Turkey is definitely shifting East wards. They’re rebranding themselves as a Muslim country and not a secular country. I guess that’s what happens when EU won’t let you into their decripit little playground.

The other issue is Cyprus and its potential oil-gas reserves which the American aligned Israel is working at getting, regardless of Turkey’s wishes.

In that case geopolitics may have very well played a large part in this deal, at least more than it says on surface

It would be embarassing for Americans as it would show their counter-intelligence services to be useless and incapable of stopping Chinese spying efforts.

I wouldn’t say that — because we don’t hear about all the instances US cyber-intelligence manage to hack into chinese systems either.

However it would be embarrassing if US put up a fuss after the chinese won a competition, because it would almost be like crying foul because your product lost in a fair* competition.

(*Fair meaning the cost, capability, and terms each vendor produced without bribery or coercion etc. Also, let’s not exaggerate the degree to which espionage may have benefitted various defence products — it’s not just a matter of ctrl c, ctrl v, you really need to know your s**t to pull anything useful from one product into your own, and it would require time as well, so even if China say creates a carbon copy of F-35 in 2020, that doesn’t say anything about US counter intelligence vigilance in 2020, but rather in the 2000s or maybe early 2010s.)

J-10B and Type 052D, which are both delivered this year, completely outmatch their Taiwanese F-16C Block 20 and Kidd counterparts. Even if Taiwan gets F-16C Block 50 from America, which it won’t, it would still be completely outmatched. J-10B > Typhoon, Rafale, F-16E Block 60. Type 052D > latest Arleigh Burke, Type 45, FREMM, Horizon, Sachen

Give it a rest man.

Nothing out of the ordinary – except all the bits of the recipe that can be used to counter it though jamming etc.

Some of the most classified stuff in defence is Electronics and Signals because it’s the key to the kingodm. If you can jam or electronically fry an enemy’s system you’ve won the battle (e.g. Israeli jamming and then destruction of Syrian AD systems in Lebanon in 1982 or even Israeli neutralisation of Syrian AD in 2012-13).

Are there such things as downgraded or alternate “frequencies” that your export products can use?

I’d be very surprised if china decided to export a product identical in the important parameters to the mainstay of their ground based IADS, and it’s not like they aren’t aware of the role EW and SIGINT plays. I also wonder if china may assign permanent “technicians” to watch over the radars and prevent potential tampering, the same way US has permanent technician for some of the fighters they export (e.g.: F-16s to Pakistan?).

Also, the fact that they’re willing to sell HQ-9 is also indicative its successor is probably in some relatively advanced stages of development.

Anyway I think this is the first deal that a chinese product has competed with russian, american, and european peers and won a contract, in about ever. This is one of the few “high end” exports china has made to some non-third world clients of recent years, others including the PLZ-45 SPG sales to kuwait and saudi arabia, and selling the pterodactyl mq-1 equivalent to UAE. Now if only they can export JF-17.

i agree, every man boy woman in china have strong pride. i know our government is not best some time, we have many corrupt issues.
but that do not change love for the homeland. we will all fight and will die to protect it!
if us try to challenge it, we will blow guam up.

You should really temper your jingoism.

your claim relies heavily on the quantity of the aircraft, not the actual performance which you seem to lack knowledge in.
again claiming palembang/goldust’s claim as BS yet re-affirming their overall position.

Sigh, my position is that scooter’s statement of F-35C being better than every other carrierborne plane in the next 30 years as presumptous and illogical.

My claim relies on the fact that we don’t know what the russians, chinese, or even the USN itself may decide to develop for their flattops until 2040+, and given F-35C leaves a fair bit of performance to be desired, there’s a good chance whatever they may come up with until 2040+ will be better than it.

I suppose that position reinforces palembang and goldlust’s claim in the sense that it leaves open the opportunity that J-21 will be better than F-35C, but it also leaves open the opportunity for naval T-50, naval J-20, FA-XX to be better than F-35C as well, while also competing with each other.

Fulcrum of my claim isn’t how J-21 compares to F-35C, but how F-35C may fare with every other carrierborne fighter that may be developed from now till the next three decades. Kapeesh?

because only the Taiwanese are going to suffer during a prolonged conflict and the population in the PRC is totally fine with the its effects on their own economy and are willing to see their only child rushed off to war. yeah sure.

Uh, I’m pretty sure I also mentioned that the Chinese populace may have their resolve weakened if a conflict prolonged into a case where chinese cities came under attack if the US intervened…

And in a short conflict (which was the backdrop of the discussion before), yes chances are it would be Taiwan bearing the brunt of the fighting, despite whatever LACMs or fifth column movements they may be able to launch at the mainland.

My point was to serve the social reality that the vast majority of chinese people see taiwanese independence as a do or die issue, and my question was how much they were willing to gamble in the first place, as we move forwards with greater economic integration.

