Richard Weitz wrote last week that China might seek to purchase the Sukhoi Su-35 fighter if its own J-11B fighter (which, as he notes, bears an uncanny resemblance in many ways to the Su-27) isn’t able to fulfill its planned roles. One of these roles would be to match the widely exported US F-16 Fighting Falcon—a relatively low-cost but effective multirole jet that has been sold to numerous US allies (although not to Taiwan, which I’ll come back to in a minute).
One of the concerns Russia has had with selling fighters to China is that the Chinese have a track record of buying aircraft (and indeed other technology—just ask Yamaha about its motorcycles), copying it and then not wanting more. Indeed, Weitz noted wryly how a proposed sale of the Su-33 was put on ice after the Chinese asked to buy only two of the Su-33 planes for a ‘trial.’
The Russians are in something of a bind—do they risk missing out on sales to a potentially major, rapidly growing customer or risk that customer reverse engineering their technology and selling a not-quite-as-good alternative for significantly less money?
It’s unclear which way the Russians will bend on this, but there were reports last month that Russian government export agency Rosoboronexport was planning on selling the 4+ generation Su-35 to the Chinese.
I asked The Diplomat defence contributor David Axe how much of a departure this would be for the Russians and what he felt the implications of such a sale would be. He told me that if the decision to sell has been made, it really would mark an important shift by Russia.
He agreed with Weitz and others that the J-11 is effectively a copy of the Su-27, adding, though, that the Chinese copies have tended to be lower quality than the plane they're modelled on.
But Axe said that although it’s clear any Russian decision to sell would mean something, what that something actually is isn’t clear.
‘It could mean the Russians are simply desperate for export sales and willing to risk anything,’ he told me. ‘It could also reflect Russia's interest in heading off China's increasing ability to manufacture its own jets entirely on its own. If the latter, the implication could be that Russia senses China is at an inflection point, where China's need for jets is acute at the same time that China is increasingly capable of making its own quality aircraft, but not so capable that it can entirely forgo export offers.
‘It could be that Russia sees China as now capable of both designing and manufacturing its own aircraft entirely without help, rendering reverse-engineering moot. If that were the case, then Russia has little to lose in selling fighters to China, and everything to gain by restoring a stake in the Chinese market before Chinese firms gain a total monopoly.’
And he added: ‘More broadly, the sale offer might also reflect warming relations between the two governments.’
So where does Taiwan fit into this? Taiwan currently flies the F-16A/B, but as a report by the US-Taiwan Business Council noted earlier this year, the island is facing a significant decline in its air defence capabilities. If it is to have any chance of competing with a Su-35-equipped China, then Taiwan at the very least needs the latest model F-16 C/D.
Unfortunately, the United States has so far refused the Taiwanese request, or at least refused to make a decision. But having cancelled further production of the F-22 Raptor—a fifth-generation stealth fighter that would outclass the Su-35—and with its refusal to sell even close ally Japan the aircraft, the US risks unnecessarily allowing China an edge over its Asia interests.
A crucial consideration in the refusal to sell the newer F-16 will be the Obama administration’s reluctance to further aggravate China, especially after its last arms sale to Taiwan resulted in an extended break in military contacts. But if the US is seeking to maintain the status quo with Taiwan, then it should approve the sale and allow Taiwan to at least keep up.
There is, of course, a risk to such a sale, namely that it will encourage China to escalate its military build-up still further. Indeed, The Telegraph reported yesterday that China has just warned that it will have ‘no choice but to respond’ to Japan’s announcement last week that it will buy Patriot PAC3 interceptors to try to help protect against potential North Korean attacks.
But if it’s worried about an escalation on Taiwan’s part, China should probably start by re-thinking the almost 2000 missiles pointed right at Taiwan.








harry
J-10B and entirly Chinese made and designed fighter is more than capable to deal with the F-16c/d. by simply looking at j-10b and f-16c/d you will see that J10-b has a better DSI design which reduce RCS considerably avioding detection.
