So?

So:

1) For better or for worse, the competition between China and other nations in Asia will heat up. Japan will not take Chinese threats over the disputed islands in their region lightly, for instance. Nor will India take lightly the Chinese push into northeastern India - a threat that many Indians take quite seriously.

2) What goes to China probably will not stay there, at least in terms of tech transfer.

3) US fighter programs will probably receive greater Congressional support as a result of this sale, if it happens. At present, China has fighter technology sold to them in 2003 from Israel's cancelled LAVI fighter program of the late 1980s, which in turn was modeled to a fair degree on an earlier version of the F-16, upgraded with composite materials and new avionics. The SU33 is a much more advanced fighter in many ways.

4) Will China successfully expand its historic abilities and project naval power? In past millenia, when the Chinese empires grew beyond a certain geographical limit, the empire tended to fragment internally or to succumb to external invasion (as with the Mongols). Arguably that happened in good part because of the limitations of command and control at the time.

Today's electronic communications are a two-edged sword for China. They allow much greater geographical span of control. But they also threaten the millenia-long Chinese model of an imposed cultural model and central authority enforced vigorously. China's desire to field one or more aircraft carriers and associated fighters suggests the government believes it can continue control while expanding military influence greatly.

They may be right. They have a HUGE excess of young men. The general response to that situation has historically been either to dissolve in internal conflict or to channel those young men into external aggression.

I know many Chinese students in technical PhD programs here in the US. They are significantly more nationalistic than those here a decade ago. If channelled into scientific, engineering and social improvements within China, that is a plus for the world. If channelled into increasingly aggressive imposition of Chinese power in Asia, it is not a positive thing.

One final comment: Aircraft carriers are complex systems. Mastering the design and especially operational use of one would be a major achievement for China. However, carriers are also sitting ducks for robotic attackers of the sophistication we will be able to field in a decade or so.

Just sayin' ....

If China fields a fleet carrier, almost certainly Japan will feel compelled to respond in kind.

On the other hand, since Japan has been making noises along those lines already, and India has an open intention to field a fully capable navy, this move could be a signal by China to deter a regional naval buildup. In other words, it may be China signaling that they will respond in kind to any offensive minded naval buildup from the other regional powers. Frankly, I don't think the Chinese are capable of fielding an aircraft carrier at present. Maybe in 10-15 years they could lay the keel for one, but just at the moment they don't have the in place industry and technical experience.

celebrim, they don't have to be able to build one. They bought the Russian carrier Varyag a while ago, supposedly to convert into a tourist attraction. Supposedly.

_The mystery, of what China is doing with the former Russian aircraft carrier Varyag, continues. The Chinese appear to be doing some kind of work on the Varyag, one of two Kuznetsov class that Russia began building in the 1980s. The Varyag has been tied up in a Chinese shipyard at Dailan since 2002. While the ship is under guard, it can be seen from a nearby highway. From that vantage point, local military and naval buffs have noted that some kind of work is being done on the ship. The only visible signs of this work are a new paint job (in the gray shade used by the Chinese navy) and ongoing work on the superstructure (particularly the tall "island" on the flight deck.)

Originally the Kuznetsovs were conceived of as 90,000 ton, nuclear powered ships, similar to American carriers (complete with steam catapults). Instead, because of the cost, and the complexity of modern (American style) carriers, the Russians were forced to scale back their goals, and ended up with the 65,000 ton (full load ) ships that lacked steam catapults, and used a ski jump type flight deck instead. Nuclear power was dropped, but the Kuznetsov class was still a formidable design. The thousand foot long carrier normally carries a dozen navalized Su-27s (called Su-33s), 14 Ka-27PL anti-submarine helicopters, two electronic warfare helicopters and two search and rescue helicopters. But the ship can carry up to 36 Su-33s and sixteen helicopters. The ship carries 2,500 tons of aviation fuel, allowing it to generate 500-1,000 aircraft and helicopter sorties. Crew size is 2,500 (or 3,000 with a full aircraft load.) Only two ships of this class exist; the original Kuznetsov, which is in Russian service, and the Varyag._

Argh. Those last two paragraphs were quoted from the link.

China's farther along than you might think on the equipment side. What they don't have (yet) is all the doctrine and training needed to utilize it well.

The DID article has further references re: the Varyag and China's plans.

RE: Japan. They have a "helicopter destroyer carrier" in the works. No doubt it will carry helicopters, and be a very useful supply and search & rescue vessel. Of course, it will look like and be the size of the small aircraft carriers in use by Britain, Spain, Italy et. al., who fly Harriers (and soon F-35B Lighting II Joint Strike Fighters) from their decks. If Japan buys F-35Bs in the next 5-6 years, possibly as "dispersable air intercept fighters," that will be a key move to watch.

Meanwhile, I haven't been missing the quiet discussions about nuclear weapons in Japan, and the conclusion by some that nuclear weapons possessed only for defense would be legal (even as Abe denies any changes to Japan's nuclear policies).

Expect the Chinese to set aside more money to buy Japanese politicians and traitorous so-called "peace" groups.

RE: the J-10

I'll note that the J-10 has been modified very, very heavily from the Lavi designs, because Tienanmen et. al. shut down China's access to western electronics and engines (this also canceled a Northrop Grumman collaboration that China later pursued on its own).

For those not familiar with such things, change the engine and you change the whole fighter as air intakes, balance and hence structural design, control software et. al. all change. Change the electronics, and the shifts aren't quite as obvious but they're very extensive. If the J-10 can be said to have a country derivation these days, after the 15 year delay and change sets, it's Russian since that's where the electronics and engine come from.

The Chinese did get a lot of aerospace experience out of the redesign. They'll likely field the J-10, though the bang for the buck is likely to be less than they'd have got simply fielding more SU-30MKKKs which have advantages of range, armament, et. al.

My bet?

The Chinese will succeed, where the Russians failed. It'll take them a generation before they can do night ops... but they've got it in them.

Here I am posting the text of a great article by Robert Kaplan titled: "How we would fight China", from June 05 Atlantic It seems like China is playing right into the hands of PACCOM's theories.

The faster we engage in a pre-emptive war against China, the better. Unlike the west, they have no crisis of confidence in the superiority of their civiliazation. It will come to a military conflict, the only question is whether it will be on our terms or the Chinese. We only have a small window until the Chineses military is stronger than the US military. Our survival as a civilization depends on China knowing its place in the world: subordinate to US hegemony.

You left off the < / sarcasm > tag, David.

LoL Dave, either for the pithy sarcasm or the display of supreme ignorance.

Even if the Varyag is turned into a Chinese carrier, it will be at least a decade before it becomes operational with aircraft. Carrier design and operation is a lot more complex that most realize, which is probably why we're the only ones that can do it currently.

In any event, this, or any other, Chinese carrier would be sunk within minutes of any shooting war with the USA, so perhaps we should advocate they pour more money into this technology.

I also love the double-standards with China and other potential adversaries: Building up the armed forces is prima facia evidence of militarism unless it's the USA, Japan, South Korea, etc.

And mighty Imperial Russia will have no problem with these silly upstart Japanese... (some random pundit - circa 1903)

History has no shortage of people who had their heads handed to them because they underestimated the opposition.

Who said we would not have a problem with a war in China? I only said their aircraft carriers, if they have them, would be sunk within minutes of a shooting war. Why? Because their ASW sucks even worse than ours and we have very good submariners. It will be many years before China will be able to compete with the USA in the blue-water arena; in the Taiwan strait or near the Chinese coast, the situation is much different.