All good questions — although I believe it would be better answered over on a more predominantly chinese forum (plugging SDF and CDF here!)

Although I’ll add in a few of my own opinions, in regards to the doctrine for some individual aircraft types.

J-10: it is an F-16 sized fighter as you mentioned, however it is intended to have some level of reach, i.e.: J-10s doover SCS, and have met with VPAF Su-30’s before, with supposedly favourable results. I don’t think J-10 are meant to operate to the 2nd island chain (at least in forseeable future), but should be able to near the first island chain, disputed SCS, and definitely do CAP a few hundred kms beyond china’s shores. Taiwan of course is also a theatre they are well suited for.
Despite having the potential for A2G capability (i.e.: we’ve seen it carrying and dropping LGBs, and may have the ability to self designate if PLAAF deems it necessary as recent photos show a test article with a pod), PLAAF and PLANAF doesn’t appear in a hurry to integrate their full array of A2G munitions with it (for instance, we’ve seen JF-17s test flown with the LS-6 GPS guided glide bomb, and YJ-83Ks, as well as a variety of Pakistani munitions being test flown by PAF). This is partially because PLAAF seems to view their planes as mostly single role aircraft (although there are exceptions), which is counter to the downsizing and “multitooling” of western air forces where smaller fleets of one or two types of planes will do everything from mow the frontlawn to buy the milk. PLAAF can afford to retain a fleet of many different types of aircraft suited to single tasks, and like you, thobbes, mentioned in another thread, physics, time and availability works the same for all planes, and a multirole fighter doesn’t mean it can magically do every task thrown at it, there will always be compromise in operation. (However I think PLAAF will tend towards a more multirole fleet in future)
PLAAF, seem predominantly intent on operating J-10As as medium range A2A fighters, leveraging their agility and BVR capabilities.

JH-7/A: Large, tornado sized bombers with terrain following radar and good supersonic performance. Although they are compatible with virtually all of PLAAF’s A2G arsenal, they are most often seen carrying KD-88 style missiles (think an equivalent of US SLAM). I expect such loadouts with 200km ranged stand off weapons will be the weapon of choice for JH-7As, given they won’t survive long against a competent Taiwanese, japanese or US IADS if they wanted to fire JDAM or paveway style equivalents, no more than a USAF F-15E can survive in a chinese IADS to let off JDAMs. I expect SEAD will also be allocated to JH-7As.
Anti shipping is also a key role, where their low altitude performance and long range will come into play. They can carry four YJ-83Ks (and potentially 2? YJ-12s in future?), and is certainly a viable anti shipping threat.
JH-7As are also used as CAS, replacing Q-5 regiments in some cases, where LGB, unguided rockets, gun strafing etc can be used. We saw how they were used in a peace mission exercise a few years ago in such a role.
Supersonic performance will mostly be for dash imo, to escape the theatre after bombs are dropped.

Su-27/J-11A/B: long range air to air, operating up to 2nd island chain, we all know how they work.

Su-30MKKs, and in future, J-16s: I think this will be the future “mainstay” of the PLAAF in many regards, and will be the high end 4th generation fleet. PLAAF were definitely impressed with their MKKs, the multirole capabilities they offered, their long range and large payload, and J-16s are basically an indigenous MKK with AESA, likely to be equipped with some similar weapons that J-20 and J-21 will also field (in terms of AAMs), and are all eqiupped with aerial refuelling so we’re talking 2nd island chain and beyond. And given the vast variety of new chinese PGMs we’ve seen at air shows, we can be fairly confident they will see service on J-16. I personally expect J-11B production to stop for J-16 (and J-15) soon.
Basically, J-16 will be the PLAAF’s F-15E, and in addition to their existing JH-7As, will provide another heavy, but longer range, more persistent, more survivable striker. (This is part of their more maritime/longer reach strategy, but will also be dependent on tankers.)

H-6s: cruise missile carrying is their job. There are about 30 H-6Ks in service at the moment, each able to carry 7 2500km CJ-10Ks. Not to be dismissed. With the FLIR ball I expect we’ll see some level of PGM capability, but again, H-6Ks won’t get above a target close enough to use them.
Long range anti shipping is also a role for H-6s, and while they probably aren’t too survivable against a US taskforce, they are still very competent against in SCS style scenarios.

for future:

J-21: its future is still in question. Some stated it was written off by the PLAN as the next gen carrier fighter and they chose a J-20 variant, some now say the PLAN have chosen J-21 (or that it was forced upon them). Either way, it’s a JSF sized demonstrator and who knows what it will end up being oriented for. It may gain a big A2G belly like JSF, or it may retain its A2A oriented weapons bay. Expect 5th generation avionics on it same as J-20 (e.g.: AESA, EODAS, datalinking)

