Fighter technologies have evolved at an impressive rate since the end of the Cold War. In industrial defense establishments across the world, the production and development of relatively cheap and viable versions of fourth generation aircraft continues. Incorporation of modern electronics suites and advanced upgrades have extended the life of such platforms for decades. At the same time, defense corporations and government contracted tech giants are focusing on newer breeds - fifth generation aircraft that boast the latest in stealth technologies, advanced interlinked sensor suites and more.
While the side-by-side upgrades of the old and development of the new have in large part been a mainstay in America, Russia and Europe for decades, this hasn’t been the case in Asia. Previously, the procurement and operation of combat fighter platforms in Asia saw most countries benefit from the industrial patronage of the big Cold War powers. Chinese airfields and Indian hangars were equipped with durable Sukhoi and Mikoyan-designed fighters, while Japan’s skies were home to contracted versions of some of the United States’ best.
However, economic growth and industrial expansion in Asia has triggered a drive towards producing strong domestic industrial bases in which two countries in the region, India and China, have raced far ahead of regional neighbors when it comes to the rapid maturation of new air combat technologies. Indigenous development processes in both countries are noticeably taking a more strategic, rather than tactical, form. Demand from these countries in the global arms market for new capabilities has led to the consolidation of many existing bilateral trade and industrial relationships in the region. Beijing is edging closer to Islamabad, while New Delhi has actively sought involvement in joint industrial ventures with countries like Russia, the United States and many of India’s southeasterly neighbors.
It’s clear that emerging military-industrial partnerships represent a strategic balancing act on the continent, something which can most visibly be seen by looking at the endeavors of the region’s indigenous air combat industries.
Both India and China have, in their bid to acquire competitive fourth generation fighter capabilities, engaged in productive joint ventures with regional neighbors aimed at constructing light and versatile air superiority aircraft. Considering specific developments, today’s emerging balance of capabilities from such ventures indicates a significant focus on perceived security threats, from enduring tensions between India and Pakistan to emerging conflicts of interest between China and India.
For Beijing, lessons learned from previous experiences with Russia have enabled the rise of capable domestic production programs. The most internationally visible of those, a Sino-Pakistani lightweight fighter called the JF-17 Thunder, was recently announced as ready for export, with potential customers from Southeast Asia to Africa.
By comparison, India’s development of the HAL Tejas, a delta-wing single engine multi-role lightweight fighter, represents New Delhi’s similar commitment to the indigenous development of platforms that can both balance against threats from abroad and capably operate in the distinct roles of land-based strike craft and sea-launched first response unit.
While there are some unmistakable differences between the two craft – the Tejas is an entirely new design compared to the heavily Mikoyan-influenced Thunder – it’s fairly clear that the present production and equipment of both planes is reactive. The Tejas and the Thunder, with numerous hard-points for mixed mission profiles, good range and the ability to fire air-launched cruise missiles, match each other closely, representing the balancing of capabilities that ultimately is the primary goal of Asia’s new military-industrial partnerships.
However, focus on Russian-based fourth generation aircraft is beginning to fade as new technology begins to emerge. With the testing of China’s J-20 fifth generation stealth-equipped fighter in January, China has demonstrated its ability to engage in the domestic development of aircraft that have the potential to compete with the best technology that countries like America and Russia have to offer.
In strategic terms, and in light of suggested export partners like Pakistan, the J-20 represents a counterpoint to the joint Russo-Indian Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA), a multi-variant stealth-equipped platform that promises to be the backbone of both countries’ future combat air forces. On the one hand, the FGFA has seen successful prototype tests and promises to deliver advanced air superiority capabilities. The J-20, on the other hand, as yet is likely lacking when it comes to the incorporation of advanced electronics capabilities and fifth-generation stealth-accommodating engines.
Still, with a minimal radar cross-section, powerful (if not yet stealth-equipped) propulsion and, given the size of the plane, a considerable amount of internal payload storage, it’s worth remembering that the general design of the J-20 indicates awareness of the challenges of facing the kind of capabilities that the FGFA would gift India and others. Even at its most basic level, the J-20 represents a not-so-invisible threat to China’s near-abroad as not only a potential competitor to future air superiority platforms, but as a long-range, stealthy fighter-bomber that could be the bane of military installations, ancillary forces and naval units across the region.
Ultimately, it’s likely that the development of combat fighter industries and partnerships in Asia will continue to denote the strategic mindset of the region’s various balancing powers. The domestically-based capabilities of countries to assert influence through the use of dynamic production programs and strategically-positioned strike forces in the near-abroad remains a telling benchmark for judging the state of affairs between countries. Considering how reactive the development of new combat fighter programs appears to have been in Asia, it’s a benchmark that looks set to be increasingly determined by the shape of future joint ventures between regional partners.
Christopher Whyte is a Washington DC area analyst and graduate student in Political Science in International Relations at George Mason University, Virginia.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Yang zi
Being neighbors is a tragic for India and China. Both are magnificent civilizations suffered humiliation under the west. Both strive to restore its formal glory. If not for Indian’s agreesive moves along the border, China and India are natural allies.
But both also resorted to self grandizing to cheer themselves up. This self grandizing is the psyche that can me detrimental. Koreans and Vietnamese have the same psyche.
What China can do is to show its sincerity to common advancement and multipolar world, thus support Indian and Japanese bid to be permernemt UNSC member.
Oro Invictus
@Yang Zi
Oh, please don’t go into the whole shtick about “The West” and their oppression; the oscillatory nature of history renders every nation a victim to another. Such attempts to imply camaraderie due to such things is self-defeating; this is not dissimilar to the psychological response amongst those placed under duress forming close relations solely on they’re being bedfellows in perceived danger. As soon as said danger fades, the individuals invariably become estranged, and it is not uncommon for them to become the bitterest of foes.
Yearning for the “glory of yesteryear” is also self-defeating, it will only lead to similar blunders that befell those before, compounded with an utter inflexibility to adapt to varying conditions inherent in the non-static nature of current events. What’s more, these images of “past glories” oft fall far short of the reality; for most nations their “zenith” of martial and economic power marked the darkest years of their neighbours and even their own citizens. Even more so than India, China’s past zeniths in world affairs were marked by the slaughtering of their neighbours and their own people, something the remains of those who now serve as part of the mortar of the Great Wall and the Forbidden City can attest. I do not mean to say that this is unique to China, however, I simply want to highlight the dangers of seeking to attain power in the same manner as those in the past.
Also, the actions of the nations around the PRC speak for themselves; the fact that every one of them (sans North Korea, or course) has struck a far more distanced and defensive posture towards the PRC in recent years, India included, suggests it is not India serving as the primary aggressor; apart from Pakistan and the PRC, you nary see such radical actions by India’s neighbours, further evidence of their relatively (and I stress relatively) pacifistic nature in these matters. Once again, all groups present in these matters have contributed to the tension, but if we are to apportion blame that burden of fault lies more heavily upon the PRC than other nations; the fact that we are suddenly seeing so many traditional enemies and antagonistic entities suddenly forming common consensus on these issues is revealing.
While it’s good you recognize that no party is innocent in our current situation, this type of half-hearted concession does not serve fair and open dialogue much better. Granted, you might just be relaying what you perceive to be the common view in the PRC and not necessarily your own, but your diction leads me to suspect you share these sentiments to a degree. Alas, I similarly fear your recommendation for the PRC to support the Japanese and Indianian bids for greater say in international affairs are doomed; the CPC will never accept them, out of fears of further shifting the balance of power on the security council to “The West”.
yang zi
@Oro Invictus,
I respect your sophistication and nuances on these issues. But I don’t necessarily disagree with you. the common experience of India and China does align the two countries on many issues. of course the rivalry is also obvious due to its closeness and both are growing quickly.
India has been the source of many thoughts. it has formulated its own philosophy and did it well during and after cold war.
The self-aggrandizement happens to almost every country. it is not healthy for a up and coming country, especially a country like China and India. I think Chinese leaders are aware of this but the populace are not fully oriented. the narrative is still a country suffered unjust treatment and barbaric attacks. which is all true but China should move on. this is a maturing process and it takes time.
Even though I participate dishing out verbal volleys, but that is just been a gamer.
BTW, India and Japan are not The West. China should be mature enough to support their aspirations in UN. if they vote against China, so be it. after all, this is what a democratic and multipolar world should be. China has not monopoly to truth. I am looking forward for the day that China can welcome voices it doesn’t like.
Oro Invictus
@Yang Zi
Given “The West” is dependent on one’s frame of reference, geographically it is a fairly meaningless term when defining constituent nation-states; however, the CPC has already made their feelings clear that India and, particularly, Japan, are more sympathetic to NATO and other associated groups than themselves (thus, their presence on the Security Council would likely not further their agenda[s]).
