"Will China Fill the Skies With Stealth Jets?" Topic

" China is one step closer to selling stealth jets to militaries around world, now that the latest copy of China's newest stealth fighter has reportedly flown for the first time. The debut of FC-31 number two brings China closer to being an exporter of radar-evading warplanes—and draws the United States closer to, perhaps some day, facing Chinese-made stealth fighters in combat.

That could negate one of America's main advantages in aerial combat—its lopsided technological superiority over most of the foreign air arms it faces in wartime.

Chinese military websites began circulating grainy videos and images of the second FC-31 in flight apparently over the city of Shenyang in northeastern China on Dec. 23…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Let's not forget they did not spend $400 USD billion developing it either. That money saved goes a long way to buying planes. We could have close to 4000 F-35's for that much.

If they are all stealth … who would know !

You can save a lot when you steal other people's technology, instead of developing it from scratch, on your own.

So… The Chinese have developed a wunder jet that's the equivalent of our 12 year old F-22 (or so some say; that's debatable). And have a whooping total of 2 (and those are development AC). Excuse me if I'm NOT impressed….

No, the Chinese have two Wunderjets that are the equivalent of the X35 (maybe), and are about as far away from production.

Legion 4 beat me to it.

So… The Chinese have developed a wunder jet that's the equivalent of our 12 year old F-22 (or so some say; that's debatable). And have a whooping total of 2 (and those are development AC). Excuse me if I'm NOT impressed….

No, the Chinese have two Wunderjets that are the equivalent of the X35 (maybe), and are about as far away from production.

First flight for the X-35 was 2000. IOC for the F-35B was 2015. 15-year turn-around time. Let's compare this to Chinese fighter developments:

- The J-10 was 7 years from first flight (1998) to IOC (2005).

-The article points out a 7-year turn-around time for the J-20. Wiki claims first flight in 2011, so that would be only 5 years, as J-20s were spotted in service at the of 2016. There were only 6-8 prototype tail numbers identified before that, roughly 2 per year. Note that they are pretty much on schedule with even some early Western estimates of their operational readiness: 2012 article ( link )

-It's reasonable to assume a similar development time for the FC-31, which would give it a potential IOC of 2019, and 2 prototypes per year would keep with the production and testing schedule seen with the J-20.

I'd say the biggest limitation of these aircraft is their potential cost. Likely customers can barely afford high-spec Flankers and I doubt the FC-31 will be cheaper than a Su-35. But anyone that DOES field 1-2 squadrons of them will cause a serious re-assessment of OPLANS for air campaigns/no-fly zones/JFEO, which all rely on copious allocations of 4th-gen birds to shape the battlespace.

It isn't just about the planes though, especially for export models. It's also about training, radars, missile systems, maintenance and spares.

Re: maintenance and spares, all I can say is …"Not enough info."

Re: missiles..we know they are moving fast on their new PL-15, which APPEARS to offer superior performance to our current crop of AMRAAMs. I wouldn't be surprised if they are export-ready at the same time as FC-31s.

Re: radars. China has UHF/VHF radars supposedly capable of detecting stealth aircraft ( link ). Some of these are already available for export.

As always, training and systems integration with C2 processes is the real kicker. But even a small number of poorly-integrated systems are a threat. A pair of FC-31s with PL-15s as "leakers" anywhere near your CAS stack or Tanker Track is going to stymie your aviation operations. Combined with massed artillery, and a ground counter-attack, and a cyber attack on our C2 network….yeah, that could lead to a serious operational setback or defeat. And some of our adversaries DO know how to mass various warfighting functions at a culminating point like this.

I just can't see a Chinese stealth fighter.

The Chinese are hoping that radar can't see them either.

The stealth jets will all be grounded within a month of deployment Maintaining complicated machinery at a development site is easy compared to doing it in the field by recently trained techies The pollution levels alone will be bad enough to require frequent engine changes to replace damaged parts

My point is we have spent $400 USD billion and now the Chinese will have a comparable type of aircraft in a few years at a fraction of our costs. I'm sure we can be looking at countries like Iran and maybe Saudi Arabia being interested in the FC-31. This could cause issues in the Gulf if Iran gets the aircraft.

