J-20-third-prototype-side

WASHINGTON: It is a story that tells a great deal about the sophistication of Chinese military leaders, as well as why air shows happen.

Steve O’Bryan, one of Lockheed Martin’s top executives for the F-35 program, was seated across the table from the chief of China’s air force almost two years ago at the gala dinner held at the Royal International Air Tattoo. They chatted amiably during dinner, through an interpreter. Then Steve got up to give an award and was introduced as the head of Lockheed’s F-35 international business development.

When he got back to his seat the interpreter had vanished and the air chief himself was sitting next to Steve. They chatted for a while. Then the air chief leaned over to Steve, smiling and said: “You know, Steve, I really love the F-35. I’d really love to have the F-35 in my air force.”

Steve thought to himself: I’m the Lockheed business development guy, so I should ask him how many he wants! So he asked the air chief. “He kind of looks at me and says:  ’You know Steve, I need just one.”

F-35 Japan concept

The audience of roughly 75 people roared with knowing laughter and applauded.

Since so few American defense officials, officers or industry executives deal much with Chinese military leaders, I called Dean Cheng, an expert on the Chinese military at the Heritage Foundation, to get some idea as to just this encounter might signify.

After cautioning that “it’s always very dangerous to generalize from one encounter,” Cheng offered these observations:

“They can turn on the charm when they want to, and they can turn it off just as fast when they want to,” he said of senior Chinese military officials. He noted that the Chinese will participate in the world’s largest naval exercise this year, called RimPac. “Will we get the smiling, happy Chinese or the furrowed brow, bugger-off Chinese?”

Finally, he raised the recent sale of the S-400 anti-aircraft system by Russia to China. “What does that tell us about the Russians, that they are willing to sell the S-400 to the Chinese? The fact that Putin is willing to sell his seed corn is pretty significant.” Why? Refer back to the Chinese air chief’s need for only one F-35.

S-400

“The Chinese,” Dean said, “are going to buy one (S-400) and copy the hell out of it.” So Russia, Cheng concludes, really needs the money from the sale. Something to bear in mind as the Ukraine crisis evolves. A former senior American diplomat who knows Putin and the countries involved told me recently he thinks the Ukrainian moves demonstrate clearly that Russia is in deep trouble that will only grow worse as Putin grows more involved with the day-to-day management and sustenance of Crimea and eastern Ukraine.

Comments

  • funnyboy911

    Dean Cheng? A midget neocons wannabe.

  • Gary Church

    The Chinese air chief loves us spending so much money on the F-35 because he knows we are doing the equivalent of winning huge battles for him by wasting so much time and money instead of buying the drones that will be used to fight any future war.

    • Gary Church

      They are building them; you better believe it.

    • Gary Church

      sorry for posting this picture twice- Colin if you have time please delete the next comment. thanks

    • Michael Rich

      Why do you think drones are the answer? They are NOT the future of warfare (at least how you think manned aircraft should be phased out and drones will replace everything),at least in the near future, as we have already seen drones are vulnerable to being hijacked (Iran RQ-170, 2011), they are detectable because they are required to be connected to the ground station, and they also are not in the stage where they can go up against 5th gen aircraft. There will always be a need for a pilot.

      • Gary Church

        The pilot is no longer the solution; the pilot is the problem.

  • Don Bacon

    Ah, the Chinese sense of humor, playing with LM’s O’Bryan two years ago. “I’d really love to have the F-35 in my air force.” –He already had all the drawings.

    Mar 2012

    Chinese spies hacked into computers belonging to BAE Systems, Britain’s biggest defence company, to steal details about the design, performance and electronic systems of the West’s latest fighter jet, senior security figures have disclosed. The Chinese exploited vulnerabilities in BAE’s computer defences to steal vast amounts of data on the $300 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, saving China billions.

    It has been ongoing, and now China has got the planes: J-10, -16, -20 and -31.

    • H. H. GAFFNEY

      And they are all working just as well as the F-35? I’m happy!

  • Mars HQ

    Steve O’Bryan should have leaned over to the PLAAF Chief in return and said… “You know, Chief, We will just give you one of our block II F-35 for free. We will only ask that you just fix it’s various design flaws and then agree to joint-produce the mature production model (for all US-based sales and FMS) with final assembly conducted in the U.S.”

    • bobbymike34

      Yes because China has a 60 year history of producing the best figher planes in the world like the US?

      • Gary Church

        We made no fighter planes in WW1, the zero kicked our ass and the Germans gave as good as they got till we dogpiled them. The Russian Mig-15 shot down plenty of F-86′s and the Mig-21 shot down plenty of our planes also in Vietnam. French Mirage also not a bad plane.
        Chinese are license building Sukhoi fighters. Those are badass. Yeah, bring it on. Right.

        • bobbymike34

          60 years ago in post WWII but hey why not go back and say “The Wright Brothers plane sucked at dog fighting” LOL! No question the US had to catch up during WWII but you have heard of the P-51 known world wide as the best fighter in history.

          Since WWII the USAF has completely dominated air to air combat IN EVERY combat action in which it has taken part. I believe the USAF A2A win ration is 15 to 1 in favor. The F-15 is 109 AND 0.

          You understand that your last sentence completely discredits your entire premise. License build a Russian fighter as in copying it. By the way China cannot yet build a fighter engine on its own either.

          You should have used the J-10 and J-20 as examples there is some validity to that at least.

          • Gary Church

            We license built the rolls royce merlin for the P-51 mustang. The F-86 was built using german research. You seem to think that for some reason China is not going to catch up. Did you notice they have a spacecraft and we don’t?

          • bobbymike34

            Jump around topics much. The issue under discussion is whether the comment that China could build a 5th generation stealth fighter better than the US is of course AT THIS POINT IN HISTORY a silly premise.

