影响力的非营利、非政府、政经民间组织，总部位于纽约)指出，中国方面言与行之间的“鸿沟”很大，事实上，这一“鸿沟” 是如此的巨大，以至于马伦“已经从对中国军力建设目的的好奇转变成真正的忧虑”。

　　《空军杂志》的社论接着评价说，马伦的言论并不寻常，如此坦白地谈论持续增长中的中国军力威胁的确很少见。即使在中国极力建设其军事力量的时候，华盛顿方面只是做出了不冷不热的反应。这源于更重要的“中国鸿沟”的存在。

　　文章称，米切尔空中力量研究所所长吕贝卡-格兰特(Rebecca Grant)，将此定义为“中国按其精明战略所坚定追求的军事力量与美国国防战略之间的鸿沟，很明显，美国战略已经选择降级并最小化太平洋地区(对华)传统军事威慑的需求”。

　　格兰特上述言论意指美国国防部长罗伯特-盖茨(Robert M. Gates)对美国军事实力的重新定位，要从对中国传统军事力量的威慑转移到在伊拉克和阿富汗的低技术、非常规战事方面。美国国防部长的假定似乎是美国空军和海军在太平洋地区仍然保有轻松的领导地位。 
这个观点在最近的美国国会“美中经济与安全评估委员会”的听证会上引发热烈讨论。专家们特别提到，中国的空军实力已经从有限的区域力量，发展成为崛起中的危及美国利益的潜在军事力量。

　　位于美国俄亥俄州赖特-帕特森空军基地的“国家空天情报中心”中国问题负责人韦恩-阿尔曼(Wayne A. Ulman)称，中国人民解放军空军实力在过去的十年内得到“戏剧性”地提升。他说，中国空军已经从一支技术落后的力量，转变为装备精良、训练有素的部队，他补充说，按照目前的进度，2020年之前中国空军将跻身世界第一流空军之列。阿尔曼指出，在大约1,600架中国战斗机中有将近500架为第四代战斗机，它们在技术上与美军的F-15和F-16相当。如果阿尔曼的观点是正确的，中国还将有一款可与美国空军F-22“猛禽”相匹敌的隐身第五代战机，将在2018年部署，这比盖茨预计的要早。

　　兰德公司分析师罗杰-克里夫(Roger Cliff)指出，中国现在研制出超视距雷达制导的空对空导弹，可与美军的先进中距空空导弹(AMRAAM)或者俄罗斯的AA-12导弹媲美，中国还有一系列激光制导、电视制导和卫星制导的精确打击弹药。克里夫认为，如果没有先进的军事学说、训练以及后勤保障，仅靠现代化的硬件装备并不会必然带来更强大的力量。“但是，中国已经在其中的许多方面取得了进步”，他说。

　　听证会上还可听到这样的警告，说解放军空军已经在陆基防空方面进行巨额投资，意在弱化美国空军打击中国目标的行动。从2000年起，中国空军购进更多的俄制SA-20地空导弹，中国也已经开始部署本国生产的与SA-20媲美的HQ-9防空导弹。阿尔曼还说，在未来的战争中，美国空军将面对“世界上最先进最强大的防空网之一”。

 一位来自兰德公司的分析工程师杰夫-哈根(Jeff Hagen)告诉专家组说，中国快速发展的弹道导弹部队已经威胁到了美军的主要地区空军基地，他估计如今的中国可以向美军驻韩国的乌山和群山基地发射 480枚弹道导弹和350枚巡航导弹，可以向日本的嘉手纳、三泽、横田基地发射80枚弹道导弹和350枚巡航导弹。目前，中国的导弹还不具备打击关岛安德森空军基地的射程，尽管中国正在进行此类武器的研发。“很明显”，哈根说，“美军或面临长期缺乏靠近中国部署的基地的情况。”现代化战机、密集的防空系统和对空军基地毁灭性攻击的连锁战力，与袭击美军计算机与空间系统的能力相结合，“封锁”西太平洋，威胁着美国陆基和海基空军力量。
 
国际战略与评估中心的中国空军力量专家理查德-费舍尔(Richard D. Fisher)说，事实上，在美国不做出有力回应的情况下，中国的努力，已经具备终结美国在亚洲确保空中优势地位的潜力。

　　文章还说，在格兰特的评估中，近年来美国的忽视记录数不胜数，她列举了奥巴马政府终止了关键的F-22项目，仅制造187架；阻止日本获得 F-22的努力；没有启动新型远程轰炸机研制项目；延缓购置空中加油机；限制部署导弹防御系统；疏于提高网络战效能等等。盖茨还不断提醒盟国，美国海空军装备数量远胜中国。“这种毫无意义的数量上的计算无法取代美国海空军必须具备全球投送力量的事实”，格兰特说。

　　国防部在面对北京的挑战上还不算完全迟钝。它已经开始了扩展太平洋基地网的计划。美国空军海军正在发展“空海战争”，此举旨在是将太平洋地区的联合军力最大化。这种情形既不十分危急也非无法弥补，两倍于中国的、总量达15万亿的美国经济，可以轻而易举地支持适当的军事提升。几个月前，政府领导人在制定预算和军事计划的决议时，或许应该对此深思。马伦警告说：“反介入和区域封锁不应简单地成为我们用来索取更多预算的漂亮口号，这些是真实的人在寻求的真实能力，我们在建立未来军力时要牢记这一点”。

The China Gap 

Adm. Michael G. Mullen recently called worried attention to China’s "heavy investments" in advanced "expeditionary, maritime, and air capabilities." This, he noted, is "oddly out of step" with Beijing’s "stated goal of territorial defense."

