"How China Will Track—and Kill—America’s Newest Stealth Jets" Topic

"Once, no magic act was complete without the magician's revealingly dressed assistant. Her job was not merely to be sawn in half but to dominate the mostly male audience's attention at moments when a focus on the whereabouts of the rabbit might blow the gaff.

That was a useful lesson to bear in mind at last month's Zhuhai air show—China's only domestic air and defense trade show, held once every other year.

If anything at Zhuhai was wearing fishnets and high heels, it was the Shenyang FC-31 stealth fighter, which resembles a twin-engine version of America's newest stealth jet, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. But the real tricks lay in Beijing's growing family of advanced missiles and radars…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Behold the power of wishful thinking!

Last time I checked the US still has a huge electronic warfare capability (despite USAF' efforts to kill it).

Any radars that can burn through the jammer screen will probably cop an AGM-88 HARM for their efforts. Provided of course static C3 systems aren't taken out by cruise missiles and B-2s first.

And the Chinese have a gun and radar system on a truck. Wow, just wow.

Next they might put it on a tank chassis. Shame the West or USSR didn't do it in the 1970s. Maybe they could've called it a Gepard Flakpanzer or ZSU-23 or Tunguska or something cool like that!

And these things are obsolete given Western aircraft operating at high altitude and more and more often with stand off weapons.

Not good for helos but that's always been the case.

Lots of interchangeable parts: That is how China can roll out so many missile types so quickly.

The key is putting them into large scale production and also fitting them on more mobile things like aircraft.

The Chinese like the Russians have struggled to put anything into mass production and instead batch produce smaller numbers.

And when your main strike jets are a MiG-19 knock off (Q-5) and less capable Tornado wannabe (JH-7), you don't have many options. Sure the J-16 is coming online and there's a small fleet of Su-30s. But these assets are few and far between and again poor Chinese serial production means aircraft numbers often struggle to keep up with natural attrition (some of their Su-27s have already been scrapped due to life expectancy being reached whilst others crash like in every air force).

And I'm being kind here.

The point isn't that they're a threat now. The point is that they're advancements are coming at a much faster rate than most people anticipated, and they are focusing on a very very specific subset of technologies that are seemingly specifically designed to provide hard counters against American technology and doctrine. If they keep up this pace and the US continues to go as it has been (and in large part with the mentality that you display that nothing they are doing is worth a damned) they will be a legitimate threat to our air and naval systems within a decade.

P.S. – If their gun system operates anything at all like American Phalanx CIWS (though preferably more reliable given how often they break down), then an AGM-88 isn't going to do much good.

P.S. – If their gun system operates anything at all like American Phalanx CIWS (though preferably more reliable given how often they break down), then an AGM-88 isn't going to do much good.

That assumes the radars aren't being jammed in the first place.

Their radars are based on 1980s/90s Western and compromised Russian systems. They are a follower in these systems and not a leader unlike the West.

One of the reasons they want additional Russian gear is radar tech. And Russian radares are not as advanced as Western ones.

they will be a legitimate threat to our air and naval systems within a decade.

Not in a decade. Their production and system induction rates are quite slow.

And a lot of the systems displayed at these shows are never even introduced into service and some are export grade only.

The PLA's main fighter is still a MiG-21 knock off and its main tank is still a Type 59 (T-54 knock off).

One of the main ways they've been expanding "proportion of modern equipment" is wholesale gutting of the military. They had 3,000 fighters in 1990, all of which were obsolete. Their fighter fleet is now 30% modern but they gutted it by half to about 1,500.

They've done the same in the Ground Forces.

Like Russia, China has been modernizing its armed forces in the 21st century to more resemble the professional and well equipped forces of the US and NATO. The quantity over quality air force and conscript/peasant army of old is no more. While China has made tremendous progress, most observers surmise that it would be at least two to three decades before China can attain parity with the US.

The fact that China is developing A2/AD capability specifically geared towards countering American power projection in her regional waters is troubling, and some pessimistic observers (including the former NSA of the Carter Administration) believe that China's growing military might alone may make collision between US and China inevitable because of what transpired betwen Athens and Sparta aeons ago in what they call the 'Thucydides Trap': link

But, as the article succinctly argues, it need not necessarily be the case if both sides are willing to face new realities and compromise:

Avoiding a clash will take compromise from both America and China, and a willingness to reconsider their security horizons and renegotiate their universe. This difficult adjustment will need the formation of coalitions at home. Rhetorical absolutes, and the hollow vocabulary of 'retreat' and 'leadership', are particularly unsuitable to the nature of the Asia-Pacific, because that region makes sheer dominance difficult. For China, as for the United States, a maritime military balance will make conquest by anyone difficult. While a rising China will be constrained by a neighborhood of wary adversaries, the United States with its debt-deficit problem will be lucky if its unipolarity lasts. This difficult equilibrium is the reality. A milder language, therefore, is needed for America to pick its way through the chaos, and dodge the trap.

28mm Fanatik,

Some very insightful comments there.