            You say ‘I seem to think the Chinese won’t catch up?’ READ MY LAST SENTENCE for God’s sake I give them kudos for their J-10 and J-20. Please read my posts in full.

            Also it is recognized that China ‘currently’ copies pretty much all it MilTech. That may change in the future.

            I bet if history was reversed and I said ‘The US has a space craft and China doesn’t’ You would yell, “China went to the moon in the 60′s”

          • Gary Church

            Oh….That’s the issue huh? I thought I was just criticizing your braggadocio about our fighters. And you got ALL UPSET!
            I think anything is better than our F-35 at this point. They can’t get it to work right. Which after so many years is virtually a guarantee that it will never do what was promised.

          • bobbymike34

            Complete post containing ZERO facts. Forecast International has basically said the F-35 will make up to 55% of the global fighter market it will be that dominant of an aircraft.

            Before you criticize the F-35 you should read all the reports how the F-16, 18, 14, 15, 22 & now the F-35 all sucked.

            The US has the most dominant aircraft, especially, technologically in the history of warfare. AT THIS POINT in history there is no doubt of that.

            No nation has even duplicated the F-117 yet let alone the B-2.

          • Gary Church

            Nobody wants to duplicate those planes because they are extremely difficult to keep in the air and not worth the money. IRST and multiple radars make stealth an advantage. If you sacrifice everything else then the advantage becomes a disadvantage. Before you commit a trillion dollars to this worthless monstrosity that was designed to convert taxes into shareholder checks maybe you should do some research. You are one of those people who has no idea how much 200 million dollars really means to the future of this country. Better to spend it on drones.

          • bobbymike34

            So the militaries of the US, UK, Australia, S Korea (probably), Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Turkey, Singapore, Canada and others are all in a massive global conspiracy to prop up Lockheed share prices and Gary Church has figured it all out, good for you Gary!

          • Gary Church

            Greed is not hard to figure out.

          • bobbymike34

            You win the internet with that comment. Massive global conspiracy of ‘greed’ because as everyone knows the defense industry was completely non-profit right until Lockheed decided to make the F-35.
            So if we suddenly went with the ‘all drone air force’ (eye roll) the companies making them would not be making a profit?

          • Gary Church

            Eye roll all you want. It is obvious to anyone why drones are not replacing manned systems. Hint; it is not because they don’t work. The pilot is no longer the solution; the pilot is now the problem.

          • Jens Danbolt

            Please educate yourself on the physical limitations of drones before claiming you know better than the ones making the decision. You can start by reading the basic physics of remote controlling and why it’s so much worse than local control. Then come back and tell me why my tax money should be spent on remote controlled air superiority fighters.

          • santiago

            It is not about profits it’s about stealing. It is okay to make profits, everybody likes them, but fairness is important, just like the american way, you have to give what people paid for and not a bad product, unless they paid for that, but 130 million shouldn’t pay crap but something good

          • B. Glenn

            There was heavy political pressure on Allies by the US to honor their commitments to buy F35′s. Before the truth got out, Allues had been keen to receive “the next big thing” from LMartin and partners signed on. Then the delays, and cost over-runs, dim performance data. I don’t think any nation including the US now intends to honor the full nominal contract. Tokyo really wanted the F22 instead. Saudi and SKorea opted for modern F15′s models than will be effective Day 1.

            I take no delight in these observations. It’s a tragedy for the tax-payer, at a minimum. And I have to be concerned about the pilots being burdened with flying / fighting in an overweight / stub winged / speed and range deficient / cognitive defects in technical abilities that don’t exist beyond the marketing brochure.

            It’s also corporate negligence that the contractor failed to protect the project data from foreign cyber-theft. Not that the Federal govt ever seems to give a d*mn about such things.

          • santiago

            No they were dragged in to it with a plan to create the best plane ever with lower costs at least cheaper than the f22 and now it is not a reality, the contrary is true. F-35 sucks look at the statistics. Now since it is a joint effort no country can pull out of the deal. They have to buy no matter what or risk loosing a big piece of the money (sh1tload of jobs).

          • santiago

            Drones are the future, and when drones can achieve supersonic flight or better yet hypersonic flight, then….

          • oxi

            Ever hear of the S-300, S-400 and S-500? They all can detect and shoot down any U.S. warplanes!

          • bobbymike34

            How many have they shot down?

          • oxi

            And how many did the Patriot shoot down?

          • bobbymike34

            Can you point to my ‘claim’ that the Patriot can do anything like ‘shoot down every Russian warplane?
            Why don’t you answer my question before making posting an irrelevant post.

          • Gary Church

            It has shot down one U.S. and one U.K fighter. 3 military funerals.

          • aby smith

            A bunch of serbians shot down the f117 and the Iranians stole that drone intact.

          • bobbymike34

            Are your posts meant to be taken seriously?

          • santiago

            The s-300 shot down an f-117 many years ago or maybe it was not the s-300 but the older model, can’t remember, look it up.

          • santiago

            The f-35 is a piece of junk just grounded the entire fleet a few days ago. It is super expensive, does not work, new systems detect it easily and it does not handle well. It is a corrupt program, you should be speaking against it instead of endorsing something that will risk your defines because of corruption.

          • 10579

            at this point I don’t understand.The F-22 is to expensive and we are afraid it might get shot down and give away secrets.The F-35 has so many bugs it’s like an ant hill.So why not keep a tried and proven great fighter the F15 Strike Eagle and incorporate into it all the best of the F-22 raptor and the JSF 35.Maybe you could tweak the design ,upgrade avionics and firepower but it seemed to have plenty on its own .Plus I think it’s a damn pretty plane. But just thinking.

          • oxi

            Su-30MKI’s had impressive kill ratios against F-15′s during drills in India!

          • bobbymike34

            Too bad wars aren’t won ‘in drills in India”

          • Lomunac

            Even worse is you not getting the point, properly trained pilots in Russian “obsolete 1989. plane” kicked your asses!!

          • aby smith

            Ah but “china” went to the moon with German war criminals technology.

          • Bastard

            Indeed! Because ‘it’ is a Godless country!

          • oxi

            Actually the Yak-7 was the hero of WWII, more German planes and bombers shot down by the Yak-7!

          • bobbymike34

            Do you ‘up arrow’ all your own posts?

        • Horn

          We made no fighter planes in WWI; China made no fighter planes in WWI or WWII. (Wow, great argument.)
          The Japanese Zero did well against our obsolete fighters (i.e. F2A Buffalo and P-40 Warhawk). Japanese pilots could not cope with the superior tactics (Thatch weave) that allowed the less maneuverable, yet more highly armored F4F Wildcats to win. It quickly lost to the F6F Hellcat and F4U Corsair. Here’s some numbers for you (KD ratios): F4F “6.9:1″, F6F “13:1″ (against Zeroes alone), F4U “11:1″.
          Su-27s, J-10s, and J-11s are as old as our new block F-16s and older than our Super Hornets. American aircraft are still superior to these planes.
          As for the Sukhoi FGFA, Russia is having serious problems with that fighter, mainly focusing around the radar and engines. The problems and cost overruns are so bad that India even reduced their procurement numbers. For countries that don’t like to spend a lot of money, $100M+ per plane must feel like braking the bank to them. (And yes, I know China isn’t involved with the T-50s.)

          • Lomunac

            Your planes are NOT superior to the SU 27 family (30-34-35), at every war games you had in recent past (Australia, India…) your planes were beaten by them!!
            Also, at Red October games German Mig 29′s kicked a lot of your F15/16 asses too, that’s how good of a plane (and not even M or SMG upgrade one, not to mention Mig 35) it’s with a properly trained pilot…

          • Gary Church

            The Mig 29 was pretty much designed to out fight the F-15 and it is a really beautiful plane. But the F-15′s have always had the electronics and weapons advantages (and most important- training) which is why in real combat they are undefeated.

          • Lomunac

            And they faced each other when? Over Serbia in 1999. only several Mig29-s (basic models) were able to fly, and they were mostly without radars (dead long before), and our pilots were happy to have 20-30hrs a YEAR in flight, so that’s not much of a comparison…

          • Pepot

            That’s true.F-16 will probably inferior if there will be a dog fight against Mig 29 or SU 27.The obvious reason are the Engines.Russian designed engines are bigger size if compared to U.S. counterparts.They can easily outrun an F16 or even the vaunted F18.But TODAYS ARMAMENT IS MORE ADVANCE. iT’S FIRE AND FORGET! And the scenario is while the enemy is trying to evade the on coming missiles fired from far away U.S. F-18 or F-22, the American fighters are already engaging another sets of targets and keep firing til it’s empty. Only it will engage in dog fight when there’s no ,more missiles to fire.

          • Lomunac

            Yes, but that goes both ways, people seem to compare 90-s Mig-s and Sukhois-s that Jeltzin didn’t give a damn about to Putins airforce!!
            SU 27 family and PAK FA, and Mig 29 SMG-s now have, or will have when they enter service next year, air to air missiles for range up to 140km, and radar almost twice that range, so manouverability+very far kill possibility=at least equal match!!

        • http://www.usmc.mil @notrizzo

          “Shot down plenty”? I love this type of argument, because it allows you to say you are right even if the facts are completely against you. I suggest you look at the kill/loss ratios for the US in Korea and Vietnam. Although I’m sure “plenty” will mean whatever you want it to, any rational person would clearly see that even if the enemy had some success on a small scale for a limited period, over the life of the conflct the losses by those enemies was completely unsustainable.

          • Lomunac

            It was 2:1, you lost 90 of F4s top notch fighter-bomber planes with massive radar capabilities and engines to Mig21, interceptor with crappy radar, not much of low speed manouverability, and piloted 98% of the time by Vietnam pilots with couple hours flying time in an airplane… ever!!!

          • http://www.usmc.mil @notrizzo

            Just FYI the “facts” stated here by Lomunac are completely and totally bogus.

          • Lomunac

            Yeah, and you gave us the truth, showing us your almighty knowledge… ALL IS TRUE, about the airplane types and abilities, the kill ratio, and that for the most of the war the pilots were ill trained Vietnamese…

          • http://www.usmc.mil @notrizzo

            Your 2:1 kill ratio claim has no basis in fact, but hey feel free to troll on if it makes you happy.

          • Lomunac

            Actually it does, if US airforce say they lost 89, or so, F4-s to Mig 21-s while destroying around 190 of them, or so, with F4-s, so no SAM or other aircraft loses, just F4 on Mig 21, that is roghly 2:1, but what would an 11yr old troll like you know…

        • Bastard

          Yeah! Bring it on the copying of other country’s technology! That’s what Godless China is good at! …lol

      • Bastard

        By illegaly copying!…lol

      • B. Glenn

        Hard to envision the F35 joining the pantheon of great American aircraft. I expect it’s legacy will be, rather, a cautionary tale of corporate lobbying and political savvy intertwined to satisfy selfish personal interests instead of national defense needs.

  • Horn

    The Chinese still have a ways to go in aircraft design, especially when it comes to stealth. Easily evident when you look at the J-20 and J-31. Even if they do catch up in some capacity, our pilot training is still superior. I’d be more worried about those S-400s than anything.

    • Don Bacon

      What “stealth?” It hasn’t been proven, and there are reports that active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar systems enable detection at long ranges.

      That’s why the USN wants to go Growler instead of JSF, go active in many frequencies instead of going passive in a narrow band with unproven “stealth.”

      • Gary Church

        The big defeat for stealth Don is IRST. It just keeps getting better and better and there is no way to hide the heat from a jet engine.

