I thought that Russian military official’s slapdown of the Chinese knock off of their Su-33 carried based fighter (Chinese designation J-15) was really interesting. Now, as I mentioned yesterday, this could all just be posturing for the global arms market, a bit of tainting the competition if you will.
Or, it could just be public griping over the Chinese stealing intellectual property from Russian aircraft builder Sukhoi. But then again, there is not much of a global market for carrier based fighters. Also, what the Russian official said about shortcomings in China’s aerospace industry resonates with what I’ve seen from other sources.
This 2005 RAND report, Modernizing China’s Military, though a bit dated, is one of the more analytically rigorous assessments of China’s defense industry that I’ve been able to find. Key sections:
“The limitations of China’s defense industries are reflected in the long production cycles for major defense systems. China’s JH-7 (FBC-1) fighter-bombers and J-10 (F-10) multirole aircraft, its most advanced indigenously produced military aircraft, were both under development for two decades. The JH-7 only recently entered into service for the PLA Navy (PLAN), even though it was first designed in the early 1970s. Despite the very long development times involved, the project is still dependent on jet engines imported from Britain—China has been unable to produce the engine on its own. The J-10 has just entered series production despite the fact that the program was initiated in the early 1980s, and the design is largely derived from Israel’s canceled Lavi fighter program (which in turn was based on U.S. F-16 technology).
Other sectors of China’s defense industry have exhibited similar, though perhaps not as acute, weaknesses as the aircraft industry. For most of the 1980s and 1990s, China produced no heavy naval cruisers or multirole destroyers with advanced air defense or antisubmarine systems. Until recently, China’s newest classes of surface ships were produced in very small numbers, showed few significant design innovations, and relied on imported equipment for critical subsystems, weapons, and sensor suites. Even China’s missile sector, which is often heralded as a “pocket of excellence,” does not inspire awe. The solid-fuel ballistic missiles and anti-ship cruise missiles for which it has made its reputation are comparable to systems fielded in the West in the 1960s and 1970s.”
If anybody out there knows of more recent assessments please do pass any and all along.
– Greg Grant
{ 28 comments… read them below or add one }
good to know that the global military industrial complex messes up by design, it's not just a US or European thing. and 3 words to the Russians: rolls roys nene!
The Chinese have come late to the realization that fielding boomers at sea is not as easy as it looks for the US and Britain. I believe their Type 092 is still sitting in port, waiting for its JL-2 missiles. They also mananged to gas 30 of their own sailors in a diesel sub incident a few years back.
It's not that easy to run with the big boys. A lot of pain to come…
…and the Japs could not design state of the art fighters because of a presumed deficient organ of balance and would never be capable fighter pilots because of their myopia. Enter the Zero and the rest is WWII history.
Same story with the Russians and their presumably inferior tanks and planes. Ask any German!
Moral of the story; never underestimate your opponent.
Bingo.
Does anyone know when the DoD's "Annual Report to Congress: Military Power of the PRC" will be released? It's running late this year.
With lots of electronic/computer items being produced/copied in China and the speed which new designs and devices are coming out of these factories. I would not be surprised, if China moves, at what would seem considerable speed from research to development. What say the gallery.
Charlie Gershbaum
Do we still have a capability to produce weapons sytems in the future or is that being outsourced to the Chinese. If it is we might have a problem.
The comforting assumption that because they are currently producing crap this means they always will produce crap is dangerous.
The learning curve is huge, but emphasize *learning*. If one generation of weaponry is 25 years behind the state of the art it doesn't automatically follow that every successive generation will also be 25 yrs behind. It seems far more likely that the Chinese will eventually solve some of their fundamental quality issues. Combine that with almost unlimited resources and plenty of blueprints gained one way or another and the quality gap is sure to significantly.
Especially as more and more mid level industry gets moved to China – as automobile, telecoms, etc starts existing indiginously, you get things like quality control skills being developed with them.
China may not be being trained in military industry skills *directly* but that doesn't mean none of the skills are being passed over.
…close.
Good Evening Greg,
To respond to you question is an economic argument which doesn’t do well with the what I’m seeing above. One thing that is happening now in China that will effect Chinas industrial base is the huge increase in wages that are being asked for and give. I’m talking about rises in the 15%- to 50% range. This will soak up a lot of the increase in China’s defense budget.