Thanks for the very interesting article too! I totally agree with it from my own limited understanding.

One issue about quantity v quality – the US does both quantity and quality.

And if Korean, Taiwanese and Japanese allies are at all reliable, that quantity/quality ratio increases even further.

The US does quantity? In what world do you live in?

Thanks the budget concerns the numbers of whatever-the-hell-gen fighters we're on now (F-22s and 35s) is being kept to a couple of hundred, and meanwhile we're scaling down the rest of our military because we can't afford to maintain it. Most of our frontline weapons systems are aging and should have been replaced a decade ago.

If we got in a serious shooting war with China we'd take casualties and it'd hurt bad, much worse if we actually tried to invade mainland China.

Also, before you crow about how wonderful the US military is, don't forget that wargame where Not-Iraq managed to cripple the US assault force within the first hours just by using smart, low-tech solutions (and liberal applications of anti-ship missiles).

link

The US does quantity? In what world do you live in?

In the real world where the USA has 3,000 tactical fighter jets not a couple of hundred, all of which are modern.

Unlike say China with 1500-ish tactical jets of which 30% are modern and the rest were obsolete in 1975 let alone 2014.

Or Russia with 1500--ish tactical jets, all of which are mainly modern 4th generation but most have not had any upgrades since 1980s.

Current numbers of 5th generation in US service is 184 F-22s with about 2443 F-35s planned. Total current F-35 orders are 193 (currently in LRIP) with about 100 jets delivered but they've not yet hit operational capability.

Current numbers of 5th generation in Chinese and Russian services is 0.

Current total number of stealth fighters owned by China and Russia is a grand total of 11 – all prototypes (5 T-50, 1 FC-31, 5 J-20). Thatincludes a Russian T-50 damaged in a fire.

And that's just looking at fighters. Throw in carriers, modern destroyer/cruisers, advanced tanks etc etc etc.

So yes the USA does quantity and quality.

Most of our frontline weapons systems are aging and should have been replaced a decade ago.

Most the Chinese ones should've been out of service in 1975 and most of the Russians ones should also have been replaced a decade ago and didn't get any mid life upgrades.

Instead some are getting an upgrade to effectively 1990s tech now.

Oh and as for your excercise, note restrictions imposed on US forces:

operators of the Blue naval simulation were directed incorrectly to turn off all self-defense capabilities by a senior Naval Officer who was not in command of the simulated forces nor current in the scenario

So basically they sat there and took it.

Highly unrealistic especially as an Israeli corvette suffered a hit in real life due to no self defence measures being switched on.

I suspect USN types were observing this.

And small boats don't work in a Senkaku kind of environment. Persian Gulf is not exactly a great naval battlefield and is extremely congested and maneouvre limited.

Russia's procurement policies make sense when looked at through the lens of Russian strategy. Basically, their conventional military doesn't need to be cutting edge to meet their obligations.

They have only 2 peer competitors, the US and China. If either were to attempt an invasion, Russia would respond with nukes. Which is why their ballistic missiles are the best on the planet and their Strategic Rocket Forces are well-maintained.

Their most common conventional deployments are therefore either COIN work or fighting some 3rd-teir regional power. For these purposes, T-72s and MiG-29s in sufficient quantities are nearly as effective but cost only a fraction of cutting-edge designs.

That said, they still need to keep their Military-Industrial Complex employed, because that sort of technical know-how is easily lost and takes decades to recover. So they constantly have guys producing prototype systems. When they finally work out enough of the problems and get the costs down some, they bring enough of them into service to be of potential tactical/operational use.

It would be a complete waste of resources for Russia to procure 1,000 Su-35s. What would they ever use them for?

I think that we need to dispel notions that China is on-par with Russia's rearming, the reality is that China is on a faster, better funded and managed mission to rearm with specific intent on defeating the USA at sea.

It is unknown how much China really spends, but general estimates that it is around 3X what is actually declared. This puts their expenditure at over half what the USA spends. While still half the USA budget, they aren't needing to put bases over the world, expend munitions in the Middle East, nor keep expensive carrier battlegroups afloat. I would imagine that their troops eat cheaper than American GIs.

I read in 'Modern Warfare' magazine a projection that China's fighter fleet should be comprised of 85% 4th-generation jets (J-11's and J-10's) by 2033, but that due to cost the overall number of fighters isn't expected to drastically increase.

The same article also said that China plans to have no more than one squadron of J-20 stealth fighters totaling 15 – 20 aircraft by 2025, again due to their prohibitive cost.

I read in 'Modern Warfare' magazine a projection that China's fighter fleet should be comprised of 85% 4th-generation jets (J-11's and J-10's) by 2033,

Completely reasonable IMO.

By 2033 US military will be 70-80% 5th generation F-35 and F-22. Only older 4th generation in service will be F/A-18E/F (currently 540-ish in service) and F-15E (currently 217 in service).

but that due to cost the overall number of fighters isn't expected to drastically increase.