      • Steve Barrett

        Stealth is completely proven Don. The F117 had a radar signature the size of a 6mm ball bearing. When they tested it for stealth the radar picked up the pole the prototype was placed on but not the plane. A special stealth pole had to be designed. When it flew it could not be picked up by the radar which was intended to register it’s signature. The chase plane was the only thing radar could see that day. Even going way back the SR71 had stealth capability in appearing on radar much smaller than it was in reality. F35 will have a signature smaller than a dragonfly. Want to work out which bug is the one with the bombs?

        • Gary Church

          A second radar and it’s not a dragonfly anymore. Rigged tests are great for selling a product and even better at failing in combat. Stealth cannot work at all angles and you cannot keep a plane at the same angle from two different radars. Dispute that Steve.

          • Terrence

            That’s the advantage “stealth” gives you. The enemy doesn’t know which direction your coming from. To be on constant high alert and analyzing all radar data is exhausting. That’s the mistake the Air Force made in Serbia. The F-117 bombing routes and times became so predictable the Serbians knew exactly where and what to look for. The future is obviously a multi-spectrum attack vs. reliance on a single system. Even the F-35 is supposed to address that. It’s supposed to have electronic jamming systems. I say supposed, because it really is hard to judge an aircraft when the production model is still years away.

          • Gary Church

            “The enemy doesn’t know which direction your coming from. To be on
            constant high alert and analyzing all radar data is exhausting.”

            Throwing the B.S. flag on you; radar is what tells the enemy “what direction” you are coming from. And watching a radar screen is “exhausting”? Puh-leez. You can’t just make stuff up and expect people not to challenge it Terrence.

          • Terrence

            It’s already what we do. Breaking enemy personnel’s OODA loop to achieve “paralysis by analysis” has been the US standard way of war for decades. This whole stealth vs. conventional aircraft debate is a product of that doctrine.

          • Gary Church

            And it has worked soooo well in war games. But not in reality. Not yet. And when the war games turn into war they often do not work out the same way as they did in peacetime. Your “OODA loop” is great technobabble but that is all it is and does not impress anyone who knows what those letters mean.

        • oxi

          Remember when Serbia shot down the F-177A with a SA-3? On that day, stealth died!

          • bobbymike34

            The F-117 is close to 40 years old and no other nation has duplicated it AND the US has moved onto the B-2, F-22 and now the F-35 generations ahead of the F-117.
            But the question I always ask is, “If in the future stealth aircraft have a harder and harder time surviving in a high threat anti-access area denial environment, how well will non-stealthy aircraft do?”
            Guessing not so good.

          • Peg

            You may not be aware, but it is contrary to the most basic priciples of scientific enterprise and even common sense, to draw an inference about the efficacy of low observable design, or anything else from a single instance of failure. There are also other factors (in High School Bio they may teach you about a thing called variables, when you’re old enough that is) involved in any platform or personell loss in actual combat. There were many, many contributing factors that led to the F-117 being shot down, none of which has anything to do with the efficacy of RF low observability. I’m not going to lay them all out for you, but you could start with the F-117 flying similar mission routes repeatedly, complacently even…then you would consider that the Nighthawk has no RWR, MAWS, ECM, on board jamming, expendables, or decent maneuver characteristics for evasion. The F-35 on the other hand has these in spades, as well as many more tools that you probably fail to appreciate.
            You probably are also ignorant of the fact that actual, valid analysis (i.e. science….not uninformed, biased, emotionally charged, nationalistic regurtitrations by spoonfed retards on the internet) of the F-117 in the missions it undertook during it’s operational history conclusively demonstrate that the proper employment of LO tacair is nothing short of revolutionary technologically, but also is simply a profound extension and expansion of capability that has always been sought by armed forces throughout history. You people sound like the same luddites that dogged the M1 Abrams and F-15 Eagle as “too complicated” and “compromised” with regard to certain performance measure.
            There are some real reasons that nearly all of the premier airforces of the world are building their future around a tacair cornerstone with LO design as one it’s main features. The Russians, Chinese, USMC, USAF, USN, RN, RAF, RAAF, RoKAF, JASF, IAF, etc etc are all aquiring VLO fighters as their mainstay platforms for the future. The Turks, Japanese, Indians, S. Koreans, Russians and Chinese are all trying to get this capability, because on the modern battlespace you will be completely lost without it. A modern battlespace gives priority to information dominance/networked SA and other aspects re: dominance of the electromagnetic spectrum. If you have this dominance, you can beat Su-27s with F-4 Phantoms. Those who prattle on about platform vs. plaform, 1 on 1 battles, comparing brochure specs vs. brochure specs, etc. are demonstrating and flaunting their ignorance in a way that is almost embarrasing to watch. The dumbest argumentation ever is arguably that stealth is dead because one aircraft was downed. Just flat out ignorant and there is no other way of putting it. It’s dumb.
            Most of the things a modern fighter needs to be an effective platform are invisible to the eye, poorly understood by the public, or classified. If you want to be taken seriously on this topic, by serious people who are intimately involved in it, then you would do well to spend a few years studying some of the following; a) the scientific method..this alone would prevent all but the most dishonest/biased (i.e. Sweetman, ELP, Sprey, Wheeler, SNAFU) from proceeding with the argumentation we see them using again and again. They are demonstrating their ignorance publicly and pulling a bunch of suckers along with them. b) learn what the electromagnetic spectrum is and how it applies in modern warfare. That is no simple topic, in fact it’s the whole ball of wax for many of us. It will take you years to correct the kind of mistaken thinking habits you have and replace them with a nuanced understanding of warfare, science, technology etc.
            If you’re an imbecile suffering from a profound case of confirmation bias as well as complete ignorance of the electromagnetic spectrum and how it applies to modern warfare, then YES, stealth is dead.
            If you are a tactician, aerospace engineer, pilot, physicist (like myself), etc. then you will tend tohave a diametrically opposite assessment. There is NO technology currently on the horizon that will even significantly lessen the advantage RF VLO aerospace platforms can leverage. Bistatic, long wave, cell phone towers…these present no game changing threat to RF stealthy aircraft used properly. They are actually unwieldy, vulnerable, and ineffective means to address the proble..and they are techniques that the US is more familiar with than anyone as we remain the only nation to have ever fielded operational VLO aircraft. We DID think this stuff through. We DID know about bistatic radar, infrared ST, etc. the whole time. ..and of course, we see that the Russians and others don’t seem to be slowing their own efforts at engineering LO airframes; seems they also know the limitations of their “magical” UHF etc etc gizmos. Well they should, because the limitations are huge.
            ….but we all know who we should really be listening to isn’t the people whose paychecks, lives, and personal integrity depend on being correct. We should instead be listening to the infinitely more sophisticated experts found on internet comment threads, blogs, and 2-bit PR releases for SAAB or Eurofighter. Maybe we should bring in the random Russian nationalists who are so emotional with their inferiority complex vis a vis the West? In your world that must be a gold standard for objectivity!
            Don Bacon, you’re one of those experts, so I’ll ask you, since some of us are too busy working (or as you or your comrades in verbal-arms would say, being corrupted by our paychecks from the defence establishment) to closely follow the cutting edge developments here on Disqus, Snafu, Ares and other founts of wisdom. I know you’re an expert, but for the kids and imbeciles out there… What exactly are your qualifications and/or relevant experience that makes you feel the need to share your rather bizaare opinions with the world on such a prolific basis? Are you as skilled as ELP, who once served his country by bravely cleaning the bathrooms and floors of a SAC base? Or, do you have the scientific and engineering chops of a luminary like Winslow Wheeler, who once put a model airplane out of a box together, before returning it to the store claiming it cost too much?

