The congressional U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission held a hearing today on Chinese airpower. RAND’s Roger Cliff provided an assessment of China’s air forces modernization over the past decade.
There is no PLA “air force,” there are multiple air forces spread across the military, including air and naval aviation, ballistic missiles and surface-to-air missiles.
Way back in 2000, of the estimated 3,200 fighters in the PLA inventory, all but some 75 “4th generation” Su-27 Flankers, were 1950s era MiG 19s and 21s; China had one airborne early warning aircraft; PLA strike aircraft carried only dumb gravity bombs; and Chinese pilot training was considered poor. All of which meant that if the U.S. and China had gotten into a shooting war back in 2000, U.S. pilots would have enjoyed air-to-air dominance similar to 1991s Gulf War when they flayed Iraq’s air force, RAND says.
Ten years later, the picture is very different and China’s air armada is no longer that of a third world country, RAND says. In this part of the report, it pays to carefully read what the assessment is saying.
The PLA’s ability to fight in and strike from the air has greatly improved, but that increased combat power is due to more than China building modern fighter aircraft.
In fact, at around 1,600 aircraft, China’s fighter force is half what it was ten years ago. Which is why RAND says the number of 1950s era aircraft has been reduced by two-thirds; yet, two-thirds of the remaining total are “still based on” the MiG-19 and 21. RAND says the number of fourth generation aircraft in the PLA inventory has more than quadrupled, yet, that still is less than a quarter of China’s total fighter inventory.
Significantly, China now builds a single-engine fighter, the J-10, that RAND says is equivalent to the F-16, and a twin engine heavy fighter, the J-11B (pictured above), considered better than the F-15. Yet, rumors of a Chinese built fifth generation fighter remain just that, RAND says, the only available evidence of such a build being a “full-scale mockup photo” suggesting an aircraft with a reduced radar cross section, though not in the class of the F-22 and F-35.
The PLA air forces have added precision munitions to the inventory, including beyond visual range, radar guided air-to-air missiles, and laser and TV guided bombs. China now builds airborne early warning and control aircraft comparable to the E-2 Hawkeye and E-3 AWACS.
There is no evidence of an aerial refueling tanker or a long range heavy bomber, RAND says. The PLA bomber force remains a short range arm designed for naval strike. It consists of 80 JH-7 fighter bombers and 40 H-6D bombers (based on the 1950s Tu-16) armed with the Exocet like C-803K anti-ship missile.
The real boost in PLA strike has come through increases in the ballistic missile force; the PLA’s 2nd Artillery Force inventory of ballistic missiles has grown considerably over the past decade. As ballistic missile defense is exceedingly difficult, especially against large numbers of incoming missiles, and they reach their targets within minutes of launch, China’s missile force provides it with weapons of similar effects as stealth aircraft: reduced warning time and assured penetration.
While large, China’s missile force must be placed in the context of actual deliverables. Because they are one-off weapons, China’s entire ballistic missile inventory could deliver on the order of a thousand tons of explosives, Cliff writes. The U.S. Air Force, by contrast, could deliver that much every day for an indefinite period of time. Moreover, ballistic missiles are still not as accurate as precision guided weapons such as JDAMs.
– Greg Grant
{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }
Sounds like a paper tiger -but give them time and they will be a force[equiptment wise]to be reckoned with.The fact that they CLAIM to have aircraft equal to the F15&F16 doesn't mean that their pilots could hold a candle to the training or experience of U S or NATO pilots.
Not to discredit our own fighter jocks, but how do we know that their training is so superior? They haven't actually had to use those air-to-air skills in quite some time…
And then you have training exercises like a certain one in 2005 where a certain countries F-15s were defeated by souped up Indian MiG-21s…
Yeah, say what you will that the USAF was set up for failure/it wasn't a fair test, etc. etc. but to me that says that there is a deficiency that our pilots have despite all their training. Besides that, war is not a fair fight, an 'artificial' situation like that could very well become a real one.
Yes they were, after the USAF was in a scenario that doesn't exist. We were outnumbered. Not allowed to use link16. Only had sparrows. Could only engage within visual range. Did not bring AIM-120s. AWACs was 'neutral' feeding targeting info to both sides. Cope 2005 was a joke designed to scare people into buying the F22.
all cope 2005 said was that IF we don't have AWACS, IF we can't use AIM 120s, IF we can't use our electronics properly, and IF we're outnumbered 4 to 1, then our planes get shot down…….the problem is that India isn't our ally, yes we'll do an exercise against them, but we don't trust them enough to use our best against them
Not again! Cope 2005 was NOT an training exercise. Why should people conduct training with someone's not their close ally? Some jets flying around dont make an exercise. Cope was just an event to show the military cooperation between 2 countries.
Losses are inevitable in combat. It's time the air force recognizes this again. We can spend jillions of dollars chasing after diminishing returns per pilot, to the point that our aircraft are so expensive that we have more pilots than aircraft. Then it won't be much of an air force.
