What does China’s J-20 fighter aircraft mean this early in its visual discovery?
It might not have the right motors. It might not have the right kind of radar or other avionics. It might not have the right kind of integration of other systems. What it will have is growth room.
Someday the J-20 may have some strike ability but it doesn’t have to in its first “block” or “A” model to be of great use to the Chinese.
What China can do with this aircraft as a basic interceptor will have worth. It has the potential to add more depth to integrated air defence along border hot spots. Combined with China’s AWACS, surface sensors, command and control, surface-to-air missile systems, air refuelling tankers and other fighter aircraft, it will help deny airspace.
China has many air defense scenarios such as; India, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Russia and the U.S. It also has to back up it’s SCO partners.
What kind of threats will this aircraft–as part of the whole Chinese networked integrated air defense system–have to face? The B-2 bomber, legacy long range bombers, possible bat-wings like the UCAS-N. ISR platforms like the RQ-170, Global Hawk, and manned large-body aircraft. There will be the full range of fighter aircraft to game against; various Flanker variants, F-22, F-35 (if it shows up), PAK-FA (India/Russia), and other classic fighter designs. And, an aircraft like this would also be used for cruise-missile defense. From this snapshot, we can see that a basic J-20 as a defensive interceptor will be valuable.
What kind of stealth ability does the initial model need? Not much. Just enough to make the probability of kill (PK) of the AMRAAM or any other radar missile, useless with a nose-on attack profile. If this can be done, you have taken out a lot of the beyond-visual-range (BVR) combat ability of fighter aircraft. With this, you have just nullified an important tool in U.S. air combat ability. What would the F-22, F-15, F-16, F-18, F-35 (if it ever shows up) be without the AMRAAM?
What kind of systems will the first model of this aircraft have if China follows this path? Anything that is off the shelf today. China has AMRAAM-like BVR weapons. It also has a good high-off-bore-sight dogfight missile. Sensors would be an infra-red search and track, and most likely a mechanical scan radar. The initial jet engine for this aircraft might not be what China wants, but if the aircraft can super-cruise and zip along in the 50,000-65000 feet flight range (have a pilot explain to you the amazing amount of effective ground speed at this height) you will have a weapon that will make anything that is not an F-22 or PAK-FA, obsolete.
Why does any of this matter? I will give you one example. In the future, who cares if the U.S. moves a carrier battle group into what China considers its area of influence? America will only be putting thousands of sailors and billions of dollars of taxpayer hardware at unwarranted risk; all with an obsolete carrier air wing.
China’s ability in this area will grow. With an in-debt U.S. and closing down of important production of the F-22, U.S. and allied air power in the Pacific Rim will shrink. The U.S. will stop becoming a credible deterrent. Pacific Rim allies will see the U.S. as unable to maintain regional security. When push comes to shove, they will listen to China and not the U.S.
As Hillary Clinton said, “How do you act tough with your banker?”
If we don’t change course, the end of US dominance seems plausible. Is it ego of the powers to be which prevents us from replacing the 400 billion dollar F-35 program with a better alternative? We should be able to build better AAMRAMS and long range strike systems. Raise the gas tax and add a VAT, tell the American people the truth and we will be able to invest in better military capabilities even if it means to curtail our desire for consumption. It seems that the new START treaty was negotiated with the wrong nation. A little strategic competition is no call for despondency. What is South Korea, Japan, Australia and Israel preventing from teaming up and creating their own weapons sytems independent of the US? Actually nothing, besides will power and money.
Looks like we could have a real horse race if we are willing to compete.
Looks like we could have a real horse race if we are willing to compete.
That’s it, I think. We’ve been used to being dominant for so long that we’ve lost that political and national hunger to make sure we’re not #2. Our entitlement mentality is truly sapping us.
The SCO is of no military value.
The SCO is the Kremlin’s attempt to keep Red China out of the Asian ex USSR periphery-SSRs, to “somehow” do “something” about China.
Precisely. It’s more of a non-aggression pact than some kind of alliance.
the F-35 a disaster, the F-22 shut down and out dated… I bet UCAVs with AMRAAMs suddenly sound a lot more interesting to the Navy and Air Force
Here’s an example of what happens if you use UAV’s against a technological opponent. And keep in mind that North Korea has very basic capabilities vs. China/Russia when it comes to jamming technology:
“The South Korean Armed Forces had deployed unmanned aerial vehicles to monitor unusual activity from the North, but its military jammed the plane’s navigation system, rendering the aerial vehicle ineffective”.
http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2930051
I think its obvious USA dominance is declining. Out of money, headsup in debt. Would not surprise me if the USA falls apart like the Soviet Union. I think the time has passed to correct it. I also fail to see what or who gonne pull the USA threw.
One thing i do know tho markets/money lenders gonne pull the plug one day.
You cannot borrow 40% of gov. spending have endless liabilities and think all will be fine. It does have consequences. No nation can survive while spending so much of what comes in to the military. Its just unsustainable.
Here is a nice article about it.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/12/why-united-states-of-america-is-broke.html
Happy newyear everyone !!!
Looks like India is taking J20 seriously, maybe we will get the report through Wikileaks.
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/12/indias-joint-defence-hq-orders-study-on.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FUQMw+%28LiveFist+-+The+Best+of+Indian+Defence%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
@ RSF, gps is the basis of all western military technology these days. I’d be more worried about the effect jamming would have on gps guided weapons and F-35s than on little toy aircraft
I would asume UCAVs can uses other methods to determine position, like all advanced aircraft: interal guidance, terrain mapping, unjamable link-16 beacons… plus, since it flies at high altitude, it’d be almost impossible to block off satellite contact
a US-China conflict would have disastrous consequences for both sides, so it’ll be a cold war, the West trying to keep China at bay, hard to since we’re talking about China’s own back yard here. you need strategic advantages to scare China enough not to try anything. aircraft carriers are being excluded by new anti-ship weapons, F-35s will be outmatched by J-20s. UCAVs would give the West a strategic advantage China cannot hope to compete with, not until they invent a new way of radar detection, in which case UCAVs are still your best choice, having the best stealth profile and being low-cost and expendable
Destroying the satellites is the obvious way of blocking satellite contact
!
Seriously, the other problem with UAV’s is that the top of the line vehicles are still flying subsonic, are incapable of high alpha maneuvers, and are years away from being able to take on modern manned fighters in A2A combat.
Unless you know something that I don’t? I’m all ears….
I personally try not to examine this issue, via having ‘dominance’ in the area, or losing it., etc.
In fairness, not sure if or when US foreces actually had this so-called total dominance(?), and don’t necessarily think that was ever US’s objective or intent?
It should all along be more of general ‘maintenance of balance of power’ and maintaining a credible counter-strike, retaliatory deterrence/commitment to traditional allies in region (adjusting from Cold war to feeling out the unfolding neo-post-ColdWar) – e.g., a so-called strategic ambiguity and capacity in some variable fashion, but flexible enough to change with the diplomacy, or step up in reinforcement or strategic show of presence when being played., etc. imho. That should be the plan at least, until diplomats can better challenge the old way of militarized generals and region ruling the game and ruining the opportunities for all. As I see it. Unfortunate.. but hoping for better behind the scenes action.
So based on that strategy, the assessment and any ‘issue’, imo, should be whether the ‘balance of power’ or even the capability for a ‘balance of power if required’ is being radically altered or neglected… with no real strategy or ability to seemingly effect or react to it. Which would be a negative as I see it for said balance of power and strategic capacities to deter and hold influence in theater, via a shared diplomatic/mil aspect.
Respects to those working behind the scene with better vision and intent.
Pingback: The Game Has Changed | Chockblock’s blog