        • aby smith

          a stealth pole… priceless

        • Gary Church

          Want to try hiding jet engine heat from IRST? Stealth is now just a small advantage and may not be worth the trouble.

    • Gregory Dittman

      China has massive amounts of fraud so even though they can copy something, it doesn’t mean that the copy will end up being used. India has found that out the hard way after buying weapons from other countries including from Western Europe. India believes that 1/3 of its bombs and missiles won’t work if used. My guess is the situation is far worse in China. This includes the S-400 missiles.

      • Gary Church

        Modern weapons work extremely well. Quality control practices in industry are now pretty much standardized world wide. The stuff all kills. I don’t think you know what you are talking about. Another clueless naysayer.

        • Gregory Dittman

          The answer is that quality control is nowhere near standard.
          Here is the news report of the official report from India’s military.
          http://www.xairforces.net/newsd.asp?newsid=747&newst=9#.U3WB3SiGff4

          There was another report that included bombs, missiles, the T-90 tank failure due to India’s humidity and the naval ships (1/3 of it’s navy is in dry dock at any one time).

          • Gary Church

            That India cannot maintain their equipment means they are not paying their mechs enough; the T-90 issue is just about not putting enough air conditioner in it. They fixed it. And that tank carries gun launched anti-aircraft missiles. We do not have anything like it. Mig 21′s have always been dangerous aircraft to fly because their roll rate is insane and they go out of control very easily. This also makes them very good in air-to-air combat if the pilots are well trained and have enough hours.

    • Pepot

      This Chinks can copy the F-22 and F-35 but they cannot copy the Radars and Avionics specially the operations and performance and also most important the pilot’s training.Chinese pilots only learned to fly but not to be Top Gun pilots.

  • frank

    So, where is Cheap Drone Air Superiority Fighter ?

    Please, send one immediately !

    Sen. McCain keeps fighting the last war.

    • Joe_Mahon

      That rascally senator McCain, how we elected him commander in chief is anyone’s guess…..

  • sega

    LOL~~~~From China

    • matimal

      where are those nuclear launch codes – from USA

  • http://www.usmc.mil @notrizzo

    If the Chinese are so smart why aren’t they building cargo warships, putting drones on diesel subs or using nuclear explosives to power spaceships? Idiots, obviously.

    • foxtrap

      Never underestimate the enemy notr. The ChiComs are diligent in pursuing all sorts of off the wall weapons, including manuverable space-based attack satellites. They’re masters of copying weaponry from us, Russia and others.

      • http://www.usmc.mil @notrizzo

        China obviously has not qualms with stealing any technology they can get their hands on, but “masters of copying weaponry” they are not. For instance, they can tried to reverse engineer all the high performance aircraft engines they bought from Russia, but most reports show they still lack the capability of building engines to the capability the US had in 1980.

        • foxtrap

          yeah you’re right about the engines. But you gotta admit they’re making great strides at our expense. You’re also right about the technology theft. Thanks to the Clinton administration, their missile guidance systems are close to ours. And that’s the tip of the iceberg.

          • Mike

            And we can thank the Nixon Administration for starting this whole mess by “opening” (read that selling the American Labor Movement down the drain) China which allowed them to become one of our biggest threats now…. :(

          • 10579

            All they have to do is wait until it comes out in a R.C.Model(radio Control) and coppy that then buy the engines from France. The Ruskies copied the 1st Nuc cub from a Revell plastic model.So good luck with hiding anything.

        • Gary Church

          They can reverse engineer anything they want. Their rockets make it into orbit just fine. You don’t know what you are talking about. Not a clue.

          • http://www.usmc.mil @notrizzo

            Reverse engineering is not the same thing as being able to duplicate the production process to get the end product desired. I can take apart a russian jet engine, reproduce all the parts and try to put them back together, but that is not likely to get you the same quality of product or the same performance as the original. To reproduce the same end result requires a deeper understanding of how and why the engine works and was developed. It certainly helps to have a working model to study from, but having that model is not the same as having the production capability behind it.

    • Gary Church

      Envy from someone with the imagination of a head of flaccid lettuce is not even a compliment.

      • http://www.usmc.mil @notrizzo

        You are just so troll-able. Crackpot ideas and the argument style of a 3 year old that missed their naptime.

        • Gary Church

          Like I said, envy from someone with the imagination of a irish setter is not even a compliment.

        • Gary Church

          Better a 3 year old than a toxic narrow minded naysayer! And I take plenty of naps so that part is not true. And it’s nukes to PROPEL the spaceships. At least mock me accurately.

          • http://www.usmc.mil @notrizzo

            I find it especially funny that you call me a “naysayer” when you are the one saying that everything the US Military is doing won’t work. If anything I’m a Yeasayer, since I think the Aegis/SM-3/6, EMRG and LES will work great!

          • Gary Church

            Everything? Don’t make stuff up. I sing the praises of what does work. You just don’t agree. You like the expensive toys and I think they are……toys. You naysay reality. You call me a three year old but you are the one that needs to grow up and put the toys away. Missiles can shoot down aircraft- I never said they could not- they just can’t shoot down other missiles. This is the basic fact that throws a wrench in all the toymaker commercials. In this 21st century missiles and drones rule.

          • http://www.usmc.mil @notrizzo

            I wholeheartedly disagree about missiles being able to shoot down other missiles. We’ll just have to agree to disagree (and pray we never have to find out who was right). I’m much more along the lines of “if it flies, we can kill it”, the question though is how many and at what cost? This is why I have advocated for moving away from high-end stealth platforms in favor of high strike capacity and endurance platforms (manned or unmanned) that can deliver large numbers of low cost standoff weapons. I’m sure the Chinese & Russian air defenses can shoot down plenty of Harpoon (of soon-to-be-deployed replacements), but a CBG Alpha stike can put more missiles on target than the enemy can deploy defensive missiles (and at a lower cost). This math works the other way too, which is why the EMRG and LES are so important to maintaining the relevance of the USN ships, I’m sure Aegis can shoot down tons of DF-21Ds or Sizzler ASCMs, but even a 1CG/2DDG CGB can only field ~300 SM-2/3/6s so the ability to stay in contested seaspace for the necessary length of time is highly questionable.

          • Gary Church

            “This math works the other way too, which is why the EMRG and LES are so important-”

            Those toys don’t work. Your math is using all the wrong numbers. Most of what tax dollars are spent on is junk. A scam to make profits off of legacy systems. You are “sure Aegis can shoot down tons of-”…….what a joke.

            13 billion for an aircraft carrier one million dollar missile will turn into a patch of burning jet fuel. Death rays and electric guns and invisible jets; none of it is real. It is just a scam.

          • http://www.usmc.mil @notrizzo

            As I said, we must agree to disagree. My point was that if I am correct on the capabilities of the defensive system, you still have a looming issue of magazine size vs the probably threat (and also a negative cost ratio). This issue requires emerging technologies like EMRG (both as an AAW system and as an augmenter to the land attack role, releasing Magazine space from LACM for more SM-2/3/6 missiles) and LES.
            I”m assuming the technology will work and you assume it will not, thus there isn’t much to be gained by arguing back and forth. We can only pray we never have to find out who is right.

  • 来自中国

    呵呵 呵呵 呵呵

  • 李中华

    haha , one F35 will be our J-35s

    • Michael Rich

      Do you take pride knowing your country steals designs from others for itself? That your country and engineers are so incapable that they cannot design their own aircraft without stolen designs. China’s politicians and people are stupid, you think you can go claim an entire sea, fly drones over our allies and then threaten war if we shoot them down, etc etc.

      • Clausewitz

        I understand your frustration and contempt but in the great game of war, you play to your strengths and adapt or die. We both know that Chinese politics and industry setup doesn’t allow them to be creative and come up with fresh concepts for fifth-gen aircraft or supersonic missiles. So they adapt accordingly and choose to copy designs obtained from other nations. China has been doing this since the Second World War and they do it very well so there is little reason for them to change this approach.

        They will claim whatever they can if they believe they have the military force necessary to capture, hold and defend it. The Pacific equation has lots of variables, quite a few of which are not necessarily a product of the Chinese throwing their weight around.

    • Mike

      When you have a minute, find a copy of Tom Clancy’s book, the Bear and The Dragon… Mr. Clancy has a real habit of writing books about things that come to action years later….. Screw with us enough and we will, over night, stop buying your products and faster than a you can imagine, you Red Chinese will be sucking hind tit as your countrymen slaughter your leadership for spending so much money on your growing Military Machine!… :( Oh, and have a nice day….

      • itsmefool

        Well, he HAD a real habit…now that he’s dead, not so much.

        • Mike

          The book was written roughly 15 years ago…

          • Gary Church

            My problem is that everything always works in his books Mike. In my experience most stuff is broken half the time and the other half it is not near as great as it was sold as. I met him once- gave him a tour of the base I was stationed at (he was researching a book). He was a condescending ass. And, when he got rich he divorced his wife and got a younger trophy. He lost a million dollars investing in a private space rocket somewhat like SpaceX. He never served because of his coke bottle glasses. I am not a fan. His techno thriller garbage has made alot of people forget about the most important weapon system; the twenty something enlisted infantryman.

          • http://www.usmc.mil @notrizzo

            If you think Clancy forgot the “twenty something enlisted infantryman” I suggest you re-read Clear and Present Danger.

          • Gary Church

            You think anyone is going to sneak around in their jungle and blow up their cocaine factories? Fiction. You have to have the locals or at least some of them on your side or you die. That’s what SF does half the time; they lead indigenous forces into combat. It’s all about who grew up there.

          • http://www.usmc.mil @notrizzo

            I was only stating that in Clear and Present Danger, the hero was a 20-something infantryman and Clancy did a very good job detailing the training, tactics and persona of those grunts.