Drones for the future!
Until some Chinese Belenko defects and presents us with a current-production aircraft, we can't fairly assess their systems. Is there a good reason to expect that their electronic designs date from the same periods as the airframes? I wouldn't assume it. The ballistic missile investments made are doubtless good enough for suppressing Taiwanese runway operations, and those on Okinawa. So how many 4+ aircraft do you need to protect a landing operation if you can deny all relevant opposition the use of their runways for a couple of days?
Good Evening Folks,
I guess even Rand couldn’t ignore a hard count of China’s air assets. Notice how this is written, real numbers for 2000, but nothing for 2010 numbers except the total of 1600 and “speculation” that a quarter of that number is 4th. Generation. They are going the wrong direction it appears.
The J-10′s and J-11′s are unknowns in both quantities built and performance. To say that these is an equivalent aircraft in the J-10′s and J-11′s to the Su.-27//33 is in all probability an overstatement. China has a checkered past in fighter aircraft production and the J-10′s/J-11′s which are mostly of Israeli design and manufacturing have yet to be shown at air shows or to the international media. Until then anything either way is just speculation.
The 2nd. Artillery Corps. is not part of the PLA, but reports directly to the two CMC’s. Yes there are two CMA’s one Party and one State the three person membership currently in both is the same. The 2nd Artillery does control all of China’s ballistic missiles, Cruise missiles, other then those with nuclear war heads seem to be under the control of the PLA. But as with most things Chinese this is not clear.
Interestingly a formation of the Chinese military that Rand didn’t mention is the 1.5-2 million man/woman PAP. A group that had grown form a few thousand in 2000 and under the PLA is now like the 2nd. Artillery, and reports directly to the CMC’s. This group is approaching the size of the PLA itself, has it’s own chain of command, uniforms, training facilities and PAP members been seen with such current small arms as the Type-81-1 assault rifle, and the Type-79 Submachine Gun.
Another item that the Rand guys/gals missed is the increase in coastal patrol boats and small missile boats the hard count in a report by the NI press of 12/31/09 claims China has at least 264 such craft in the PLAN.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
The J-10 is an interesting "Israeli knock-off" – Russian engine, Russian avionics, and an airframe that has Israeli genes but has been changed so extensively it really isn't the same thing any more.
AFAIK, there is nothing "Israeli" in the J-11 at all.
Neither aircraft is, was or will be manufactured in Israel. Although, interestingly, you're implying that would make them inferior products. I think the IAF would disagree with that assessment ;)
Both aircraft (J-10/J-11)have been displayed to the public (air-shows, TV and so on) extensively. The J-10 is more or less a mature design now with the "B" variant. I'm not sure what you mean by a "checkered past", so unable to comment.
The Chinese fighter manufacturing industry is also somewhat mature by now. There have been several large projects brought to fruition over the last 20 years, with J-10 being the most ambitious.
In terms of capability, well, who knows.
Moving on to the PAP, the reason RAND didn't mention it, and something you 'neglected' to mention is that the PAP is a police force. It has relevance to domestic security (and you had better believe the commies take that seriously) but is no more a military force than the LAPD. Probably less well armed.
AFAIK, only really backwards police departments in China stock Type 81's. I've been to a few small arms shows in the PRC and Hong Kong recently, and nary a sign. The PAP guys I've seen are armed with the QBZ-95. Interesting weapon… "feels" a lot like the British bullpup – sort of dense, and a bit awkward. It's hard to quantify performance against NATO 5.56mm, but fired, it feels a bit heavier. It looks and feels fairly well made, if a bit rattly (not as bad as an AK, though).
Byron and RAND seem to have missed the real meat of the issue, however. The PLA is *vastly* different from what it was even 15 years ago. The soldiers are better paid, better trained. You can see that they've got a bit of institutional pride now, and that was NOT the case in the past. It looks like an army these days, rather than a bunch of nearly starved, ragged assed farmers.
Training is sub-par in many ways by Western standards (too much by the numbers, and not enough flexibility), but it's done in appreciable quantities.
Equipment is well maintained, and appropriate to the training of the users. Joke gear (like the missile boats so beloved of Mao) is on the way out, along with "human wave" type stuff.
Based on some of the weirder comments about the PLA on this site, it's worth also pointing out that the PLA is not a conscript army. It's a professional force with decent pay (by local standards), competitive entry and good career structures.
That's all a long way of saying that a few cops with sub-machine guns are not relevant in an assessment of the PLA, and that RAND was right to ignore them.
The J-10, a chinese knock-off of the F-16. The J-11, a chinese knock-off of the Su-27. These birds, although capable with a good pilot are like seeing a nice Rolex watch and not noticing the second hand is ticking. For those that don't know, Rolex has a smooth motion for the second hand, without ticking like the knock-offs have. Lets also not forget that the bird they most likely will face first will be F-16 A/B models from Taiwan and F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets. Our F-15 and 16s will have a long hop from Japan and Korea to be able to engage the PLAF.