One of their airports was recently closed for a number of days, due to bad visibility from heavy smog, so that could be a concern too, through theoretically blind landing systems should be able to cope with that.

Commercial jets are supposed to have those too though, so, it could still make landings dicey.

The best countermeasure is probably the sub-launched, preemptive, cruise missile strike on teir airbases, if things long like they are going south.

Iran can't afford 4th gen planes much less anything more advanced. If they want to waste money on buying a small fleet of FC-31's (which is all they can afford) plus the cost of flying and maintaining such a fleet then more power to them because it's going to a pitifully small fleet and money unwisely spent given their other priorities.

As for the Saudis, let them. They just might go for the "poor man's F-35" if they can't get the real thing.

The best countermeasure is probably the sub-launched, preemptive, cruise missile strike

I'd imagine such an act would be "A day that would live in infamy" for the Chinese.

Superior US technology should give America the edge but I'm reminded how the Americans spent their way to victory against the bankrupt Soviets in the Cold War. If the Chinese could build weaponry of a reasonable quality but at huge quantities it may prove difficult to meet the financial requirements to oppose it.

As nearly always, diplomacy, negotiation, win-win will be the best way to co-exist with China.

Starting a preemptive war with China would be monumentally unwise. The US could not realistically win such a struggle without going nuclear and killing hundreds of millions of Chinese. Then the bloody-minded resolve that such an attack would create in China to get revenge would mobilise a sleeping giant, Admiral Yamamako. Ochoin's counsel is a much wiser, if less vainglorious, approach. Talk and negotiation is better than extinction.

An interesting video here:

youtu.be/J3VqF2dXje0

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

A different take on the US-China tensions here:

youtu.be/6StL-AJLDwY

Rod Robertson.

As nearly always, diplomacy, negotiation, win-win will be the best way to co-exist with China.

The problem is, I'm not sure the current powers-that-be in China believe in Win-Win.

Not to mention things like territorial claims that are by definition win-lose situations.

Lion in the Stars:

China wants peace and prosperity, not war. What commentators here on TMP seem to ignore is that the US is aggressively trying to militarily encircle China both by land and by sea. The Air-Sea Battle doctrine of the US clearly lays out the US willingness/determination to contain China by military means. The Chinese business bloc does feel that trade and engagement is a win-win strategy. It is the US foreign policy which sees the win-win policy as too winning for Chinese interests and is determined to squeeze China.

link

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

It would be entirely naïve to place any blind trust with the Chinese (or indeed, any great power: the US or Russia). Behind any rhetoric is pure self-interest.
China's actions in the South China Sea are naked aggression & her ambition to take her place as a great power is obvious (&, of course, given her size, understandable). I also think any weakness towards her would have a "Chamberlain Effect" & is not to be countenanced. Military, economic & diplomatic measures are all needed.

It will all be about how this is managed. Rod's reference to allowing Chinese prosperity is not misplaced. The US has never been very adept at managing diplomatic solutions (indeed, I think "maladroit" is not too harsh a description) but for a positive outcome this is where the answer chiefly lies.

I would never confuse some of the esteemed members of TMP with high level American leadership but nonetheless, mention of a "pre-emptive strike" (a dubiously legal & almost certainly strategical disaster) is the type of thing to persuade the Chinese to military solutions. Equally, cozing up to Russia & playing games with Taiwan are almost bound to worsen rather than solve any tensions.

I am, sadly, reminded of America's highly successful steps towards inadvertently pushing Japan to war in 1941. I hope that history won't repeat itself with China.

China wants peace and prosperity, not war

Yes, but they also want peace and prosperity under Chinese terms.

Thus they took over the South China Sea.

Thus they have brought massive political influence amongst traditional US allies like Thailand and Australia and now even the Philippines.

Thus they're trying to take over the Senkakus.

Seems to me the US might need to respond in something other than a peaceful and prosperous manner.