          • Gary Church

            Yes, he could write well. No argument about that. It was what he wrote. I read his book on the armored cav and…..just too antiseptic and inauthentic in describing how dirty and back breaking those units are. The fatigue from running for days at a time and all the rest was completely glossed over. It just did not seem real to me. It gives people the wrong idea when everything works and is march order perfect. Reality is the opposite.

          • Gary Church

            You might want to re-read it. It does not end well for the ground pounders. Actually, he did accurately predict Lone Survivor in that respect. But it was nothing remarkable, soldiers get killed in combat- that is a sure thing.

          • Mike

            Hi Old Friend,
            I’m figuring you read the Bear….. The reason those Chinese ICBMs did not launch was because of a a whole lot of guys with parachutes at night…. When it gets down to it, we are all “Infantrymen”, but some of us come at night and in smaller numbers with multiple MOS’s, aye?… :) And yes, I am more than familiar with “half broken and half not near as great as sold”…… I am also familiar with his personality and life history… Ethics, it is all about ethics…… :(

            My point was that the Bear was written some 15 year ago when everything was fine and now, 15 years later, the world is on the brink of another financial failure much like 1929 and the Chinese, who are great at cheap labor and copying have very, very much financially over extended themselves (just like Clancy wrote about) and if we go into a Depression, or suddenly stop buying from China, they are screwed and the drive North might just come to be….

    • matimal

      so you chinese ARE shameless thieves. I’d be shocked if I thought you were capable of moral behavior.

  • matimal

    so we see whose side Lockheed is on. Time for some start ups in the u.s. like SpaceX to challenge the unAmerican multinationals. We can only trust Americans to defend America and Lockheed isn’t American.

    • Mike

      Hopefully, our friend below will read your comment and understand what you are saying… :)

  • Don Bacon

    Russia needs the money from the S-400 sale? No, since US & NATO are being real jerks over Ukraine, Russia wants to look eastward and sell some energy to China. That’s where the big money is, not in one puny arms sale.

    RT, May 12

    A historic, long-term deal for the delivery of Russian gas to China that has been 10 years in the making is 98 percent ready, Russia’s Deputy Energy Minister Anatoly Yanovsky has said. All that’s needed are the two countries’ signatures, he added.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin is due in the Chinese capital next week where the nations are widely expected to sign the deal. The contract’s been in the making for the last 10 years and in March 2013 resulted in signing of a delivery memorandum between Russia’s Gazprom and China’s CNPC. The terms of the pipeline delivery contract outline Russia’s intention to supply China with 38 billion cubic meters of gas per annum for 30 years, starting in 2018.

    Let’s do the math. 38 billion cubic meters of gas per annum for 30 years, at twenty cents per cubic meter, is …..wow, over 200 billion dollars for gas!

    And then there was the recent deal under which Rosneft, the world’s largest-listed oil producer, will supply China with up to 100 million tons of crude oil over 10 years. At a hundred dollars a barrel, times ten, times 100 million, that’s … another hundred billion dollars for oil.

    Three hundred billion dollars Russia gets for losing the West and gaining the East. Thank you, US & NATO, Russia says. Russia is in deep trouble? I don’t think so. (And Europe STILL needs Russian markets and Russian gas, so the US can go fish.)

    • Mike

      Thanks to Putin, the EU will buy gas from Israel and soon it will begin drilling into the sea of gas that lies under it…The Big pproblem with Russia selling gas to China is that will be more money that Putin can put into his military….. The time is rapidly coming when the U.S. leaders will finally see the error of Nixon’s move to open China on the behest of America’s super wealthy (who thought they could use China as slave labor… Morons). The time is coming when We will have to stop purchasing from China or risk losing our freedom. It really is that simple… :(

      • Don Bacon

        It’s not simple for the masses who trek into WalMart everyday to buy inexpensive quality stuff, and not even simple for me as I tap away on my durable China-made laptop. In fact if everything China-made disappeared form out lives there wouldn’t be many goods left. China does lend the US a lot of money, too, which helps sustain the American Way Of Life.

        • Gary Church

          Then we need to change our way of life before we end up with another depression far worse than 1929.

          • 10579

            A depression could happen at any moment. the stock market is at all most 17k and the middle class is loosing jobs to foriegn companies.Our government and lockheed are only interested with what is in our pockets and our little bank accounts. They could care less about you and if you don’t believe it you are kidding yourself.Look how they spend money on 2 projects that will probably never fly the 22 and 35 all that money. someone getting rich and its not an american citizen.

          • Don Bacon

            ” I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it.” — Henry David Thoreau

          • Mike

            And we will, just as we did from 1932-1982….

  • jc

    I must thank the Chinese that sent chicom granades to Vietnam while I was in the Marine Corps, I got wounded once out of six granades that landed within ten feet of me lets hope they keep up the great work.

    • Gary Church

      My wife wanted venison so I bought a cheap Chinese SKS. Worst trigger pull on any weapon I have ever fired. Horrible. But soaking wet and iced up and dirty with crummy old surplus ammo it never ever once jammed on me on hunting trips. And I managed to kill dozens of snow bunnies and half a dozen deer with it over the next couple years. The best grenades ever made were supposedly British. But I imagine they are all pretty lethal nowadays- even the chinese ones.

  • garcia96099

    As an American, I am forever disappointed in how Americans expect other nations to act “fairly” and “honestly.” In the entire history of mankind, he has never been “Fair.” Fair comes to town once a year and steals your money.
    And that, Kids, is all you need to know about Fair. Expect Fairness and live a lifetime of disappointment.
    The Chinese (or any other nation for that matter) will always try and steal industrial information. Our nations business people do the same. I certainly don’t like it, but it’s ridiculous to live with an expectation of fairness. Absolutely silly.