mareo2
The Pride Of China Crashes And Burns
“…For the second time in three years, it was revealed that one of China’s J-10 fighters crashed. There may have been more. The two crashes that are known were initially kept quiet. News of these mishaps escaped only because of special circumstances. The most recent loss (on April 22nd) killed its pilot, who was a senior colonel. That rank and reputation led to a big funeral, attracting a lot of military and political officials. That made it difficult to conceal how the colonel died. The 2007 crash was in a rice paddy in the rural northeast. The wreckage was not immediately removed, and eventually someone with a cell phone camera and an Internet connection came along, and the pictures got out. It is believed that there have been more crashes, which have been kept from the public. Nearly 200 J-10s have been built so far, but the design has not worked out as hoped. The J-10 began development in 1988 and first flew in 1996. The J-10 is based on the abandoned Israeli Lavi (an improved F-16) project. The J-10 initially used a Russian engine (the AL-31F, the same one used in the Su-27), and was to have used Israeli electronics. But the United States leaned on the Israelis to back off making the Chinese air force too lethal, given the probability of American pilots possibly having to fight the Chinese air force some day. The Chinese developed their own avionics, based on Russian equipment. But this did not work out well. The J-10 is also now using a Chinese copy of the Russian AL-31F engine, and the poor reliability of this engine appears to have been the cause of several accidents…”
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20100506.aspx
Entirely chinese made it is indid, but with blueprints based on the american F-16 and filled the holes with “improved” (?) copies of russian parts. Japan tried to an improved F-16 like Israel with the F-2 program and it cost more than it can deliver so it is a failure, but at least our quality controls made them more reliable to fly.
Drive by
F-22 has also crashed, at least once. So what is your point? J-10B is more than enough to handle anything the U.S. is willing to sell to Taiwan.
mareo2
Do I have to remember to you how many “accidents” are unreported by the chinese government?
Anyway, the reason why Israel abandoned the Lavi and Japan don’t want to buy any more F-2 despite the heavy lose of face, is because the cost/efficiency ratio is bad compared with F-16 and F-15. Good luck trying to sell the copied hybrid american-russian technology “improved” by chinese engineers J-10, because it is cheaper buy used F-16 that have a better reputation than new J-10.
James
F22 is so unreliable and costly, the US government decided to end future purchases all together.
One hour flying time requires 100 plus hours of maintenance!
The F22 high sophistication mean its is a lemon, requiring many hours of maintenance to make it air worthy.
mareo2
I wonder why some people (chinese?) bring the F-22 to the discussion about J-10 that compete in the international market with their ancestor the F-16. The F-22 is perhaps the most expensive and the most impressive fighter flying around, compare the J-10 with the F-22 is like compare chinese copies of the popular VW Beetle with the exclusive Nissan Skyline.
James
F22 is an over designed fighter.
Like all other USA military hardwares, they were designed to be expensive so that they benefit the military contractors and industries.
The USA has spent all its wealth acquiring these weapons and in the process truely bankrupt its economy.
The F22 is like a very expensive mistress.You only get to bang her now and then but pays enormously for the privilege.
John Chan
It is rumoured that one item on the agenda of the next meeting between Obama and Hu is to discuss the shipment of spare parts made in China for F-22.
mareo2
A rumor? With all due respect Mister John Chan. In the US there are rumors that the government is controled by aliens from outer space. Despite my incredulity to your rumor about Chinese part being used in the F-22, if you can provide a link to a respectable source of information I have no problem in take a look and decide if it looks credible.
John Chan
@mareo2, it’s no fun at all, isn’t it, when the pride of a nation got trashed by other people. As the quoted post below explaned there is no invention or discovery created in isolation, human beings only do innovation, improvement bit by bit. The people arguing whose jet fighter is better probably have no real understanding about enginerring, science and technology. In the beginning of industrial revolution, blue print may be crucial, nowadays nobody can make anything without proper tools, materials, etc. Not all those things you can buy because you have money. The US and Russia can use the supply of critical spare parts to stop the advanced weapons they sold to their allies from working all together. Building an jet fighter needs a vast industrial infrastructure involving millions of people, histroy, etc. Even the aeroplane appears the same, but building it will be totally not related to each at all. Nations like India, Japan, and SKorea can assemble jet fighter, but they cannot build jet fighter, that’s why the US is so nervious about China becasue China build jet fighter itself even though the quality may not be as good as the US. The implication is that the US does not know what in Chinese jet fighter might suprise them even to F22. In war, surprise is the killer.
Anyhow weapons are only as good as the soldiers using them. The bragging right does not mean much for the guys who put their lives on the line.
To accuse other people stealing or copying military technologies is nothing short of racism and bigotry!
mareo2
Why you dont take some medicine for the stress? Take a breather. What copy, racism and bigotry have anything to do with your comment about a rumor saying that China can export parts for the F-22 to the USA? Do you explode changing the subject in frustration because you cant find a link to a credible source? Are all the chinese short tempered like you?
Pal if your first plane is a piece of junk just try again, and again and again until it work. Just dont try to present junk as a success, is an insult to people that love airplanes.
2oeram
Ms. Mareo2.
We can all talk big and say how bad Chinese technology is, and how they can’t invent anything of their own.
It is natural for someone like you, someone that is hateful to despise China simply because China is developing a such a rapid pace that you cannot comprehend and thus resort to hateful thoughts and jealousy.
I don’t think it is John Chan that needs to take some medicine, rather it is you who should get your doctor to prescribe you some amlodipine so you don’t burst your aorta while getting so worked up typing hateful comments.
Yours truly,
2oeram
TomasPain
If China spent half as much time trying to develop it’s own technology as it does trying to steal others than maybe, just maybe China could produce something other than cheap junk. Every time I hear the word Chinese innovation I laugh. The only innovating China has done in the past 500 years is on how to brainwash its people. You need to wake up to the reality that China is a giant bubble waiting to burst. The West will be damaged by the bubble bursting but we have real wealth, make real products people want and need and have real assets. China on the other hand makes cheap junk people can do with out, is largely poor and have built useless empty cities in the middle of nowhere with your money. Good luck when the house of cards comes crashing down!
ASEAN
What good is a fighter when you can’t even design and manufacture a decent to fly it? The J-10 is just a piece of crap without the Russian engine and we all know how efficient those Russian engines are, don’t we? And we haven’t mentioned about the advanced avionics for the F-16C/D yet…
ASEAN
My bad… “manufacture a decent ‘engine’ to fly it”…
Elmer Fudd
Just outta curiosity, were you around when GIs were napalming your grandparents village, burning down their huts, and gangbanging your granny?
John Chan
Quoted Post: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread311147/pg1
“Why, oh why do some people think that just because two aircraft might share a common configuration to solve a common requirement that there is a conspiracy involved ???????? Gosh, was there conspiracy involved in the design of the Spitfire, Bf 109 and the Hurricane?? – or perhaps the Fw 190, Zero and the P-47 – of course not.
Given the state of technology, indeed the state of knowledge, at any given moment in human history, it is absolutely INEVITABLE that designers will reach the same general conclusions to solve the same problems most efficiently, most of the time.
To think that the designers (or indeed the general population) of one country are more intelligent than those of another country is nothing short of racism and bigotry!
The ONLY difference that I can see is that some countries have been able to invest more money to address basic research questions that lead to advancements in technology (remembering that at least as many research endeavors lead nowhere at all) – and as soon as you apply them (unless you are going to keep the resulting aircraft permanently in a hanger) the technology spreads, merely because other designers and researchers can see the configuration and understand that it might be a ‘better’ solution to some application that was previously insoluble without considerable, expensive original research. Upon seeing a new configuration, particularly applied to a traditional aircraft role (say, a ground attack fighter), it gives impetus to other research organizations to test that configuration (it also makes it cheaper in the long run, as they don’t end up testing stuff the turns out to be useless).
That they do not come up with exactly the same solution (the situation where, for instance the aerodynamic qualities of Concorde were not available to that company’s competitors, but more particularly even the underlying theory was not available to the Russians – due to ‘Cold War’ restrictions), and that the resulting aircraft are not equally successful, is absolute proof that these so-called conspiracies DO NOT EXIST.
As for copying someone else’s ideas, well if you look at the ‘rolleron’ stabilization system on a Sidewinder you will see that it is such an elegant, simple, cheap and effective solution to an engineering problem, that has stood the test of time, and if you were designing either a similar weapon or a competitor, that you would be absolutely stupid not to consider using that system (especially if you are in a position where you can ignore patent rights!)
That most modern fighters are built in the same configuration, is merely that ’someone’ first thought of that configuration, could afford to test the theory and put it into practice. Each configuration gives the design particular flight characteristics, therefore to build something else to have similar characteristics, or to counter that particular aircraft on the battlefield, it is obvious that any other design is going to have a similar or ‘better’ configuration to SUIT THE PURPOSE – which brings us back to which countries can afford the expense of testing all the research theories put forward all over the world, all the time.
One could go even further and suggest that because the pictures shown above are taken from the same angle, that (presuming that they were taken by different photographers) that there must have been some conspiracy involving the photographers. It is nothing more than the fact that such an angle results in an eye-pleasing result – same problem, same solution – simple as that.”
calidonia
Is anyone sure that the F-16 can take down the J-10 in the air, and why?
Does anyone know the J-10 is a crap, and why?
Is there any similarity between the F-16 and J-10?
Any justification that J-10 is a copy?
If a copy is so easy, why India does not make a copy, but pay big $ to buy from Russia?