I actually think a potential solution would be for the US to take over those new islands on grounds they're illegal constructions, deport all the Chinese and then hand the islands over to UN control.

I doubt China would go to war over it.

And in Australia we need to ban Chinese political donations. Actually we need to ban all foreign political donations.

Alas Australia's corrupted political class isn't too keen on this and firms and individuals associated with the Chinese Community Party remain the country's biggest political donors.

This is why Australia leased a strategic port to the Chinese and why we've been sabotaging attempts to get USMC rotated in Australia. It's also why prominent Australian political identities including former PM, Paul Keating are pushing to abandon the US alliance and forge closer ties with PRC.

We need to reduce or remove Chinese power before they get too strong and Asia becomes a set of Chinese vassal states.

War may be needed just like it was in 1941 to stop Japanese expansionism.

Deadles wrote:

I actually think a potential solution would be for the US to take over those new islands on grounds they're illegal constructions, deport all the Chinese and then hand the islands over to UN control.

Okay, but you'll be personally the first to land and disarm the thousands of Chinese soldiers and construction workers stationed on the islands. Then, when you have pacified them, call the USN for aid in transporting the defeated Chinese inhabitants back to the mainland.

Taking over those islands would trigger war. China could not save face if it backed down. And faced with that reality, China would work to solve all its unresolved regional territorial issues in one big blitzkrieg while making sure the US was distracted by having to fight economic upheavals and wars on several fronts. A military response is not a good solution.

Rod Robertson.

How else do you stop an increasingly belligerent PRC?

Is the US just gonna sit back and let them create a new version of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere?

China is still weak militarily compared to the USA and in terms of nuclear deterrent.

If they won't adhere to the global rules order, then they need to be stopped before they're too powerful.

You'd think we would've learned from the German fiasco of the 1930s.

So your solution is to trigger WWIII? And even China's small nuclear force is more than sufficient to thoroughly wreck the US (and Russia). And the aftermath of the inevitable (but thoroughly necessary) US nuclear response would be horrific on a worldwide level.

Yeah, real good idea, that…

Yes, but they also want peace and prosperity under Chinese terms.

Can't the same be said of the West?

Thus they took over the South China Sea.

80%+ of the shipping traffic through the SCS either goes to or comes from a Chinese port. They know as well as we do that their resource import lifeline is a serious strategic vulnerability.

Is the US just gonna sit back and let them create a new version of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere?

I think China has learned the lesson that it's easier to buy influence than it is to use civilians for bayonet practice and sex slaves.

If they won't adhere to the global rules order, then they need to be stopped before they're too powerful.

"Global" rules order, or "Western central bankers" rules order? Is it a "global" order when half the world's population opposes it? Just Google "BRICS dollar hegemony" and take it from there…

Deadles wrote:

How else do you stop an increasingly belligerent PRC?

Increasingly belligerent? The USA is encircling China, not the other way around. The Chinese and her neighbours should be negotiating the terms by which the Chinese regional super-power asserts itself and the US should be participating in that diplomacy. China is rising, that's a fact. Short of pan-Pacific war, that fact will not change. The best thing to do is to allow that change to occur gradually and in an orderly fashion in such a way as to ensure China guarantees the sovreignity of her neighbours and does not interfere with the free movement of non-military shipping.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

The Chinese is simply doing what every empire had done throughout history. With her newfound "superpower" status she seeks her own sphere-of-influence beyond her borders. The US sees this as a threat because China could eventually eclipse us as no. 1.

It is this fear that underpins Graham Allison's theory of "The Thucydides Trap."

Wow, Deadles. Corrupt politicians, predatory Chinese empire builders, igniting WW3. We certainly live in different worlds.

No one expects the Chinese to act through altruism or high-minded idealism. As I indicated above, the approach *must* be hard-headed but avoiding escalation & needless confrontation. Offer the benefits & avoid trying to isolate.

"Win-win" isn't a preferred goal but really the only one.

Can't the same be said of the West?

"Global" rules order, or "Western central bankers" rules order? Is it a "global" order when half the world's population opposes it? Just Google "BRICS dollar hegemony" and take it from there…

Whatever the faults of the Western systems are, it has certainly proven to be a far better system of human organisation and improving human lives than any other one.