China does have problems they have been discussed here before and the winger seem to ignore them. After all with Russia in the crapper China is the only bougie man to support there twisted ideologies. Real world Chinese heavy industry lacks skilled management, engineers and skilled labor. To make skilled labor you need apprentice programs, to get skilled managers and engineers you need non ideological higher education. China has invested in neither.
Taking the route of sending students overseas and hoping they will return with western technology and western management has been a bust. Once they leave China they don’t want to go back. The ones that do return have become citizens of another country and work for a foreign firm.
Basic technologies that China are behind in besides what you mentioned are diesel engines (they but them from Germany), gas turbine technology (they have to buy gas turbine generators from Taiwan), air frames of all kinds (they were buying Russian, but that appears to be at least on a pause), nuclear reactors (they have suspended their nuclear programs and have gone back to the drawing board in designing a reactor), military shipbuilding (they are at a technology and quality levels that the US was at in the 1920′s). They can’t even build a modern assault rifle (re the Type 90 rifle). I could go on and on but I think I’ve made my point(s).
The reasons, well you have to go back to the 1960′s. China is still paying the price of those ideological excesses.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Byron,
once again, I'm not sure how serious you are. Some of these statements just have to be disinformation. In light of the grammar / usage issues showing up here and there, I am beginning to wonder.
Why do wage increases in the private sector imply a negative outcome for the defense budget? I assume you mean that stuff (planes, guns and so on) will get more expensive as a result. Well, possibly, but in general, increases in wages mean a larger tax base. It's by no means a zero sum situation.
"Real world Chinese heavy industry lacks skilled management, engineers and skilled labor."
That's kind of true… but it's kind of nonsense as well. Sure, there is a *huge* demand for good quality staff in all industries across China. However, there is, by now, a massive (though still inadequate) pool of well trained, experienced staff in just about any industry you care to name. Say "thank you" to US firms like Motorola for that.
"To make skilled labor you need apprentice programs, to get skilled managers and engineers you need non ideological higher education. China has invested in neither."
Never saluted the flag at school, Byron? Anyway, plain wrong. There are some outstanding educational programmes (particularly in the hard sciences) in place and churning out graduates.
In terms of the supposed technological deficiencies you list… well, I've had a pretty good play with the type 95 rifle (as well as most other small / light arms in their arsenal) and it's not bad. Fit and finish are fine, and it shoots as well as can be expected for a rifle that's meant to see hard use.
Trouble is, China is doing research, building things, and modernizing their military…
The Russians, while having fallen behind, are doing research, building things, and modernizing their military…
What is the West doing?
Canceling programs, cutting budgets, and engaging in bitter infighting over the few contracts that are left!
Give them long enough, and they won't HAVE to worry about us, we won't be able to afford to operate what we have!
Chimp, I have to agree with you on every point, especially education. I have some friends teaching in China, and they report that the Chinese are really expanding the depth and breadth of their higher education system at a rate that beggars belief.
The Rand study is simply wrong about the Chinese missile force. The West and the Soviets never had any comparable conventional ballistic force. For example, look at the open source discussions in China about using conventional ballistic missiles against moving targets at sea. No one else is working that like they are.
Good Morning Folks,
To the unnamed poster who lacks the guts to post his name.
Responses. You are saying that Chinese workers in defense industries will work for considerably lower wages then workers making Barbie Dolls. That an idea not even those peculiar institutions of winger tanks could endorse.
Chinese Heavy industry is lacking in the three areas I’ve mentioned. Statements from the Chinese themselves confirm this as well as the 2009 program to educate second level students abroad and bring them back to China for mandatory service to “The People”. After the PLA has it pick the next category is teachers. Who ever you are you are not well informed on this topic. I might suggest that you start reading the WSJ.
Education programs in China are still strongly ideologically and lacking in western though, applied sciences, vocational training and economics programs. Besides the fact that you obviously have no knowledge at all about education and training, I’m game, how would you solve this problem?
As for me having not saluted the Flag at school. I’m a US Army combat amputee from Vietnam. my MOS was 11B, I was involved in two combat actions during my time in Nam that were awarded the Presidential Unit Citation (The Blue Ribbon). Since the award was created in WW II only about a 125 have been awarded, a lot of very brave men and women have none, I have two.
Now no name. what have you done to deserve to be critical of an American citizen. If I chose to salute the flag or not, I’ve earned that right. By the way super Patriot by an act of Congress I have the right in civilian attire to keep my hat on and render an right hand salute as the flag goes by, every other person must remove their hats, also by an act of Congress I’m among a very small group that can legally refer to themselves as a Patriot.
Lets have some feed back. Who are you and what have you done to earn the right to be an American Citizen.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
I'm a retired military person myself, Byron. You have my respect as a person who has made sacrifices for his country.
I currently work *in* China. My business nowadays is training, and I see the whole gamut of industries you discussed. I stand by my comments on the state of Chinese industry and their products.
In terms of training, I think I can claim to be qualified and experienced in the field. I don't see any really excessive leftist leanings in most of the programmes I am / have been part of. If anything, I would say that Chinese corporations are heavily influenced, nowadays, by Japanese management concepts.
I have been impressed by some of your comments on other subjects. I feel you have misjudged the situation in China, and to some extent have bought into the kinds of stereotypes that lead to both our countries being handled very harshly in the early 1940's by the Japanese.
I withdraw my implication that your comments were provocative, and apologize for them. If you're ever in this neck of the woods, I'll buy the beer and we can swap war stories.
Oh… I'm not and never have been a US citizen!
You asked the question, so here it is….
I'm in the Army now–28 plus years and been shot enough for it to count. But, you know what? I don't think you have to be in the military to be a patriot and the Constitution nowhere states a service requirement for citizenship. I respect service and all, but frankly have little patience for the professional veteran crowd that denigrates any and all that didn't fight. I would rather live in Athens than Sparta.
China is still on the learning curve. Not something degrading or humbling. In fact all of us (American, Russian, Arab, Jew or Chinese etc etc) is still learning in one way or another.
But we have to learn fast and smart!!!
I could accept arguendo any claim that Byron or others might make that Chinese military industries are behind the current state of the art, and still suggest that in time they'll get their act together. They have time, they have talent – despite the huge numbers of their best and brightest that come to the US for education and then stay here – and they have vast resources of money and patience.
The pace of improvement of China's economy is historically without equal. it escapes me why anyone would seek to take comfort (if that's the word) in the idea that China's military industries are somehow doomed to decades of failure. And, until such time as defectors supply us with state-of-the-art Chinese aircraft for scrutiny, all assumptions that their systems are inadequate should be taken with two grains of salt, as necessarily speculative.
you do know that you are talking about who can kill better china or usa , you idiots
Good Morning Folks,
To “I’m a retire military person myself…” I would very much like having a beer or two with you some time when our paths cross.
After I retired from real work that I had been in for over 20 years, I got bored and was talked into working on a part time basis for a European wireless communications company and stayed for 3.5 years. Part time became 6 days a week 10-12 hours a day, the money was good, but that had long since not been a factor in my life.
During that time I worked with as a peer and then in supervisory capacities with a lot of very bright young people from at least sixty countries, all with post grad. degrees in the sciences. Many were from the PRC and to a man or woman had no intentions of going back. Most already had taken out Canadian Citizenship.
Of course all there reasons were very personal and different but the lack of opportunities and the fear of political and even physical reprisial to them or their family always came up. This is hurting China.
I do agree with you that the Chinese are copying Japanese management style which I don’t think is the best for the PRC. The Japanese style is elitist that has restricted innovation and has come to be know as crony management. For a current example of how things can go bad in a hurry see the history of the current problems Toyota is having.
My opinion is the PRC would be far better off endorsing open management styles that European and the best of American corporations have embraced.
The open style is messy, and has a lot of collateral personal damage and often make equity hold anxious, but it produces the best results the quickest. The digital wireless communication that is now heading to it’s fourth generation is an excellent example. The first Digital wireless communication products came to market in the late 1990′s, two years later the second generation was in the market place any by 2005 the third generation was in the iPhone.
All that progress in such a short time window came out of the United States and from two US companies and two EU companies, operating in the United States, all competing and suing each other. It was crazy, and still is for the fifth generation wireless , it was bloody and it was very productive. Neither Japan, South Korea or the PRC could have done it in the short period of time we did in the US.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
N. Montgomery (Army Security Agency (ASA), NAVRESSECGRU, Ret.)
Excellent discussions on the emerging military production power of China and some great points made by all. Obviously, many are better informed on key industrial production issues than myself.