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff implied China had a more ominous aim. The "gap" between its words and deeds is large, Mullen told the Asia Society June 9. It is so large, in fact, that he has "moved from being curious [about the buildup’s purpose] to being genuinely concerned."

Mullen’s words were unusual; frank talk about the threat of growing Chinese power is rare. Even as China has pressed to build up its military forces, Washington has reacted tepidly. This stems from the existence of a second and more significant "China gap."

Rebecca Grant, director of the Mitchell Institute for Airpower Studies, defines it as "the gap between China’s steady pursuit of military capabilities under an artful strategy [and] US defense strategy, which has apparently chosen to downgrade and minimize the need for conventional deterrence in the Pacific."

Grant was referring to Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates’ reorientation of US military capabilities away from deterrence of China’s conventional forces to lower-tech, irregular combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The SECDEF’s assumption seems to be US air and naval forces still maintain a comfortable lead in the Pacific.

This concept took heavy fire in recent hearings of the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, chartered by Congress. Experts noted that China’s air force, in particular, has advanced from being a regional power with limited capabilities to a force with growing potential to imperil US interests.

Wayne A. Ulman, the China issues manager at the National Air and Space Intelligence Center at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, asserted that the capabilities of the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) have grown "dramatically" over the past decade.

He said the PLAAF has gone from being a technologically inferior force to a well-equipped, fairly well-trained one. On its current course, he added, "China will have one of the world’s foremost air forces by 2020."

Nearly 500 of China’s approximately 1,600 fighters now are of the fourth generation type. They can be seen as at technical parity with US fighters such as the F-15 and F-16, he noted. If Ulman is correct, China will have a stealthy "fifth generation" fighter, rivaling USAF’s F-22 Raptor, operational by 2018, years earlier than Gates himself has estimated.

Roger Cliff, a RAND Corp. analyst, noted that China now produces a beyond-visual-range radar-guided air-to-air missile comparable to the US AMRAAM or Russian AA-12, and a variety of laser, TV, and satellite guided precision munitions. Cliff noted that modern hardware alone does not necessarily bring more strength, without advances in doctrine, training, and logistics. "However," he said, "China has been making progress in many of these dimensions as well."

The panel heard warnings that the PLAAF has made a tremendous investment in ground-based air defenses, needed to blunt any USAF operations against Chinese targets. Since 2000, the PLAAF has purchased many more Russian SA-20 SAMs. China also has begun to deploy the domestically produced HQ-9, comparable to the SA-20.

In a future war, Ulman reports, US airpower would face "one of the world’s most advanced and robust air defense networks."

Jeff Hagen, an engineer-analyst from the RAND Corp., told the panel that China’s burgeoning ballistic missile force threatens USAF’s major regional air bases. He estimated that, today, China could throw 480 ballistic missiles and 350 cruise missiles at Osan and Kunsan in South Korea, and 80 ballistic missiles and 350 cruise missiles at Kadena, Misawa, and Yokota in Japan. At present, Chinese missiles do not have the range to hit Anderson AFB, Guam, though it is working on such weapons.

"Clearly," said Hagen, "the US could face extended periods of time where few, if any, of our bases near China are operating."

The interlocking power of modern fighters, dense air defenses, and devastating attacks on air bases, combined with capabilities to strike at US cyber and space systems, threatens US land- and sea-based airpower with "lockout" from the western Pacific.

In fact, said Richard D. Fisher Jr., a China airpower expert of the International Strategy and Assessment Center, China’s effort "has the potential to end the assurance of US air superiority in Asia, absent a vigorous US response."

The US may be in a military airpower race with China, but only one side is racing.

The record of US neglect in recent years is long, in Grant’s assessment. She notes that the Obama Administration has halted the key F-22 program at only 187 fighters; blocked Japan’s bid to acquire its own F-22s; failed to launch a new long-range bomber program; delayed acquisition of a tanker; limited deployment of missile defense systems; and fumbled an effort to streamline its cyberwar operations.

Gates constantly reminds allies that US air and naval assets outnumber those of China.

"This pointless bean counting does little to account for the fact that US air and naval forces must reach far across the globe to project power," Grant said.

DOD has not been totally inert in the face of Beijing’s challenge. It has begun the task of expanding its network of Pacific bases. USAF and the Navy are developing "AirSea Battle," an employment concept aimed at maximizing their joint-force power in the Pacific.

The situation is neither desperate nor beyond repair. The $15 trillion US economy exceeds China’s by a factor of two, and could easily support modest force improvements.

Administration leaders might ponder that fact as they make budget and force-planning decisions in months ahead.

"Anti-access and area denial are not simply buzzwords we use to argue for more money in the budget," Mullen warned. "These are real capabilities being pursued by real people, and we would do well to bear them in mind as we build the force for the future."