Last time I checked democracy, human rights, social safety nets etc etc are not something created or even espoused by the Chinese, the Russians, the Arabs or anyone else.

Wow, Deadles. Corrupt politicians, predatory Chinese empire builders, igniting WW3. We certainly live in different worlds.

As in I pay attention to these things? You don't have to dig much to see it happening. The corrupt politicians being brought by China was prominent news in Australia last year. As was island building and ASEAN being cowed (including in a very vocal manner the Philippines).

Alas nothing was done to stop this happening in the future – both sides of parliament are opposed to stopping Chinese political donations.

And sorry Americans but Australia will not be ally you will need if you ever go to war with China. Our political class is virtually brought by China.

And as stated prominent Aussie politicians (including ex-PM) are advocating ditching the US-Australia alliance.

Disgusting treason.

No one expects the Chinese to act through altruism or high-minded idealism. As I indicated above, the approach *must* be hard-headed but avoiding escalation & needless confrontation. Offer the benefits & avoid trying to isolate.

They offered the benefits to China (and Russia), just like they did South Korea, Japan, Singapore etc.

And unlike those countries which became reasonable international citizens (and democratic in 2 out of 3 cases and an extremely benevolent authoritarian state in Singapore), China just exploited it and is now bullying smaller neighbours and working on empire building at the expense of everyone else.

I used to think the Chinese were going to become another Japan or South Korea – I was very, very wrong.

Arabs did the same – they pretend to be allies whilst funding fundamentalism across the world, including terrorism.

Increasingly belligerent? The USA is encircling China, not the other way around. The Chinese and her neighbours should be negotiating the terms by which the Chinese regional super-power asserts itself and the US should be participating in that diplomacy. China is rising, that's a fact. Short of pan-Pacific war, that fact will not change. The best thing to do is to allow that change to occur gradually and in an orderly fashion in such a way as to ensure China guarantees the sovreignity of her neighbours and does not interfere with the free movement of non-military shipping.

1. The Asian Pivot is a failure. The Americans were too half hearted about it and have virtually not done anything.

At least one prominent US Admiral and head of US Pacific command, Harry Harris, has been warning the world about Chinese intentions but they are falling on deaf ears due to the politicians being brought by Chinese money or just being gutless.

2. The Chinese are increasingly belligerent. Every time we let them get away with something they get emboldened (like the Russians and the Arabs). Whole moronic "if I play nice, they'll play nice" concept is wishful thinking.

Have the Chinese been respecting the sovereignty of her neighbours – I don't know if ramming fishing ships, island building, sabre rattling etc etc count as respecting one's neighbours.

4. China has a strategy called "Belt and Road" or "One Belt, One Road." It involves a whole heap of influence building tactics as well as buying up copious amounts of foreign infrastructure such as ports to strengthen Chinese control of key assets around the world.

Frankly I don't want myself or my family to live in a Chinese puppet state.

Have we learned nothing from the 1930s?!?

Re; the above post. For the benefit of American readers, apart from other fallacies, Australia is not ripe to fall to the Chinese, OZ politicians are not traitors & the vast majority of the population are very comfortable with the US-OZ alliance.

As always on this Board, people's opinions may not have any close resemblance to the facts. Xenophobia has a presence in OZ politics but it is not the driving force for the mainstream parties.

BTW it is not impossible Australia could provide a role as facilitator between her chief ally (the US) & her chief trading partner (China). A statesmanlike PM could undertake this to alleviate tensions in the region. This would be to the advantage of everyone, especially OZ.

Ochoin, do you really not read any news?

Have you heard of Bob Karr, Sam Dastyari or Andrew Robb (all current or ex parliamentarians who have benefitted from links with the Chinese communists)?

Have you read comments against the US-Australia alliance by former PM Paul Keating or current senior Labor senator Penny Wong?

Are you aware that some of the biggest political donors to both parties in Australia are Chinese with links to the PRC Communist Party and in some case Chinese intelligence community?

