WaPo hit piece on China

[Shroom Man 777]

The only reason China's "piracy" or whatever is so outrageous to folks is because they're doing it on such a scale, and seeing such success, that they're actually catching up with the rest of the world at a very fast pace. They are gaining little by little, and that's not a pleasant thought for these folks, so they like to make themselves feel better by ignoring these and pointing out what shortcomings the Chinese still have so they can sneer at this and make themselves feel better despite their outrage of China not "knowing its place" in the world. They're doing what any other country would do in their position.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Bullshit. All the major car brands have factories in China, all the major phone brands have the same. In defense, Russia is selling stuff to China without many issues about copying. There are a few incidents, but they can't change the fact EVERYONE is cooperating with China.

These are industries where the technology is pretty common place. How about the upper hand of high tech? Surely you have also heard of the new laws China is doling out demanding companies to share the technology with local companies in exchange with doing business with the Chinese government? That forms the bulk of the outroar right now and it is subjected to heavy wrangling between the United States, the EU and China.

And Russia? During the collapse in the 90s, they were even desperate enough for money that they were willing to work with just about anyone to get some money, even sensitive stuff like stealth. They are a bit more careful now however.

Hell, China is making a cheap Mercedes clone WITH the blessing of Daimler AG, who owns part of the company which pirated the design.

They own part of the company. They can do what they want. And honestly, what's so fantastical about car technology?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The only reason China's "piracy" or whatever is so outrageous to folks is because they're doing it on such a scale, and seeing such success, that they're actually catching up with the rest of the world at a very fast pace. They are gaining little by little, and that's not a pleasant thought for these folks, so they like to make themselves feel better by ignoring these and pointing out what shortcomings the Chinese still have so they can sneer at this and make themselves feel better despite their outrage of China not "knowing its place" in the world. They're doing what any other country would do in their position.

Yes, but unlike China, they had to invest their money into it, while the Chinese spent relatively little and just going off pirating it cheaply.

[Straha]

Shep, if you are going to make a comment on Asian arms purchases, at least know the geopolitics. India would never ever buy Chinese arms goods. The nationalistic sentiment doesn't allow it, and the Indians would rather do it themselves.

Don't expect Shep Strange to acknowledge that. That's a fact that would challenge his conclusions, and is therefore irrelevant to the situation at hand. Besides, he has his mentor, the Great SecDef Bobby Mac to follow. Just look at all the different traits he's learned from him:

• Has no real conception of the greater socio-political context, and merely focuses on his own pet issues and projects.
• Ignores what the trained uniformed officers actually want, and instead proscribes them vast remedies to overcome the various "bees in their bonnet" that are skewing their decisions.
• Ignores any and all information that contradicts his own, and relentlessly data mines until he can find something, anything, that he can present as evidence meeting his own thesis.
• Refuses to engage in serious debate on his pet areas of 'expertise' 'knowledge' interest, and only engages in very limited discussion when he does. To others he's just downright dismissive, because he knows best.
• Comes from a field completely unrelated to the military, with only a partial (and self-acquired) knowledge base on the subject, yet acts like he knows far more than anyone who is actually involved in military planning or decision. Because he's the best whiz kid in the room.

Now were I to be horribly cliche I'd make some snide remark about our Strange becoming what he hates the most. Instead I'm just going to refer to the possibility of making such a remark and then go on this rather long excursion, so that everyone gets that that's what I'm saying without actually really saying it. Why? Because I'm post-modern like that (sorry, Sarevok.)

I'm also going to point out that Strange has really proven himself to be what almost all of his critics have said he was. An intellectual paper tiger, without backside or bottom, convinced of his righteousness without ever giving any actual consideration to what he's saying. All hot air and bluster, without any of the depth that comes from real expertise on the subject, substituting for it an absurd, and sickening, moral certainty that defies logic or explanation, and one that he adamantly refuses to defend lest he prove his own shallowness to himself.

Criticism of belligerent jingoism is one thing; saying "oh well why bother trying to tell the difference between weapons on par with what we had thirty years ago and weapons on par with what we had fifteen years ago?" is another matter entirely.

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, but we're not saying that you ought not try to tell the difference between modern weapons systems and those of yore. What we're criticizing is the way that Shep is approaching it. It's not just jingoism, but the mind set of the necessity of matching and keeping pace with China, and the conception that we can know exactly what China is doing with these weapons systems and therefore must respond.

Talking about these weapons systems, like Vympel and Fingolfin are doing, is fine. Even approaching them in a hypothetical way wherein you said, for instance, "Suppose China decided to forcibly intervene in Taiwan, and that the United States wanted to keep China out of Taiwan, how would these weapons change the nature of such a scenario and how could the United States and Taiwan respond?" is alright because it keeps the focus away from the weapons as de facto agents and planted, rather squarely, on the people in charge. When you separate weapons development from this greater context, that's where problems occur.

(As a complete aside, can I just say that this is one of the most agreeable and pleasant discussions I think I've ever had on SD.net. Thank you for this.)

[K. A. Pital]

These are industries where the technology is pretty common place. How about the upper hand of high tech? Surely you have also heard of the new laws China is doling out demanding companies to share the technology with local companies in exchange with doing business with the Chinese government? That forms the bulk of the outroar right now and it is subjected to heavy wrangling between the United States, the EU and China.

So what? China wants easier access to technology it wants to reverse-engineer or copy. It is a subject of debate, but frankly, all companies that have subsidiaries in China or factories there already share tech. What is "upper hand"? Volkswagen or Mercedes offer some of the best automobiles in the world. China makes copies and takes their tech. I see no uproar, neither a desire to move plants out of China.

And Russia? During the collapse in the 90s, they were even desperate enough for money that they were willing to work with just about anyone to get some money, even sensitive stuff like stealth. They are a bit more careful now however.

A bit careful is selling some data on the MiG 5th gen project, selling top MRLS units, S-300 units and discussing possible sales of Su-35? That is "a bit more careful" now? Last thing I heard was Russia refusing to sell Su-33s to China. This ended up with China producing J-11Bs, and Russia being embarassed and losing money. No hissy fits of that nature were made after this incident.

They own part of the company. They can do what they want. And honestly, what's so fantastical about car technology?

What's so fantastical about the Sukhoi family fighters, either? They're not made of nanoclay. It's just planes.

Yes, but unlike China, they had to invest their money into it, while the Chinese spent relatively little and just going off pirating it cheaply.

In return for billions of dollars generated by the transfer and adaptation of foreign technology, Japanese companies paid a relatively modest cumulative sum of only $17 bilion. Amortized over 33 years, Japanese industry, paid on the average only about $500 million per year.

The USSR paid nothing for the U.S. and German technology it copied. The U.S. paid nothing for the German technology it copied.

I am not sure anyone paid anything for the tech they stole and got away with it. China invests money into building plants to produce the equipment. This is the same as other nations which copied foreign technology did. China's success at copying is what is surprising - last time we saw Japan copying everything so successfully, and that was quite a while ago when quite a few modern Chinese cities were still fishing villages. Everybody copies, some just fail hard.

[Uncluttered]

China has already started to develop and market their own IP. Soon, they will have to start enforcing international IP treaties, or risk having the same thing happen to them.

[Sarevok]

I work as a developer of cellphone apps and some of the copying I see China based companies do is astonishing.

Take a phone like Nokia N97. The Chineese will build a phone that externally looks the same. Only instead of Nokia the casing will read NDKIA or something else purposefully misspelt. The GPS, wifi and car zeiss optics and other expensive features will be missing presumably to cut cost. The software inside will look like symbian right down to identical icons. But it is not Nokias Symbian. They made their own firmware and copied as many Symbian features as they can.

I used to dislike this sort of unimaginative copying but recently China cloning process has become innovative. They are starting add their own unique features. Like mutiple sims online at same time, facebook integration, blackberry like email etc.

It is quite clear Chineese designers have a lot of talent. So far they have been copying consumer goods for brand reasons because no one would buy something labelled Huwai or ZTE when placed next to an Apple or HTC. In consumer sector China understands technology well enough to design their own goods. But they make external appearences look like western products on purpose.

[MKSheppard]

I've not moved the goalposts at all - what I've said from the beginning is the same thing I'm saying now - their progress in military modernization is at this stage neither a: particularly impressive or b: particularly threatening.

Not particularly impressive or threatening? As Comrade Stas(i) said, name another country which has come this far, this fast in just 30 years.

If we were talking about India; I'd be inclined to agree with you, as it just seems that DRDO/HAL can't do much without horrible cost overruns, being years late; and they're simply the best advertizement that the Russian Arms Industry has ever come up with.

LOL, a thrust to weight ratio in excess of unity has been a requirement for tactical fighter aircraft since before the 5th generation Shep.

For two reasons -- either for supermanouverability or STOL performance.

These are going away as time passes.

STOL went away pretty early in the F-22/F-23 design as people realized it is better to spend the weight that STOL performance would require on other things that decrease the chance of your airfield getting cratered.

Supermanouverability brought about by a high thrust/weight ratio is also going away -- it's very instructive to look at the saga of all the three US fighters that came about in the US as a result of supermanouverability -- the F-16, F-15 and F-18.

They've steadily gained weight, grown bigger, and no longer have the same T/W ratios they started out with. The same thing also roughly occured with the Su-27 and MiG-29 in the FSU.

It seems that George Spangenberg's basic rule is coming back to the fore.

For those of you who don't know who he is, don't worry. I didn't know until I started researching at the National Archives. Mr Spangenberg was basically the guy in NAVAIR who laid out the requirements and specifications for just about anything the USN had from the late 1940s to 1973 when he retired.

After he retired, he was a big opponent publically of the LWF and VSTOL aircraft programs on these grounds:

The United States fights it's wars over someone else's land. Thus, the enemy has the advantage of GCI and shorter ranges to fight with. Given those two facts, they do not require a large fuel load or a large amount of electronics. As a result, they can always design a better dogfighter than the US, given the same rough technological level.

Therefore, the United States should not attempt to outdo it's potential enemies in the race for manouverability, and focus instead on better fire control radars and longer range missiles.

Cross out 'United States' in the above statement and replace it with 'People's Republic of China'; and then take a look at the PRC's basic concept of the First and Second Island Chains for the defense of China.

The First Island Chain covers Taiwan and most of the South China Sea; a distance of 300-800~ nautical miles.

The Second Island Chain extends past the Phillipines to a distance of about 1,500 nautical miles.

You can get a combat radius of about 400 nautical miles with the present level of technology in something like the F-22; which is good enough to cover Taiwan.

But if you want a combat radius capable of completely covering the First Island Chain and making a good stab at the Second Island Chain, you are going to have to try a different paradigm than the F-22; something more similar to the F-108A Rapier, which would have had a combat radius of a thousand nautical miles.

Of course, air to air refuelling does change this quite a bit; but China is not going to be approaching the kind of tanker spam (400+ airframes) that the USAF has for a very long time.

The US is actually kind of unique in that it can just count on a tanker almost anywhere to extend the radius of it's aircraft.

I think that's much more likely than this no evidence speculation you have literally invented about what the Chinese intentions for the J-20 are.

See above.

If the Chinese want an aircraft capable of covering landings over Taiwan from an airbase about 150 nautical miles inland, they are going to need something with a combat radius of 350 nautical miles on internal fuel.

Why? Because exteral tanks ruin stealth; and they can't count on having a large number of tankers in theater.

The February 1992 SAC for the F-15C gives the combat radius for F-15Cs with internal fuel and 4 x Sparrows as:

235 nautical miles if you cruise out at high altitude (40,000~ ft) and then descend to 10,000 ft and engage in good old fashioned turn and burning, consuming enough fuel to provide 144,000 feet of manouvering energy.

470 nautical miles if you cruise out at high altitude (40,000~ ft) and then fight at 50,000 feet with combat thrust for five minutes.

By the way, the F-108A design mission parameters had the same 'five minute combat thrust' assumption.

The Chinese have their own aeronautical engineers who can come to the same conclusions regarding what they have to do to achieve performance.

We know from photographs that the J-20, while being big is not substantiatively larger (65-70 ft) versus the F-22 (62 feet); so it can't be holding a substantiatively larger amount of internal fuel.

The only way the J-20 could achieve the requirement to cover most of the First Island Chain on internal fuel only is if it's a high altitude cruiser designed to fight at high speeds and altitudes.

And whilst we're talking about high-alpha maneuvers - just what do you think those enormous canard foreplanes are for? Increasing supersonic speed?

Considering the very last F-108 proposals had canards, and that the B-70 had canards...

You don't need to "slavishly copy the F-22" to come to the natural conclusion that a thrust to weight ratio in excess of unity has been a standard for any tactical fighter worth a damn for a while now Shep.

And I keep pointing out that you don't need a T/W in excess of unity to achieve the performance the Chinese are looking for -- long range and high speeds.

You only need T/W in excess of unity if you want to generate massive amounts of manouverability energy at altitudes of 10-15,000 feet; and as I've shown above, doing so cuts your combat radius significantly.

You logic and rationale as you call it is purely wishful thinking, i.e. attributing the best possible outcome (in your personal opinion) to Chinese intentions with their current given technology. There's simply no reason to assume it as the default, no matter how much you insist otherwise.

As I have detailed earlier; the only way they can come close to achieving their strategic goal of defending the First Island chain with their present or near future level of technology is either to:

• Forego supermanouverability in everyday tactical operations.
• Build a tanker fleet to allow larger combat radiuses.

Do you see the Chinese buying 60-70 heavy tankers anytime soon?

"Historically" means very little, as you should know more than anyone. [snip Su-35S stuff]

Hmm, checking around, PAK-FA (T-50) has about 25% of it's empty weight being composites according to Alexander Davydenko, head of Sukhoi OKB.

This compares to:

• F-15E: 2%
• Su-30MKI: 6 to 7%
• Mirage 2000: 7%
• F-18E: 19%
• F-22A: 24%
• T-50: 25%
• Rafale: 26%
• Eurofighter: 40%
• HAL Tejas (LCA): 45%

That's what I'm concerned about regarding PAK-FA's producibility.

It's got a MAJOR leap in composites versus previous mass production efforts by Sukhoi OKB, and given that the total buy (Russian/Indian) is expected to be 500 aircraft; there's a lot of room for problems to be opened up as they translate from the T-50 to a mass production aircraft.

In India? Never.

Um, Vympel, I thought I was a bit clearer on that.

The Russians are banking on the Indians to pay for about 50% of the development costs involved in taking the T-50 and turning it into a production aircraft.

What kind of agreement does Sukhoi have with HAL for one? Something like that could end up limiting export possibilities.

Plus like I mentioned above, there's more than enough room for the development to hit major snarls along the way with contractural disputes between the two parties which would delay PAK-FA's introduction on the export market; opening up a chance for J-20 to make a splash internationally as far as export orders are concerned.

Economic projections are a totally differnet issue from military hardware, which is what we're talking about, no?

Because economic size has no impact on the ability to procure or develop advanced military hardware?

No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

When I think modern strategic bomber, I'm thinking B-1/B-2/Tu-160 (or heck, even Tu-22M), rather than B-52H/Tu-95MS.

Want to know something amusingly funny?

It seems that from the 1990s to early 2000s, there were rumors that the Russians had offered variously the Tu-95MS and Tu-22M3 to the Chinese.

I haven't been following it [the Il-76 saga]. Has the contract been cancelled? Is it being renegotiated? Not sure.

Neither am I. Hence why I tend to discount any possibility of a major Il-476 sale to the Chinese.

Wow, we saw "an intercept". The parameters of which are completely unknown. You can't just assume a viable ABM capability because you saw an intercept Shep.

Considering that the Chinese back in 1998 stated that the FT-2000 (Export version of HQ-9) was under further development towards the goal of an ABM capability...

That's not an answer.

Considering that we're looking into our crystal balls for the next 25+ years; it's more useful to look at the overarching strategic goals for China rather than trying to game up specific conflicts.

(well, except of course Taiwan. That possible conflict is pretty much the 'default' you plan for).

Either Japan or Korea are quite formidable in their own right.

In a way, we have the makings of a new Dreadnought race in how all three Asian Navies ( PLAN / JMSDF IJN / ROKN ) are basically starting from their previous existences as limited focus navies and building up into much more capable forces.

In the case of a war, one can safely assume that military assets will be diverted to where the action is.

You don't need teleportation.

It's about 5,200 nautical miles from the Persian Gulf to the center of the South China Sea. Only SSNs are capable of doing the full power run to arrive on station in seven days. The CVNs while being capable of that performance, have to carry their escorts with them.

The Burkes can only do about 4,000~ nm at 20 knots, meaning that you'll have to refuel at least once from the carrier, so a CVBG from the PG would arrive in about eleven days -- which is a pretty long time as far as modern war is concerned.

The stuff in Pearl would take about 5-7 days to arrive off the coast of Kyushu.

In a way, we've been pretty lucky in our last two major wars because we could spend months building up forces in the region to gain an overwhelming correlation of forces in our favor.

Even if a permament number was kept elsewhere, the Chinese still wouldn't have enought o make up the quantitative and qualitative difference.

About eight Victor III level threat SSNs would seriously unhinge the USN's plans to use the CARRIER SWARM OF DOOM to counter China; given the general decay of organic ASW since the end of the Cold War -- the S-3s are long gone for one.

------------

This next one is a bit of a consolidated thing:

Look, the point I'm making here is that you're being extremely uncritical and praiseworthy about a military about which you have pretty much no solid information apart from what you hear from uncritical and praiseworthy Chinese internet flag wavers jumping up and down everytime they see some of their hardware on whatever state-run media channel they watched the other day.

So you try to shift the goal posts again. Fine.

No, that's what I've been saying from the start.

This sort of ties into Vymp's next reply:

You don't think I'm actually disputing that the vehicles they have now are better than the shit they had before, do you?

Could have fooled me with your first reply back on page 2:

So what? China tries very hard to maintain a high-tech veneer of oooh scary look how tough and modern and awesome we are - but how much of this stuff do they actually have? Do you even know? Does anybody? Do you know if their ZBD-2000s etc are even any good? Should anyone really care that they made an amphibious tank, which is hardly a big deal? And did they build them without help? Unlikely, given their latest IFV design has a (less sophisticated) almost straight copy of KBP Tula's Bakhcha-U turret on them, yes?

Which is kind of funny since like I pointed out, not once was I concentrating on the GRAEPHS or technical-tactical characteristics of the new amphibious vehicles, but on the fact that they're a huge massive upgrade for the PLA's amphibious troops.

Same thing with the ZTZ-96/99. We can argue about how crap or whang it was, but when your previous tank park consisted of lightly modernized T-54 clones with a few oddballs thrown in; it's a big upgrade.

As for the whole ZTZ-99/T-90/Armor wangery, I think we've hashed *that* one out fairly well; so I won't continue into that further.

Source [for FY ERA weight and specs]

Details on the composition of the earlier FY generations and their protection was from JANES reprinting what NORINCO was claiming for their commercial export ERA.

Threat types protected against and brick weight was from a poster I found for FY series ERA -- HERE.

So we know or what? [ZTZ-96A Thermal Sights]

Considering it's being bought at half the rate as prior ZTZ-96 versions; this indicates either a major production problem or a massive increase in price, the kind brought about by a TI imager.

One has nothing to do with the other.

Building a very high temperature gas turbine engine of high output is a hell of a lot more technically demanding than building a diesel engine of moderate (for today) output.

I could employ the same reasoning you just did to say the Chinese should be building P&W/C engines for the Z-10 helicopter, no?

For the Z-10, they are also transitioning from a foreign built engine to a locally produced engine; in this case the WZ-9. While it doesn't have the same level of performance as the foreign engine, it's more than sufficient for the Z-10 to be a massive upgrade over prior armed helicopters in PLA service.

You're not seriously proposing that the US Army could've activate more than 1,600 Abrams if it needed?

Well, we'd first need some sort of existential threat to justify such a massive expansion of the tank park.

By the way, it's a bit darkly hilarious that Clinton's budget cuts actually helped the US Army become a totally modern force by junking all the units that still used the M113 and M60.

[MKSheppard]

Yo, Shep. This "we need to focus on China as our enemy" is more than a little fucked it.

Yo, Straha.

The reason I am for selecting China as Probable Main Enemy No. 1, in much the same vein that Chinese!Shep somewhere is doing the same for the US is that I've seen what happens when the US military loses focus and wanders around doing stupid things.

If you look at the US Military procurement budget of the last 15 years, you'll see that it's dominated by a whole bunch of very stupid ideas -- like spending nearly half a billion dollars each on a 40 knot speedboat that has less firepower than a 1980s FFG, or pretending that heavy armor is obsolete, and we should totally reform the US Army around lightweight combat forces so we can intervene peacekeep around the world.

Things were much less stupid when we had Future Soviet Tank (FST) or the CVN Kremlin to worry about.

That, and the fact that aerospace technology was aimed at ever greater technological leaps which with each step made the chances of us escaping this mudball grow ever more likely. You can't do that when your aerospace sector is centered around pumping out cheap turboprops ideal for COIN.

It's one thing to plan, which I suggest -- so that the present correlation of forces is maintained...or the balance does not get too lopsided.

This does not cause or lead to conflict.

We have a very good example of this kind of thing happening in the past.

Two countries who distrust each other intensely, with a long history of rivalry marred by a war in the past. Both sides' militaries plan intensely against the other, with top military officials proclaming:

"We would as soon fight the British as the Germans."
Admiral William S. Benson; U.S. CNO, 1917.

Planning is a normal part of military operations and procurement.

Aggressive countering, which you seem to think I promote, is flying Mach 3 reconnaisance drones over the Chinese mainland on a regular schedule, with B-52s orbiting just over the horizon off the Chinese coast.

I can't believe you can't tell the difference between the two.

The only way to prevent an inevitable arms race, and nuclear war, (something you claim to want to avoid) is to rethink the way we conceive of China, and reject this fantasy of "knowing" China.

Arms races are good, as they prevent war -- both conventional and nuclear.

It's worth noting that the most devastating war in the Eastern Hemisphere's history started because of a bunch of arms controllers who gave a third rate navy a chance at taking on a first rate navy and prevented anyone from essentially fortifying their various holdings, allowing a bunch of poorly-equipped Japanese SNLF troops to overrun the Pacific in about a month.

The big trick in ruthless militarization is knowing when to spin down things after you've achieved your objectives to avoid bankrupting yourself.

You certainly don't need to approach the North Korean level of super militarization.

Having enough confidence that you can adequately defend yourself kind of tends to make that big red button shrink in importance on all sides.

America having forces that are more than credibly capable of defeating/deterring whatever China can think of makes regional peace more likely and assured; because the US has more options open to them, other than 'send out the B-2s and turn China into a glowing parking lot'.

Likewise, China having a large reasonably modern military makes the Pacific Region more stable, because Beijing doesn't need to lean on it's nuclear sword the way Pakistan does.

By the way Straha -- an interesting study along these lines would be the Islamic Republic of Iran; your area of study.

They've spent a large amount of time under international sanction to develop the Bomb; and spent a very large amount of money on their ballistic missile and nuclear program each year; and for what? Being able to achieve a production rate of a few dozen bombs a year when they finally crack the whole puzzle?

When ironically enough; they could have taken all that money they've blown on their nuclear and missile programs and spent it buying a S-300 battalion or two a year from Russia. Give it a few years and pretty soon Iran has an air defense shield that makes an Israeli attack all but impossible, whether by aircraft or ballistic missile and strong enough to make even the United States blink and take a second thought at penetrating it.

But then again, what do you expect from people who are 'overhauling their education system to eliminate Western influence'..

[Simon_Jester]

Ladies and gentlemen, you heard it here first: Shep proposing that a country would be better served by a non-nuclear defense network than by a nuclear deterrent!


Just to weigh in on the "Iran could buy a powerful conventional air defense" option...

The problem the Iranians face, I think, is that they've concluded that making the US blink at the prospect of having to blast through their defenses by conventional means isn't good enough. We've pretty much made them out to be Public Enemy #1 from the Axis of Evil days up to the present- almost ten years now.

If they assume all that rhetoric actually means something (the way we might assume when Ahmadinejad starts boasting), then it's entirely possible that we would commit the massive level of air power it would take to punch out their air defenses. Even if they had no nuclear program, and even assuming they had the best air defense network in the Third World. It's not like we hesitated all that long to take on Iraq back in '91 when they were the ones with a shitload of air defenses, after all.

Hence the appeal of the nuclear deterrent: greater punch in the event that someone decides they really want to take you down. If the Iranians are worried about being provoked to an extent that they would honestly rather fight a war (and risk national defeat or devastation) than accept the terms of the provocation... their air defense network wouldn't do them all that much good in that situation. The people most likely to offer them such a provocation (I'd guess the US, and not Israel, whatever Ahmadinejad says) could break that defense if they really wanted to. It might cost them a few dozen pilots and some billions of dollars worth of aircraft, sure, but they could do it.

So we might offer the Iranians something they see as an intolerable provocation (say, financing a rebellion against the mullahs), even knowing how tough their air defenses are. We would be far less likely to do so if they had even a modest nuclear deterrent.

Arguably, the entire reason why the US rattles its saber about the Iranian nuclear program is that we know this as well as they do: we don't want them to acquire such a deterrent, because it limits our strategic options for dealing with them.

[K. A. Pital]

Might I slightly disagree about conventional arms races preventing war, Shep?

Edmund: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war in Europe, two superblocs developed: us, the French and the Russians on one side, and the Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two vast opposing armies, each acting as the other's deterrent. That way there could never be a war.
Baldrick: But this is a sort of a war, isn't it, sir?
Edmund: Yes, that's right. You see, there was a tiny flaw in the plan.
George: What was that, sir?
Edmund: It was bollocks.

Nuff said. Conventional arms races do not prevent war. In fact, they encourage war.

[Chaotic Neutral]

If the Chinese want an aircraft capable of covering landings over Taiwan from an airbase about 150 nautical miles inland, they are going to need something with a combat radius of 350 nautical miles on internal fuel.

Why? Because exteral tanks ruin stealth; and they can't count on having a large number of tankers in theater.

Probably a stupid question, but wouldn't it be possible to make a fuel tank about the size of a missile and put it in the missile bay? Sure it would reduce the ammo, but it could be replaced with a missile on shorter range missions.

Am I missing something?

[Ryan Thunder]

Connections to the aircraft's primary fuel supply, for one...

[Chaotic Neutral]

Connections to the aircraft's primary fuel supply, for one...

An extra tube somewhere inside near the missiles?

[Pelranius]

If the Chinese want an aircraft capable of covering landings over Taiwan from an airbase about 150 nautical miles inland, they are going to need something with a combat radius of 350 nautical miles on internal fuel.

Why? Because exteral tanks ruin stealth; and they can't count on having a large number of tankers in theater.

Probably a stupid question, but wouldn't it be possible to make a fuel tank about the size of a missile and put it in the missile bay? Sure it would reduce the ammo, but it could be replaced with a missile on shorter range missions.

Am I missing something?

I doubt that it would be worth it. You probably couldn't cram too much fuel into a AMRAAM or SDB sized fuel tank (the former has a volume of about .08 m3 and the latter has less volume). And then you have to rearrange all sorts of systems to get a fuel line into the weapons bay (the F-22 may have done this, but I don't think it has this feature).

[Andrew J.]

There's a New York Times article about China's military modernization this morning:

China’s Push to Modernize Military Is Bearing Fruit
By MICHAEL WINES and EDWARD WONG
Published: January 5, 2011

BEIJING — Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, on a mission to resuscitate moribund military relations with China, will not arrive in Beijing for talks with the nation’s top military leaders until Sunday. But at an airfield in Chengdu, a metropolis in the nation’s center, China’s military leaders have already rolled out a welcome for him.

It is the J-20, a radar-evading jet fighter that has the same two angled tailfins that are the trademark of the Pentagon’s own stealth fighter, the F-22 Raptor. After years of top-secret development, the jet — China’s first stealth plane — was put through what appear to be preliminary, but also very public, tests this week on the runway of the Aviation Design Institute in Chengdu, a site so open that aircraft enthusiasts often gather there to snap photos.

Some analysts say the timing is no coincidence. “This is their new policy of deterrence,” Andrei Chang, the Hong Kong editor in chief of the Canadian journal Kanwa Defense Weekly, who reported the jet’s tests, said Wednesday. “They want to show the U. S., show Mr. Gates, their muscle.”

These days, there is more muscle to show. A decade of aggressive modernization of China’s once creaky military is beginning to bear fruit, and both the Pentagon and China’s Asian neighbors are increasingly taking notice.

By most accounts, China remains a generation or more behind the United States in military technology, and even further behind in deploying battle-tested versions of its most sophisticated naval and air capabilities. But after years of denials that it has any intention of becoming a peer military power of the United States, it is now unveiling capabilities that suggest that it intends, sooner or later, to be able to challenge American forces in the Pacific.

Besides the J-20, a midair-refuelable, missile-capable jet designed to fly far beyond Chinese borders, the Chinese are reported to be refitting a Soviet-era Ukrainian aircraft carrier — China’s first such power-projecting ship — for deployment as soon as next year.

A spate of news reports allege that construction is already under way in Shanghai on one or more carriers; the military denied a similar report in 2006, but senior military officials have been more outspoken this year about China’s desire to build the big ships. China could launch several carriers by 2020, the Pentagon stated in a 2009 report.

The military’s nuclear deterrent, estimated by experts at no more than 160 warheads, has been redeployed since 2008 onto mobile launchers and advanced submarines that no longer are sitting ducks for attackers. Multiple-warhead missiles are widely presumed to come next. China’s 60-boat submarine fleet, already Asia’s largest, is being refurbished with super-quiet nuclear-powered vessels and a second generation of ballistic-missile-equipped subs.

And a widely anticipated antiship ballistic missile, called a “carrier-killer” for its potential to strike the big carriers at the heart of the American naval presence in the Pacific, appears to be approaching deployment. The head of the United States Pacific Command, Adm. Robert F. Willard, told a Japanese newspaper in December that the weapon had reached “initial operational capability,” an important benchmark. Navy officials said later that the Chinese had a working design but that it apparently had yet to be tested over water.

On that and other weaponry, China’s clear message nevertheless is that its ability to deter others from territory it owns, or claims, is growing fast.

China, of course, has its own rationales for its military buildup. A common theme is that potentially offensive weapons like aircraft carriers, antiship missiles and stealth fighters are needed to enforce claims to Taiwan, should leaders there seek legal independence from the mainland.

Taiwan’s current status, governed separately but claimed by China as part of its sovereign territory, is maintained in part by an American commitment to defend it should Beijing carry out an attack. Some experts date elements of today’s military buildup from crises in the mid-1990s, when the United States sent aircraft carriers unmolested into waters around Taiwan to drive home Washington’s commitment to the island.

Chinese officials also clearly worry that the United States plans to ring China with military alliances to contain Beijing’s ambitions for power and influence. In that view, the Pentagon’s long-term strategy is to cement in Central Asia the sorts of partnerships it has built on China’s eastern flank in South Korea, Japan and Taiwan.

“Some Chinese scholars worry that the U. S. will complete its encirclement of China this way,” said Xu Qinhua, who studies Russia and Central Asia at the Renmin University of China and advises government officials on regional issues. “We should worry about this. It’s natural.”

The Pentagon’s official view has long been that it welcomes a stronger Chinese military as a partner with the United States to maintain open sea lanes, fight piracy and perform other international duties now shouldered — and paid for — by American service members and taxpayers.

But Chinese military leaders have seldom offered more than a glimpse of their long-term military strategy, and the steady buildup of a force with offensive abilities well beyond Chinese territory clearly worries American military planners.

“When we talk about a threat, it’s a combination of capabilities and intentions,” said Abraham M. Denmark, a former China country director in Mr. Gates’s office. “The capabilities are becoming more and more clearly defined, and they’re more and more clearly targeted at limiting American abilities to project military power into the western Pacific.”

“What’s unclear to us is the intent,” he added. “China’s military modernization is certainly their right. What others question is how that military power is going to be used.”

Mr. Denmark, who now directs the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security in Washington, said China’s recent strong-arm reaction to territorial disputes with Japan and Southeast Asian neighbors had given both the Pentagon and China’s neighbors cause for concern.

Still, a top Navy intelligence officer told reporters in Washington on Wednesday that the United States should not overestimate Beijing’s military prowess and that China had not yet demonstrated an ability to use its different weapons systems together in proficient warfare. The officer, Vice Adm. David J. Dorsett, the deputy chief of naval operations for information dominance, said that although China had developed some weapons faster than the United States expected, he was not alarmed over all.

“Have you seen them deploy large groups of naval forces?” he said. “No. Have we seen large, joint, sophisticated exercises? No. Do they have any combat proficiency? No.”

Admiral Dorsett said that even though the Chinese were planning sea trials on a “used, very old” Russian aircraft carrier this year and were intent on building their own carriers as well, they would still have limited proficiency in landing planes on carriers and operating them as part of larger battle groups at sea.

Little about China’s military intentions is clear. The Pentagon’s 2009 assessment of China’s military strategy stated baldly that despite “persistent efforts,” its understanding of how and how much China’s government spends on defense “has not improved measurably.”

In an interview on Wednesday, a leading Chinese expert on the military, Zhu Feng, said he viewed some claims of rapid progress on advanced weapons as little more than puffery.

“What’s the real story?” he asked in a telephone interview. “I must be very skeptical. I see a lot of vast headlines with regards to weapons procurement. But behind the curtain, I see a lot of wasted money — a lot of ballooning, a lot of exaggeration.”

Mr. Zhu, who directs the international security program at Peking University, suggested that China’s military establishment — not unlike that in the United States — was inclined to inflate threats and exaggerate its progress in a continual bid to win more influence and money for its favored programs.

And that may be true. If so, however, the artifice may be lost on China’s cross-Pacific rivals.

“Ultimately, from a U. S. perspective it comes down to an issue of whether the United States will be as dominant in the western Pacific as we always have been,” Bonnie Glaser, a China scholar at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in a telephone interview. “And clearly the Chinese would like to make it far more complicated for us.”

“That’s something the Chinese would see as reasonable,” she said. “But from a U. S. perspective, that’s just unacceptable.”

[wuguanhui]

Janes on Chinese engine developments.

Full steam ahead for China's engine designs

China is moving away from its dependence on Russia, according to a new engine design growth chart seen by Jane's. Reuben F Johnson and Robert Hewson report

The design growth chart for engines produced by three of China's main propulsion system centres - Liyang Aero-Engine Corporation (LYAC) in Guizhou, Liming Aero-Engine Manufacturing Corporation (LMAC) in Shenyang and Xi'an Aero-Engine Corporation (XAC) - has been obtained by Jane's.

The chart shows a clear plan for increasing the thrust and performance of China's major military engine designs, as well as confirming the existence of aircraft programmes currently in development.