J-20: arguably the most controversial future plane for the PLAAF. It’s future is all but assured. Despite what many “analysts” in the west have pushed, this aircraft is definitely not a striker (check the weapon bay dimensions. You can carry a pair of JDAMs, that’s about it. I don’t think it can even fit a JSM sized missile, assuming PLA even decides to develop one). It can be an interceptor, due to its expected excellent speed, range, stealth, etc, and can also definitely be used to target US force multipliers like tankers and AEWC, due to those same reasons.
But that’s where the agreement stops, because many people seem intent on claiming it cannot be an air superiority fighter, it lacks the maneuverability, etc, despite the consistent mutterings leading up to its unveiling, despite the repeated statements that this is a plane meant to match the F-22, despite the PLAAF general in 2009 stating their next generation fighter will accentuate supermaneuverability.
Can a J-20 defeat F-22 in close combat? Who knows.
Is its configuration oriented for kinematic performance? One would think the LERX, canards, all moving fins would suggest so (not even considering the fact that one of the main reasons this design was chosen was to compete with western 5th gen fighters/F-22 kinematically while compensating for inferior Chinese engines — one of the reasons SAC’s F-22 lookalike was rejected by PLAAF was its kinetic performance) — but one may also argue that XB-70, B-1, F-117 etc all share some of those features (at which point the discussion usually devolves into an exchange of veiled insults). Bringing up J-20’s “massive size” (not that big — ~20.5m is the best estimate), its “stubby wings” (arguments of wingloading and generous inferences towrads its aerodynamic performance are then made, and I’ve always held a stance that unless you have an air tunnel, it’s difficult to factor in all the complex phenomena working together on a modern high performance aircraft), also work to maintain J-20s “strike” or “interceptor” role.

If we forsake all the above, I think J-20 is basically PLAAF’s F-22 and is meant to be able to compete with it (in close combat too, yes), but however with one small, but important caveat — it appears to have a substantially larger internal volume, which is likely dedicated for greater internal fuel, meaning range and persistence.
One of the main criticisms for F-22 is its relative dependence on tankers, and somewhat light internal fuel (at least for operating reliably in westpac), and by the looks of it PLAAF have somewhat compensated for this in the J-20. Perhaps a greater internal fuel volume was designed for to compensate for PLAAF’s lack of tankers (that may still persist until 2030), so was designed to fly its missions without tanking. The result overall, is the same.

Btw: there are recurrent ideas that J-20 will be equipped with TVC in its final production iteration. While I don’t think TVc automatically makes an aircraft “supermaneuverable” and automatically better than its non TVC equipped counterparts, I think we all agree that TVC will always be present on an aircraft meant for high kinematic performance. So if J-20 is ever equipped with TVC, that should be enough for the “interceptor/striker” bleating to end.
Or conversely, maybe people will be convinced when we see J-20 do the cobra sometime in 2020s.

Either way, I feel the proponents of J-20’s striker and interceptor duty have subliminal ego protection and political motivations, combined with a lack of awareness of the (quite open) chinese discussion on J-20’s intended role

There are also a variety of other combat aircraft that may be up and coming:
J-10C — basically J-10B, but with CFTs, additional wingtip hard points, increased A2G/more multirole orientation, and probably a more powerful engine.
J-11C? — persistent rumours of SAC developing a further J-11B derivative, with accentuated stealth, and AESA, more modern avionics and A2A weapons. I’m not sure if PLAAF have a need for such a fighter when its J-11B and J-16 fleet will already be so large not to mention adding the capability of J-20.
JH-7B — once thought to be a stealthy striker, is now known merely as a JH-7A with newer avionics and an IFR. Supposedly flew last year, but we have no photos of it. Its role also seems to overlap with J-16s.

H-X — flying wing bomber. this project almost definitely exists and was delayed for a few years, partly because the same institute was so focused on Y-20. Not sure if it’ll be as large as B-2, but will definitely be a viable threat that can reach beyond westpac.
JH-XX — another SAC project, very mysterious. Said to be an Su-34 sized stealthy striker, and many wondered if the YF-23/B-1 lovechild model we saw a few months ago was JH-XX, but interestingly we only got one photo of it.

Many projects may also end up being abandoned. Truth is, I think PLAAF are funding a few too many different projects with many offering little increase in capability beyond which parallel or even existing platforms can do (JH-7B versus J-16 and JH-7A, J-11C versus J-20, J-11B, J-16).

lol very blitzy..

“palembang/goldust’s claim of j-31 being the best naval fighter is BS!… but it could happen”

Lol hotdog, if you actually read what I said, it was more “f-35c may be trumped by any other fighter including naval j-21, J-20, PAK FA, or an FA-XX”. If you’re trying to paint me as a fanboy that wants to keep elevating “my” side above the rest.

It seems like your single purpose on this forum is to convince that everyone in here is engaged in a pissing contest that you are apparently above. At the very least you seem to enjoy accusing others of supposed ego stroking. Everyone has their hobbies, not your fault.