Are you aware Australia leased a strategic port to China and after that an ex-trade minister (Andrew Robb) got a job running it?

Are you aware the Americans were not alerted to this lease and expressed shock that it went through?

Are you aware there are deep divisions in the Australian Chinese community between pro- and anti-Beijing factions? This included an attempt to run concerts celebrating Mao's life in Sydney and Melbourne (cancelled due to "security concerns" ie protests from anti-Beijing Chinese).

Yes, the people of Australia support the US-Australian alliance. The ruling elite on the other hand are of questionable loyalty.

There's no xenophobia here – the Chinese have been contributing to Australia since the 19th century.

The issue in question is the People's Republic of China, not the Chinese people or other Chinese dominated countries ala Taiwan or Singapore.

So don't spin a racist argument when there isn't one.

----

I know this is political talk but the Chinese are masters of what the West calls hybrid warfare. In the Chinese example, it includes not just military or paramilitary tactics as in South China Sea but also economic, diplomatic and political influence creation.

So using South China Sea for example:

- Paramilitary – use Coast Guard type units to keep other countries away (as opposed to Navy which could be seen as aggression).

Use these to protect island building programs

- Military – use new islands as bases for missiles and aircraft to defend new acquisitions.

- Economic – offer economic sticks and carrots to countries that might be opposed to takeover of SCS on various grounds (eg ASEAN countries but also Australia and even USA).

- Political – buy influence in local political circles to limit political opposition.

END RESULT: China has effectively cemented territorial expansion in South China Sea and taken over an extremely important maritime route.

I suspect the next target will be the Senkakus. Hopefully US will change course on China and recognise them for the threat they pose to democracy and regional stability.

I read (& watch) news but clearly I don't credit certain political party broadcasts.I could cherry-pick too. But what's the point?
The above reads (actually sounds) like the spoutings you sometimes hear on TV lately. Still: ill informed, minority views, thank goodness.

The Chinese aren't acting any differently to the Russians….oops, that's wrong. They're far more restrained.

I never mentioned racism. Now Xenophobia is related but still different. That seems to fit the anti-Chinese hysteria quite well. Weren't you advocating war a few posts ago?

The ruling elite on the other hand are of questionable loyalty.

Changing font & colour doesn't change the fact this is absurd. I think you'd have to be a red-haired fish & chip seller to think this.

I love how you just ignore actual statements made by these people or ignore actual events. They're not minority views (not unless Australian Electoral Corporation, Australian Broadcasting Commission and just about every major newspaper in the country are ill informed, minority views).

Are you refuting that Chinese firms were paying Dastyari's bills, that ex-Trade Minister Andrew Robb got a job with a Chinese managed company after his party leased them Darwin Port, that Rob Carr doesn't work for Chinese think tank, that Penny Wong and Paul Keating said we needed to distance ourselves from US and get closer to Asia after last US election.

Or refuting openly disclosed information about political donations?

Are you refuting that China ignored the Permanent Court of Arbitration's ruling on the South China Sea?

Are you refuting that China built islands in disputed seas and then militarised them?

Are you refuting that Australia only gave a mild statement regarding the PCA's ruling and has so far refused to engage in Freedom of Navigation naval deployments (though more nationalist minded politicians are pushing for this to happen).

Chinese aren't more restrained than the Russians, they're just rather more sly and cunning than the Russians (or the West).

No one expects the Chinese to act through altruism or high-minded idealism. As I indicated above, the approach *must* be hard-headed but avoiding escalation & needless confrontation. Offer the benefits & avoid trying to isolate.

"Win-win" isn't a preferred goal but really the only one.

And again, there are some situations that simply cannot be win-win (like any "discussion" involving territory), and you are assuming that the current and next-generation Chinese leadership actually believes in Win-Win.

What's that, you want to say that Taiwan's claim on the Senkaku Islands being dropped in exchange for guaranteed fishing rights is "win-win"? Not really. Japan can still kick the Taiwanese out later, and still has all the mineral rights. Though if you do it right, oil rigs sorta act like small reefs, so you can increase local fish populations. But you gotta avoid overfishing.