  • Don Bacon

    re: glass houses, stones–
    Is everyone familiar with the National Security Agency (NSA) and its nefarious activities, which apparently include stealing industrial secrets (but not in order to give US companies a competitive advantage)?

    “NSA does not and will not steal industry secrets in order to give US companies a competitive advantage,” according to the talking points. However, documents have shown that the NSA targeted the private networks of Brazilian state-controlled oil company, Petrobras.

    The NSA has partnered with the British spying agency, GCHQ, to target the private networks of companies, which are considered “important.” Documents have shown they have worked to exploit “private network traffic” from energy companies, financial organizations and even airlines. They have used a technique to hack into the computer systems of telecommunications or billing companies and create gateways to gain access to those companies’ computer systems.

    http://tinyurl.com/q6jp8gg

  • 城管大队

    HELLO! A SIMPLE GREETING FROM CHINA! why would China attack U.S? why would US attack China? Just SMILE~~~~~~~~~~叫你们华莱士来,我见得多了,你们啊,图样图森破

    • http://www.breakingdefense.com/ Colin Clark

      I don’t think China would attack the United States. I don’t think the US would attack China. But China’s aggressive assertion of economic and territorial rights across much of the western Pacific affects countries with whom we have treaties that solemnly commit us to come to the aid of those countries, in particular Japan and South Korea. The use of armed ships, aggressive language and other military assets to assert rights to territories claimed by several countries entails risk and can lead to miscalculations and unfortunate results. The US is obligated to protect and reassure its allies. By the way, I’m smiling!

      • Don Bacon

        The problem would come with the potential realization that protecting and reassuring allies might only be achieved by attacking China, and what would be the basis for that since the US has stated that it takes no position on sovereignty in the East and South China Seas.

      • 城管大队

        THANK YOU, but everything that US and its allies said is right? everything that China said is fault and need to be accused? China can not protect its benefits, no specific reasons, just can’t. is that a proper summary? WOW, what a “real” “fair” world.

  • oxi

    Russia is not in trouble, the West is…

  • oxi

    My favorite warplane is the heavy interceptor MiG-31, nobody can touch that plane even today! And yes I would fear the S-300, S-400 and S-500 folks! Those systems render F-22, F-35, B-2′s practically useless unless ofcourse the B-2 is firing long range cruise missiles but those too can be tracked and shot down! The U.S. has not faced an enemy in modern times that has the capability to shoot back like Russia or China, I’d be careful…

    • Mike

      Like I said earlier oxi, it i too bad that we helped you guys modernize your oil and gas industry after your Star Wars bankruptcy in 1987… Perhaps we will thing twice neck time… Lucky that you have those natural resources, because you can not manufacture squat…. Patton was right at the end of WW-ll… :(

      More than likely, the next war will be China and Russia against the rest of the world… Hope you boys are as good as you think you are….. Oh, did I mention the old saying her in America, that “We’d rather be Dead than Red”? Hope your commanders have also noted that America is also the most heavily armed civilian population in the world… Our Constitution made that provision to allow us to defend ourselves from enemies within and abroad. And nowhere in the world do a greater percentage of the citizens own a part of this rock and therefore have more reason than anywhere else to defend it…. Just something to consider within your plans for world domination, aye?

    • Gary Church

      That’s why we have ICBM’s and SBM’s oxi. And at least one bomber will always get through and turn half a dozen of Russia’s largest cities to ashes. This is why we have not had a world war in almost 70 years and probably never will. As for fighter planes; missiles are going to shoot so many of them down that they won’t matter much after the first day. Actually, if it was a real war then nothing would matter.

    • miami7

      Oxi. I remember after the first Iraq war when the Russian generals couldn’t understand how the US Military ran over the Iraqi Army which was armed to the teeth with the latest Russian arms so easily and how the Iraqi air force and it’s MIG 29′s had to fly their fighters to Iran in fear that the USAF would shoot them all down. Keep on reading and believing what Pravda is telling you. The truth is without nukes, your Russian military would be wiped out in short order by the USA

      • Gary Church

        Never underestimate Russian equipment and their will to fight. Hitler did. Napoleon did. Even Sweden did. Did not turn out well for any of them. Their equipment is not bad- Kalashnikovs and RPG’s have killed quite a few Americans. The tanks they sold to Iraq did not have thermal imagers, laser ranger finders, and digital fire control computers; along with training that kind of makes the difference. Ya’think? Their anti-aircraft ZSU’s have always been a huge problem; very effective weapons. Russian aircraft work fine- it’s their electronics that always let’s them down. And we had Iraq outnumbered by a huge margin. We had F-15′s, F-16′s, F-18′s and large numbers of coalition fighters stacked from the deck up to the edge of space. Of course they ran away. Since microchips are now easy to come by on the world market our weapons system advantage is not what it used to be. If they get within visual range then the odds even up pretty quick.

        And their submarines; they know enough to hide near sea mounts and wrecks and wait for our huge floating targets to come within range of their sub-launched anti-ship missiles. That is where they will get us.
        I don’t mock Russian equipment; it all works while more than some of our stuff is worthless.

  • Khitz Flores

    he just need one…coz he’s intention is to steal the technology and replicate an f35 jets a thousand times……..ma sha shock na lng ang US na biglang dumami ang f-35 na puro made in china……kaya mga kano..wag kayung magpaka tanga…

  • Rick P.

    An interesting analogy.
    Obviously the Chinese are playing catch-up to America’s military technology by making a concerted effort to obtain by hook or crook that technology thereby cutting-down on their own R&D expense . . . Considering their costs with production are less than ours, they in essence can spend less for more.
    However, in the end, a platform such as a F-35, or an aircraft carrier, is only a means to perform a mission . . . The real value is the core competency of those that operate the platform.

  • B. Glenn

    The US and Allies should just wait for the PLAF export model, and then buy it instead of the grossly overpriced model LMartin developed.