However, if i can be so bold, there are other macro factors which will eventually limit the latitude of Chinese defense spending, regardless of the inherent excellence of their industrial production force. Specifically, a rapidly aging population accompanied with severe built-in gender imbalances in the younger child bearing cohorts (i.e. 35 and below).
And, while I don't have the exact data in front of me, it is an openly acknowledged fact that population demographics in China will soon (from 2018-2020 onward) confront their government with the need to dramatically expand social programs for 400 to 600 plus new elderly (ages 60 and above). Moreover, this new domestic need for funding will come on top of already widespread inequities in the distribution of class and region based domestic wealth.
Despite the pervasive leftist politicization of Chinese society, from my tours in north east asia with the now-defunct ASA as a Korean linguist (98Golf) and from living in Japan — I am quite positive that the revered culture of Lao Tzu and Confucius will not permit programmatic abandonment of the elderly.
So, I would sum all this up, this way. Excepting radical new national wealth- enhancing scientific research and breakthroughs (ex. the next internet, new energy technologies, etc.) — the next 10-15 year span is the economic bounty time for China. Yes, China's national strength will increase considerably, but no nation has ever escaped the confining bonds of "adverse" demographics. China will not enjoy the very positive demographics of the Third Reich of even Stalin's Russia in the late 1930s.
Actually, where I predict we might witness naked Chinese imperial reach will be in the second colonization of Africa. It is somewhat ironic that even with a rapidly aging population the growth, a population of 1.2 billion people will still require "lebensraum." China will see resource rich and negative population growth Africa, as ripe for the taking! Unlike the nuke-armed North American continent.
Oh well, I'll be likely dead by then.
"May you live in exciting times!" (Old Chinese curse)
Best to all, veteran and civilian alike!
ASA Lives!
"the next 10-15 year span is the economic bounty time for China"
I pretty much agree with that assessment. There are already signs that growth based on exports is topping out.
"I am quite positive that the revered culture of Lao Tzu and Confucius will not permit programmatic abandonment of the elderly."
One thing, in my view, that communism *has* done to China is strip away some of the virtues their society once had. It's the land of "gimme" now, in some ways. A very competitive society that carries deep scars.
I'm not sure how significant social spending changes will be in terms of defence. Granted, the planned healthcare programme alone will represent a measurable chunk of GDP. Public spending on education will soar. Lots of other new expenses on the horizon. However, none of that can be viewed as a zero sum equation. Spending on healthcare and education, for example, are important wealth creators. More wealth means more money for R&D and defence.
I think the idea of Chinese colonization of Africa is very far fetched. Investment, sure. Actual colonies? I don't see it. China's experience with territorial expansion has proven very unpleasant. I suspect most of the guys living in Zhongnanhai would prefer that Mao had stayed the heck out of Xinjiang and Tibet. Of course, they're there now, and the risks of backing out are too great to be countenanced.
Yes, unfortunately, you may actually be right about the corrosive influence of a modern mass consuption culture on traditional Chinese values and reverence of the eldery. While age is still much more respected in the East than in the West, the changes discussed happend in Japan in the mid 1980s to 90s. And, ironically, it was the parents who didn't want to live with their kids for the most part. The economically empowered and socially liberated Japanese parents wanted to enjoy their retiements and travel the world.
However, when we are talking about hundreds of millions of elderly and the entitlement programs needed to sustain them — I think you are grealty discounting the holistic budget impact. And, as I have almost three decades iof experience in health care management and planning, I can agree with your statment that investments in health care programs can and do enhance the value of human capital — and such is true only for those still in the workforce. In pure economic terms, sustaining elderly populations is done for social, ethical and cultural reasons — economically it is a "zero sum" game to sustain those who are not producers.
As for Chinese adventurism, I am very concerned about the rising jingosim in China, which the central committee promotes at its own risk. Sometimes, monstors are created that cannot be tamed. I am afraid that their military industrial complex will add to the dersire for imperial adventure. And, China will have the broad shoulders to sustain such adventures, if only limted to repopluating north east Manchuria/Siberia. The Russians may well again become serfs for the new Mongol tribe.
Best, Nikki
It is really nice to know that the chinese are good in reverse technology instead of developing their own technology. Ample care should be taken that the dual use technology or high end technology specially pertaining to defence do not reach them.