If the developmental timeline laid out is accurate, Chinese industry is well on its way to weaning itself from its current dependence on Russian industry as a source of engines for its most advanced fighter aircraft. Currently, China depends totally upon Russia for two of its most advanced fighter aircraft that are offered for export.

The indigenously developed Chengdu J-10 fighter is powered by the Salyut AL-31FN: a derivative of the Sukhoi Su-27's Saturn/Lyulka AL-31F. The FC-1/JF-17 fighter is fitted with one Chernyshev RD-93 engine: a variant of the Mikoyan MiG-29's Klimov/Isotov RD-33.

Both aircraft are on track for use by China's major defence export customer, Pakistan. JF-17s are already being assembled at the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) and the J-10 is also planned for acquisition, being designated FC-20 in service.

The long-term Chinese plan is for the LMAC WS-10A Taihang engine to become the basis for several successively more powerful designs.

The WS-10A will first be introduced into the J-11 multirole fighter - the Chinese licence-assembled version of the Su-27 - and the J-11B, which is the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation's copy of the Su-27.

The first derivative, the WS-10B, augments the thrust of the engine from 13,469 kg (132 kN) to 13,766 kg (135 kN) and it is this variant that is planned to replace the AL-31FN in later production batches of the J-10. A later version of this engine, the WS-10G, has a thrust increase to 15,800 kg (155 kN) and will become not only the standard engine for the J-10 and J-11 but also the power plant for the proposed J-13 combat aircraft.

The J-13 has only been seen in some artists' conceptions and drawings, but it is intended to be the first Chinese-designed carrier-capable twin-engine fighter, designed by the 601 Research Institute at Shenyang.

Several sources state that it will not be a copy of the Russian-made Su-33, the navalised version of the Su-27, but will instead be a much more stealthy aircraft. Several elements necessary for the development of a carrier-capable fighter have been acquired by Chinese industry from both Russia and Ukraine.

Russian sources told Jane's that China purchased the materials associated with the developmental work on the Su-27K - and the single prototype aircraft that was left in Ukraine after the break-up of the former USSR - from the Research Institute for Aeroelastic Systems in Feodosia.

Chinese designers have reportedly already developed some components, such as landing gear configurations that allow for the higher sink rates required for a carrier-capable aircraft. The J-13 is projected to fly sometime around 2013.

Two other notable future aircraft programmes mentioned in this chart are:

- The Xi'an JH-7B, with the plan that this new-generation aircraft will be powered by the LYAC WS-12B growth variant of the original WS-12 Taishan. This engine gives the aircraft a thrust increase to 10,200 kg (100 kN) over the JH-7A strike aircraft's Xi'an WS-9 at 9,400 kg (92 kN). The JH-7B is reported to be a much more stealthy version of the A model that will be used as an escort jammer aircraft for PLAAF Su-27Sk and Su-30MKK aircraft armed with the Zvezda-Strela Kh-31 anti-ship missile, as well as being a platform for the KD-88 air-launched cruise missile.

- The new, modernised version of the Shenyang J-8 fighter, designated the J-8T, which will also receive a new engine. Its 8,160 kg (80 kN) LYAC WS-12 Taishan engine will be replaced by a LMAC WP-14C Kunlun-3 with 8,360 kg (82 kN) thrust. The same engine will also be installed in the Chengdu J-7 fighter and Guizhou (GAIC)/Chengdu JL-9/FTC-2000 jet trainer.

The dates on this chart also indicate considerable developmental and test lead times in these engine programmes.

The WS-10A Taihang supposedly completed its endurance tests in 2005, but the milestone chart for Chinese engine development displayed by China's AVIC consortium at Air Show China 2008 in Zhuhai does not show the engine entering service until 2011.

By the same token, the WS-12B Taishan engine for the JH-7B is supposedly in testing as of this year, but AVIC's timeline does not show this engine as IOC until well after 2020.

Still unknown is which engine design is the "4th Generation Aeroengine" for "the 4th Generation Fighter in Development In China" that was listed on AVIC's projected future programmes chart at Zhuhai. AVIC project this unnamed engine for initial operating capability (IOC) around 2022, which might be the WS-10G or some other higher-thrust derivative.

Two clear conclusions are that China - after many years of trying - is finally building reliable, high-performance military-grade jet engines. It is a considerable achievement with long-term strategic implications, which is perhaps why at the 2006 Zhuhai Air Show the designer of the Taihang engine, Zhang Enhe, was given a Technology Pioneer Laureate award for his "18 years of hardship and difficulties" on developing this engine.

Secondly, these programmes are a further blow to the already significantly declining level of defence exports from Russia to China. Earlier this month the General Director of Rosoboronexport (ROE), Anatoliy Isaikin, told the press that China's portfolio of purchases could soon drop from 40 per cent to 10 per cent of Russia's total export business. One of the few major orders to China still left, he mentioned, was the current contract to supply 100 AL-31FN engines to Chengdu for the next batch of J-10s. If the timeline for the WS-10B is correct this could be the last large-scale order for the AL-31FNs as well.

Reuben F Johnson is a JDW Correspondent based in Beijing and Robert Hewson is the editor of Jane's Air-Launched Weapons, based in London

[MKSheppard]

Some more hitpiecery by David Axe of Wired:

Link

He basically talks smack about 'lol china can't make engines' citing Arthur Ding, a Professor at Taiwan's National Chengchi University, saying that China can't copy the AL-31F as the WS-10, and thus is dependent on Russia.



He also misses the point about J-20. It doesn't have to be a true 5th Generation F-22A killer/peer competitor.

It just has to be good enough to lower the F-22A's kill ratio from the present 144 to zero ratio it has against present day fighters to something more like 15 to 1, to make things dicey, especially since Gates has decided that we don't need to build more than 187; and a certain percentage will be held back in the US for training purposes, or have to be elsewhere, such as for CONUS defense, etc.

[PainRack]

Arms races are good, as they prevent war -- both conventional and nuclear.