I, likewise, look forward to the day that the Chinese people as well as foreigners in and around China can freely voice their opinions on matters; even moreso, the day when humanity as a whole can cease its fruitless and childish bickering and dependence on self-interested governments (however long away and/or unlikely that may be). However and perhaps this is because of my scientific background, I am also a man who utilizes all available data to form trends, define possible outliers, and form likely models of progress; and history shows us, unfortunately, that authoritarian states like the PRC rarely (if ever) loosen their grasp upon the people, instead “tightening the noose” as true popular support fades away. The only way such entities’ grasp on power is oft broken is either through social upheaval via peaceful popular movements or, (unfortunately) more often then not, violent revolution which too often just serves to cause more bloodshed rather than liberation. It is my hope that the former can be achieved before attitudes harden too much on both sides, as history demands that no power is constant, and those whose hubris leads them to play god with their brothers are invariably cast down.
Sinodefender
@Oro Invictus its nice to see a reasonable poster who can comment about China without sounding like a bigot. WW2 wounds are not healing fast enough,PRC is picking at the scab thus there is an anti Japanese attitude in China,at least in my experience Chinese view the Indians as lazy and jealous,there seems to be a view that China has no peer except America in amount of power. The “democracy” I see in this world is flawed,the rich to a degree are able to manipulate some leaders(though this occurs in other systems),there are still prejudices yet to be eradicated such as racism and homophobia,and some patents seem to do more harm than good. I think free speech should be limited especially on hate speech,humanity will cease vices if they are all dead… CPP seems to be relying on nationalism to fuel its machines since reviving Communism is like beating a dead horse,it is dangerous what the CPP is doing they should make allies not adversaries out of world. Chinese dynasties seem only to change when a peasant rebellion(sometimes with zealots at the mantle such as yellow turban,red turban and taiping are examples),or invasions by foreigners(Xianbei,Jurchen and Mongols).
girish
As far as I know, India supported Chinese bid for UNSC seat.
Invictus’sNumeroUnoFan
“Oh, please don’t go into the whole shtick about “The West” and their oppression; the oscillatory nature of history renders every nation a victim to another.”
This is great. I agree.
Yangzi: Most Chinese nationalist voicing their resentment of western invasions of China would find the idea of an Imperial Chinese Army going Genghis Kahn on Berlin tantalizing enough. It’s all about who and whom.
Mazo
India’s policy with respect to China is no longer about glory or self aggrandizing. It’s is a policy of reacting to decades of unprovoked and callous Chinese attitudes towards India.
Chinese attitudes of late have been increasingly belligerent and though India has been accommodating for the past few decades, New Delhi has quickly learnt that being accommodating has only made the Chinese more demanding. India now is resorting to a more “active” policy of responding to Chinese belligerence, though not quite on the level of the Chinese.
For example, while China has the arrogance and the temerity to try to involve itself in the Kashmir dispute, India still holds Taiwan at bay. India is also so far made no effort to accede to the Vietnamese request for nuclear technology despite China’s efforts to arm Pakistan with every nuclear component they desire. India is also not yet responded to ASEAN countries request for the Bramhos missile while China has provided ample missile and cruise missile technology to Pakistan. Further, India’s co-operation with Japan, Australia and the US has always been discrete and cautious so as not to offend Cninese sensibilities however the Chinese haven’t demonstrated similar civility in their dealings with nations around South Asia.
India has many cards it can play yet. The only impediments are “will” and how annoyed New Delhi gets at Beijing arrogant tone and demands.
yang zi
@Mazo, your cards are either not playable, or not effective. Selling BrahMos to SEA is not an Indian decision, it is also Russia’s. Besides, it put US ships in harms way too. Sending nuclear reactors to Vietnam is not a big deal, China cannot stop Vietnams peaceful nuclear use anyway. As for taiwan, India’s impact is limited, yet it might trigger China’s support to Assam’s independence movement. Not to mention Kashmir.
I do agree China’s relationship with Pakistan is a real concern to India. But China is restraint too, it is not setting up a navy base there, it is only fixing some roads. The world is big enough for both China and India to rise, it is better to acommondate each other than restrict each other.
Gaurav
Yang Zi – The answers to all your question is “Will” of Indian Leadership. As of now greed for personal gains is stopping them to take any concrete measures, but the day they are forced to take strong decisions that day you will find India doing all the above stated acts. Also, for your information there is no Independence movement in Assam, check your stats people actively participated in the last general elections. China has grown powerful and there is no doubt to it. It’s best relations are with the countries who are ruled by millitary regime like Pakistan and North Korea. They are also going the USA way by promoting rogue elements like Pakistan. USA created Taliban to use as a weapon against Russia, China is using Pakistan against India. But what they do not realize is they are creating their own worst enemies. India definitely lags behind China in most of the aspects, but the best thing about India is that it is a democratic country; culturally and historically people here are more accommodating which is essential for a democratic setup. We can survive the rough times because children are raised not to take radical actions during hostile environment.