Deadles:

link

sly and cunning

Are they inscrutable as well?

The United States needs to focus its foreign and military policy on several specific objectives:

The US must work to avoid war or overt military confrontation with China for the next two decades at a minimum.

The US must work at revitalizing and growing the American domestic economy and implementing fair but progressive tax policies to sustain its asymmetric economic advantages and allow it to remain in a dominant global economic, military and political position with respect to China. It must move to fetter highly mobile global capital to serve its interests by implementing capital mobility controls and electronic transfer taxes.

The US must adopt strict and enforceable laws and regulations barring foreign lobbying and foreign political contributions from skewing US policy in favour of China.

The US must revive and enforce a technology-control regime with U.S. allies to prevent China from acquiring advanced military and strategic capabilities at a fraction of the cost which the US has spent developing them. Moreover the US must move away from depending on its enormously expensive technological edge in economic and military matters and invest in more modest systems and technologies for the bulk of its economic and military infrastructure.

The US should be reworking existing and creating new preferential trading arrangements among U.S. friends and allies which consciously exclude China. This will bolster the US economy while starving China from some growth opportunities and thus allow the US to remain the dominant state as it exercises military, economic and political power.

The US should be working to enhance the economic and military capacities of reliable, long-term US allies and friends on China's periphery. At the same time it should be lending its political weight to the states surrounding China to support their very real concerns with Chinese regional ascendancy while at the same time allowing China some limited room to improve its influence and power in the region. This second approach is necessary to buy time for the US to rebuild its dominance and will hopefully stop China from feeling itself too cornered and resorting to military solutions rather than diplomatic and economic ones.

The US must spend time, effort but less money re-engineering and improving the capabilities of U.S. military forces to effectively project power in the Asia-Pacific region without out bankrupting the US state.

These objectives must be accomplished while continuing to work cooperatively with China in ways that are consistent with U.S. national interests and long-term strength in the Asia-Pacific region. Military adventure and War are not viable options.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Interesting program, Rod.

I think, on the whole, quite balanced. You do mention Chinese interference in US political affairs, so I'd add concerns over manipulating IT such as the Russians did in the last US election. Clearly, many have already expressed concerns over "cyber war".

I'm not going to prevaricate & will say that I hope, in any tussle for dominance, the US comes out on top. With cultural affinities and a preference for democracy, how could I do otherwise. Anything short of war seems a winning strategy.

Rod, I think you should send that post to some of the US government agencies, etc., … But I'm betting some in the US leadership knows all that though …

IMO, any real conflicts between the PRC or even Russia vs. the USA is pretty remote. They are all the big dawgs, and they know it.

They are all the big dawgs, and they know it.

Just growling at each other, Ralph? I hope you're right.

Whatever the faults of the Western systems are, it has certainly proven to be a far better system of human organisation and improving human lives than any other one.

Last time I checked democracy, human rights, social safety nets etc etc are not something created or even espoused by the Chinese, the Russians, the Arabs or anyone else.

I would argue that several VERY significant factors in the West's current high standard of living can be de-coupled from "democracy and human rights". Namely:
1. Education systems based around the Socratic method.
2. Reaching the Industrial Age first (and largely doing so WITHOUT democracy).
3. The USA's overabundance of natural resources and relative geographic isolation from Europe's conflicts enabled a giant economy to flourish.
4. WW1/WW2 wrecked the economy of every competing power. Then the US nursed the rest of the West back to health in its image.

I would also argue that single-party states with capitalism are shaping up as a reasonably successful alternative model. Singapore and South Korea, in particular, while notional democracies, have had strong authoritarian governments (Korea was virtually a dictatorship until the mid-80's, and Singapore was dominated by the same political party for decades).

Unfortunately we don't have any proper "lab conditions" to do controlled studies for national economics and social science (no matter how much soft scientists might argue to the contrary), so the jury is still out.

Not all democracies have to be "liberal" democracies. There are historical, social and cultural factors that argue against the globalist liberal democratic model presented by the US and western Europe.

Indeed …