In fact the numbers will come down. A J-7 regiment has 42 aircraft whereas a Flanker/J-10 one has 24-28. The number of regiments is in decline too and has been since early 1990s.

So if we assume they keep the current numbers of regiments and assume replacement rate of 24-28 aircraft, that will mean 500+ J-7s will become 290-330 J-10/Flanker.

Same can apply to Q-5 regiments. Not sure about J-8 Finback regiments but given production batches tend to match regiments, I suspect they're already at 24-28 aircraft level.

The same article also said that China plans to have no more than one squadron of J-20 stealth fighters totaling 15 – 20 aircraft by 2025, again due to their prohibitive cost.

From what I've read, a fair assessment too.

By 2025 F-35 is at full operational capability and there will be several hundred in service together with about 180 F-22s.

Russia's procurement policies make sense when looked at through the lens of Russian strategy. Basically, their conventional military doesn't need to be cutting edge to meet their obligations.

Actually it doesn't make sense because:

1. There's an awful lot of old equipment that needs to be r
replaced.

And unlike older US equipment, it's not been upgraded or even maintained that well.

The Navy has not received a single new major surface combatant in decades. Ships built have had issues or have not been to any quality so have not been accepted into service.

2. Georgia showed massive deficiencies in every field of military art with the Navy the only service that displayed any level of reasonable competence.

If the Georgians themselves were even slightly more competent, it would've been a much harder slog for the Russians.

Luckily for the Russians, the only semi-capable Georgian brigade was deployed to Iraq and most of their IADS was packed away in storage.

3. They need to redevelop their industrial capabilty. Russia cannot make effective UAVs, sniper rifles, parachutes, helicopter engines (made in Ukraine), military electronics or amphibious ships.

It is questionable whether they can manufacture new tank designs or new fighter designs ala T-50.

There's an awful lot of old equipment that needs to be
replaced.

1. The Russian Air Force has modernization programs underway. Unless the airframes are totally shot, this is sufficient for the purposes of bombing/fighting their lesser neighbors.

2. The Russian Navy has brand new multirole frigates under construction. Sufficient to escort their 1 carrier and 2 new French LHDs. They don't need a bunch of destroyers and missile cruisers because they aren't trying to battle the US Navy in the North Atlantic anymore.

3. 80's-era T-72s kill Georgians and Ukrainians just as effectively as T-90s.

It is questionable whether they can manufacture new tank designs or new fighter designs ala T-50.

The new Armata vehicle family should be shown at the 2015 Victory Parade. It sounds like an FCS-style project so it will be interesting to see if the Russians pull it off.

Indian complaints of poor quality control on the T-50 are worrisome but it's not like the F-22 and F-35 had no teething issues when there were only 5 birds built…

2. The Russian Navy has brand new multirole frigates under construction. Sufficient to escort their 1 carrier and 2 new French LHDs. They don't need a bunch of destroyers and missile cruisers because they aren't trying to battle the US Navy in the North Atlantic anymore.

So why are they working hard at keeping their Slavas and Kirov cruisers in service?

Why are they refitting at least one more Kirov and maybe even a third one that was meant to be scrapped (Admiral Lazarev)?

Why are they planning a new 10,000ton destroyer class?

You don't need 11,000 ton cruisers and 28,000 ton battlecruisers to beat up small, mainly landlocked neighbours!

Also frigate and destroyer and even cruiser are interchangeable in the 21st century. One navy's destroyer is another's cruiser and one's navy frigate is another destroyer.

Those new frigates you mention should've already been in service but a myriad of problems have prevented them being accepted into service.

Russian naval industrial issues were best exemplified by their inability to deliver a Kiev class carrier to Indians. The ship was only commissioned 5 years late! This is the INS Vikramaditya.

3. 80's-era T-72s kill Georgians and Ukrainians just as effectively as T-90s

Except old gear is increasingly maintenance and spares intensive. They had massive problems with vehicle breakdowns in Georgia.

The new Armata vehicle family should be shown at the 2015 Victory Parade. It sounds like an FCS-style project so it will be interesting to see if the Russians pull it off.

There's already news the Russians think it's getting too expensive.

And they've already cancelled T-95 and stopped T-90 orders.

Indian complaints of poor quality control on the T-50 are worrisome but it's not like the F-22 and F-35 had no teething issues when there were only 5 birds built…

Actually the big question on everyone's mind is whether Russia will be able to build it to 5th generation spec. Basically it's a question of industrial capability and the Russian aerospace industry pretty much spent the 1990s and early 2000s in dormancy.

The Indians haven't just complained about T-50 but have also had issues with Su-30s including 18 additional Su-30Ks that they returned to the Russians and that the Russians are struggling to find a buyer for (Angola has now been quoted as a potential buyer).

The Algerians also rejected 34 MiG-29SMTs on grounds of poor build quality. Those jets went to the RuAF and the Algerians brought additional Su-30MKAs.

It's evident that the Russians are incapable of producing even 4th generation jets to a decent standard. 5th generation is a whole lot more complicated especially if you want any stealth features or advanced avionics capability.