It's worth noting that the most devastating war in the Eastern Hemisphere's history started because of a bunch of arms controllers who gave a third rate navy a chance at taking on a first rate navy and prevented anyone from essentially fortifying their various holdings, allowing a bunch of poorly-equipped Japanese SNLF troops to overrun the Pacific in about a month.
The big trick in ruthless militarization is knowing when to spin down things after you've achieved your objectives to avoid bankrupting yourself.

You certainly don't need to approach the North Korean level of super militarization.

Having enough confidence that you can adequately defend yourself kind of tends to make that big red button shrink in importance on all sides.

You just contradicted yourself there Shep. In 1940, the US was more than capable of defending itself. The only soil it had that was under threat was the Phillipines, and both anti-colonial sentiment, geopolitics of arming the Phillipines, isolationist fervour and the cost of the Great depression hindered any interest in developing it as a fortress.
And even here, the natural logic was that a US counter-attack would defeat Japan and then free the Phillipines "naturally". Face it, if it wasn't for your own american forces screw-up at Pearl Harbor, the Japanese would never have been able to run rampant over the Far East. Hell, if the US had actually oh, I don't know, practise more diplomacy by linking up with the Brits and giving them more promises, such as sending the Manila Squadron or Far East fleet to Singapore to coordinate defence against the Japanese, or giving them reassurances that Operation Matador won't sabotage American British ties, the Brits own defensive posture might not have been caught off guard either. They would STILL have been screwed due to Pearl, but they won't have been caught off guard. And if Pearl haven't happened..........

When ironically enough; they could have taken all that money they've blown on their nuclear and missile programs and spent it buying a S-300 battalion or two a year from Russia. Give it a few years and pretty soon Iran has an air defense shield that makes an Israeli attack all but impossible, whether by aircraft or ballistic missile and strong enough to make even the United States blink and take a second thought at penetrating it.

But then again, what do you expect from people who are 'overhauling their education system to eliminate Western influence'..

Because a nuclear detterant promises that the US won't intervene too heavily in Iranian politics and international affairs. Or are you seriously considering that Iran can build a conventional deterance strong enough to hold off a US armada?

[mr friendly guy]

On the side topic of China copying, I should point out they seem to have made nice advancements on their own. Granted I am less interested in military and electric gizmos, and more interested in environment and sustainability tech, so it might not count as "fantastic technology." They however have

1. Improved nuclear reprocessing (providing energy in the face of resource limits, whats fantastical about that)

2. Extracted toxic waste (heavy metals) from polluted land to convert to energy - first large trial seemed successful, more on the way. This was done in collaboration with Australian scientists.

3. Genetically modified crops to grow using salt water irrigation - that is it frees up coastal land which will previously not used (feeding 1.3 billion people with increasing standards of living, whats fantastical about that)

4. Found a way to use the energy from sewerage to warm (and cool) buildings - IIRC they came up with this as early as 2005, but recently have put it into practice, particularly in the colder northern provinces. Its energy efficient (and cheaper) and I believe Canada also used the same principle for its athletes village during the recent winter olympics. The scientific principle appears to be high school stuff, but its ingenious that some principle so simple can be used to skimp out on polluting coal.


Special mention to pebble bed reactors. Hey Germany decided nuclear is TEH EVEL so the German company sold the tech to China. I doubt Germany would be able to make a pebble bed reactor on short notice, so this is a case of the Chinese preserving useful tech where the original makers did not.

[Lonestar]

Did someone say Chinese engines?

INformation Dissemination

It is noteworthy that at a time when the Chinese are allowing photography of their new J-20 to go viral on the internet, Chinese President Hu Jintao, Chairman of the Central Military Commission, recently signed an order to honor Gan Xiaohua for his outstanding contribution on engine research. The CMC held a celebration rally for him on January 6 at the Air Force Armament Institute.

No English language news coverage of this is available - that I have seen. See here and here for Chinese versions.

Question: Did we miss something? Our folks are telling us aircraft engines are the weak link in Chinese air force development, but the President of China is celebrating major advancements in engine technology with awards. Hmm.

If we are focused on the stealth aspect of the J-20, we might be focused on the wrong issue.

[Pelranius]

I'd like to know if the WS-10 engines on the second prototype (apparently there are two prototypes both numbered "2001", apparently CAC likes to fuck with the military enthusiast community, one has AL-31s, the other WS-10) is the WS-10A or improved, 14.5 ton thrust WS-10G (reportedly two examples were completed by the manufacturer in Sept 2009).

[K. A. Pital]

I'd like to know if the WS-10 engines on the second prototype (apparently there are two prototypes both numbered "2001", apparently CAC likes to fuck with the military enthusiast community, one has AL-31s, the other WS-10) is the WS-10A or improved, 14.5 ton thrust WS-10G (reportedly two examples were completed by the manufacturer in Sept 2009).

I am not sure any of the prototypes have AL-31 fitted on them. The Russian forums are full of talk and people are not convinced at all that any Russian engines are mounted on either hull.

[Pelranius]

And the Dragon has flown!

Looks like WS-XX engines.

Chinese stealth fighter makes first test flight
The Associated Press
Tuesday, January 11, 2011; 1:09 AM

BEIJING -- A leading expert on the Chinese military says the country's prototype stealth fighter has made its first-known test flight.

Kanwa Asian Defense magazine editor Andrei Chang said the J-20 flew for about 15 minutes over an airfield in the southwestern city of Chengdu where it was spotted carrying out runway tests last week. Photos of the plane in flight were also posted on unofficial Chinese military websites.

The test flight comes on the second day of a visit to China by U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Chang and other analysts say the test's timing is apparently intended to send the message that Beijing is responding to calls from the U.S. and others to be more transparent about its defense modernization and future intentions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00300.html

http://i.imgur.com/AVXw2.jpg

Yes, I know they're quoting Andrei Chang but this is the first news article I was able to find and there are pics out there already.

[MKSheppard]