Good Morning Folks,
Greg Grant seems to have finish off this story with todays post, and really there is not much more to say. I would like to bring up another point that has escaped Rand, or maybe they just ignored it because it doesn’t fit the desired scenario on China.
Lately there have been a trinkling of papers coming out of Newport and Carlisle speculating that China had dropped trying to develop a “Blue Water” capability in favor of a more robust green and brown water costal defense. It is acknowledged that the Chines are attempting to refurbish an old Soviet era Carrier and the PLAN has laid out a carrier runway to practice carrier launches and traps.
Observations in the papers cite China’s inability to build quality ships larger then Corvette or Frigate classes, inability to build a workable nuclear submarine, the problems with the SL-2 SLBM, and training and personal problems with in the PLAN. The problems with a domestically built A/F aircraft seem only to exacerbate the problems that the PLAN are facing.
To compound China’s problems, Russia, China’s largest provider of military hardware/weapons platforms/systems and technology has shown a reluctance to provide the most current technology to China. The assumption is Russia wants to secure it’s own borders with China. The sales of more advanced systems to both Vietnam and India in recent months has caused more then just a little concern in Chinese party and military circles.
The J-10 and J-11 projects failures have undoubtedly put a strain on China’s military/industrial relationship with Israel.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Wow! You guys are full of ignorance. China doesn't have an aerial tanker? It does! I find what information you guys know especially posters are five years behind. A chinese anti-ship missile hit your advanced Sa'ar 5 with the latest tech. An obsolete Chinese Seersucker got past US defenses and hit Kuwait City without anyone knowing until the missile hit. The US Kitty Hawk didn't detect a Chinese sub and got within torpedo range until the sub surfaced and the waved to a passing Kitty Hawk helicopter. The Chinese conducted an ASAT test 10 years before any US expert said it was possible. Chinese ABM tests are batting 100 so far. You guys are seriously in denial.
Good Evening Folks,
To poster Wow! Yes all you say is correct. So what?
Your evidence is rather in the category of so, what does this have to do with China’s attempts at modernization of it military.
The Cruise Missile fired most likely from Iran into Kuwait at 0300 hrs at an empty shopping center, proved what? The damage what little it did was quickly cleaned up and the shopping opened on time the next day. I’m sure this was its intended target.
The Kitty Hawk incident. Yes a Song Class submarine popped up near the USS Kitty Hawk and snapped some post care pictures for the folks in Beijing. The Hawk was on a training exercise and operating with out its escorts and there was no ASW deployed. Again so what. The Song Class has been discontinued and of the nine built six still remain in service, it is not considered a successful class of submarine by the PLAN.
As far as being a threat to the Hawk, well see how easy is was to sink the USS America. Even those peculiar institutions of winger think tanks concede that there is little threat of to American Carriers from from Chinese Cruise Missiles.
Before you you bring up China having ballistic missiles to fire at carriers could you please tell us of a successful Chinese test of such a weapon on a moving ship?
The ASAT and ABM intercept tests were done once and both were staged. China is still a long way from doing either of these intercepts under combat conditions.
Yes China does have a few ariel tankers. They spend their time on the ground. An ariel tanker is of little use if your pilots don’t get to practice using it. China might also even have another AWAC to replace the one they flew into a mountain in 2006 and killed most of the engineers who built the system on a Soviet Il-76 platform. The evidence says that China has yet to build a multi engine air frame and the Russians so far has not shipped any of the 48 Il-76′s or later variants they have had on order since 2000.
I would say it looks like your preference is for ideology over evidence. I would say the the ignorance is on your part.
ALLONS
Byron Skinner
Based on this write-up and critique, the question arises: Who is the Rand Corporation beholden to? The discussion above would seem to put Rand on the side of the big Air Force and Navy air/carrier advocates. I'm not taking a position on whether those advocacies are correct or not, but this report seems to want to support their views. I've noticed that a lot of these 'independent' reports seem to be spun to support different service interests and strategic biases.
Please everyone read this , an ex retired Russian General tells it like it is !
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM…
Good Morning Folks,
To, “Based on the write-up…” you who is Rand Corp and who are they beholden to?
Rand Corp was started in 1959 in Southern California as an Air Force think tank. They have contracts with all the big ten and a few more smaller defense contractors in the aerospace industry to promote products, ie.”Lobby”, Rand Corp. also has contracts with the DoD and other Governmental Agencies as consultants on mostly weapons projects and items of national security interests.
Rand Corp is loyal to their customer base, of the current think conservative tanks like The Heritage Foundation, that takes money from industry/US Government and foreign companies and governments anyone with an open wallet, ie. recently the PRC, Rand stays with US and our allies for customers and is far less ideology driven and more of an academic orientation that values research, hard evidence, scientific research, reason and logic.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner