…anytime soon, says Loren Thompson. It's a long way from having its own version of the F-22 fighter to challenge the US.
One of the persistent characteristics of the F-22 Raptor fighter programme over its 25-year history has been the propensity of supposed experts to misjudge the plane’s capabilities. Accounts periodically appear about how this or that new radar has ‘unmasked’ the stealthy aircraft—and all of them have been wrong.
Other reports wrongly describe the performance features, mission potential and maintenance costs of on-board equipment. And then there are the stories concerning how soon potential adversaries of the United States such as Russia or China will field their own ‘fifth generation’ fighters.
Such stories are intrinsically speculative, because so much of what the F-22 contains or can do is secret. For instance, sources often refer to the Raptor as a ‘flying antenna,’ without really describing the imposing array of sensors and signal-processing systems incorporated into the design. Similarly, the stealth (or ‘low observable’) features of the airframe are often discussed in public forums, but without any detailed technical treatment of the many technologies that must be integrated in order to render the plane nearly invisible to adversaries.
As a consequence, because so little of what makes the F-22 unique is in the public record, claims that China may one day soon field an equivalent tactical aircraft shouldn’t be taken seriously. Not only does China lack the necessary experience or expertise in a number of relevant technologies, but it has never demonstrated the system-integration skills required to bring all those technologies together in a functioning airframe. Despite frequent reports in US media about the forays of Chinese cyber-sleuths into US information networks, they’ve never managed to breech the firewalls surrounding highly-classified fighter technology. And, even if they had, the ability of Chinese engineers to utilize the insights obtained would be doubtful.
Obviously, if China were to successfully field a fighter with even a fraction of the F-22’s versatility or survivability, that would present major problems for neighbours such as Taiwan—there’s no air surveillance radar in the world today that can successfully track a fifth-generation fighter.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
ari
Loren Thompson is unrealistic but then again there is little reason she should since her intention to run down China. Nevertheless, fact is no country can afford the F-22 and F-35, not even America. They are expensive goose if not ducks. Loren Thompson over-rates these white elephants.
Luke
“Stealth features of the F-22 design would render heat-seeking and radar-guided missiles largely useless.”
What rubbish! The F-22 has a REDUCED Radar Cross Section (RCS) and REDUCED heat emissions, they are not totally eliminated. There will be more than enough for the most modern Russian/Chinese missiles to track. A SU-35 radar will track the F-22 with 15-20 miles – fact.
Loren Thompson are you a military analyst? Obviously not.
Nick
Opening comments like ‘What rubbish! ‘ proves you have no idea what you are talking about.
Bob Mooy
This is an amusing article on an overpriced aircraft whose production lines are being shut down and unlikely ever to be built in numbers to affect the outcome of a war with China. I don’t know which world Loren Thompson lives in but in this one, if the U. S. cannot manufacture this plane while fighting Third World insurgents with no tanks, no planes but home-made bombs, what chance is there of making them while fighting China?
It is just another Tiger II.
I could be wrong.
Jacob
It’s hard for me to deal with the level of dissonance this article represents. It seems well researched and well informed which lends it credibility. But it’s author is with The Lexington Institute which seems to have a public record as an opinion for hire print shop. Too bad The Diplomat couldn’t get an author that wouldn’t present this sort of questionable credibility.
PR
This is a magazine that pride itself as the “The Diplomat” and yet its writing is full of bias. A one-sided view to underestimate China’s ability and a big boast for US and to appease the US readers.
Should rename your title to “One side”
Mekhong Kurt
PR, while I agree with you regarding the Lexington Institute, we have differing views of any military threat China can make in the short-to-medium term, in my view (and no, I’m not a formal analyst).
I’d have to look up some numbers, so I’ll use approximate ones, but compare, for starters, our two navies. China doesn’t have a single operational *carrier,* let alone a carrier battle group. We have upwards of a dozen (11 last time I read about it, as I recall). The Chinese navy today is largely a brown-water one, though they are making strides in moving to near-blue-water projection. As for submarines, they’re catching up — numerically, the important (and potentially worrisome) exception of the area of propeller technology. As for “China’s F-22,” I’ve read it’s likely more a 4th-Generation model, maybe even just a “3.5th” generation. Nor do they have anything remotely close to a B-2. Missiles? A couple of years ago I read in one of the Jane’s publications or a similar one that China was down to a relatively small number of ICBM’s capable of reaching the U.S. mainland: 18-20 was the widely-held (then) estimate among experts and intelligence folks. Could 18-20 ICBM’s wreak disaster on America? — Yes, of course. But China’s leaders aren’t idiots — they must know that our response would be massive and swift.
But even if they had the most modern arsenal right across the board, and even if they sent vast numbers of the PLA for training at places such as West Point, Sandhurst, etc. — assuming we’d agree to train them — it would take at *least* a generation for them to develop the sheer experience and expertise to become truly competent, in terms of confronting fighting a war. Don’t misunderstand me; China has some very fine military personnel, but even the very best cadet needs time, just as a military that hasn’t fought a war in over 30 years lack battlefield experience.
There is one area in which I do they present at least a potential threat, one that events of late apparently have demonstrated: attacking the Internet and all that implies. Whether or not a potential threat equals a clear and present danger, I have to leave that determination to our generals, admirals, and other experts to make. Yes, I do understand that were they to shutdown our power grid, with our communication system badly crippled, it would be as if a dozen continent-wide Hurricane Katrinas struck at once. And we know how that has gone for New Orleans.
Peter
You’ve missed the obvious in your ‘rough’ comparison.
Doesn’t it appear the Chinese have chosen not to pursue the “arms race” path? Hence no huge navy?
Perhaps, China knows naval ships are beasts of the past. Where a dozen or so well designed ICBM’s can take out easily (yes I’m talking about carriers). How effective can a aircraft carrier be if it can’t even sail pass Haiwaii without being taken out with missiles?
Maybe China really means what she says, “A Peaceful Rise”…I honestly have lost all my faith in the USA. They have time and time again replaced governments against people’s will. Waged Wars with the most stupid absurd reasons…
ari
Agreed.
naan
“realistically assess what the People’s Republic might be capable of ” undoubtedly this is happening – but it doesn’t serve the needs of the MIC to publish it. The problem for America as I see it is that the MIC is quite adept at lining their own pockets by scaring the public, demanding only the “best” / most expensive technology and generally just suckling at the teat of the immense military budget, without delivering enough real results. They are vulnerable to real, carefully crafted challenges.
The Chinese most definitely want war on their terms and are doing their best to arrange that as any opponent of the US would do – by identifying and exploiting weak spots, which are plentiful enough. Two factors aiding them: their “chabuduo” attitude for product development and the fact that the Chinese elites can enrich themselves by command, without resorting to elaborate & wasteful ruses required in the so-called democratic states.