Tag: China

Posted on

587:CHINESE FIGHTER AIRCRAFT FOR BANGLADESH: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

 

Pic Courtesy Net

 

Bangladesh has shown a growing interest in modernising its air force as part of its broader military modernisation under the “Forces Goal 2030” initiative. The BAF currently operates older platforms. These ageing aircraft are increasingly inadequate against modern threats and require replacement with advanced platforms. The BAF has recently considered acquiring new-generation multirole fighter jets, including Chinese aircraft.

 

Interest in J-10C. The Chinese J-10C, a fourth-generation-plus multi-role fighter jet boasting advanced avionics, weapon systems, and cost efficiency, had featured on Bangladesh’s wish list. This news about the possible acquisition of J-10C aircraft followed Air Chief Marshal Hasan Mahmood Khan’s visit to China in Nov 2024. He reportedly expressed Bangladesh’s desire to acquire about 16 J-10C multi-role combat aircraft from China.

 

Interest in JF-17. A high-level defence delegation from Bangladesh showed interest in JF-17 Thunders during a visit to Pakistan in January 2025. The delegation, led by Lieutenant General SM Qamarul Hassan, Principal Staff Officer, Armed Forces Division, Bangladesh, met with Pakistan Air Force (PAF) Chief Air Chief Marshal Zaheer Ahmad Babar Sidhu at the Air Headquarters in Islamabad. According to the report, Lieutenant General Hassan explicitly expressed interest in the JF-17 Thunder aircraft, sparking rumours about a possible purchase. This was the first time Bangladesh had expressed its interest in the JF-17. Earlier reports suggested that Bangladesh heavily favoured the Chinese J-10C 4.5th-generation aircraft.

 

The J-10C Aircraft. The J-10C, known as the ‘Vigorous Dragon’, is claimed to be a fourth-generation multirole combat aircraft equipped with the Chinese-manufactured WS-10B engine. China’s Chengdu Aircraft Corporation has developed it. J-10C represents an evolutionary version of the J-10 series.  The J-10C was first unveiled to the Chinese public in July 2017 and has been operational since 2018. It features significant advancements over earlier variants. It is capable of both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions and is well-suited for diverse operational scenarios. With a delta wing-canard configuration and an optional thrust-vectoring engine, the J-10C claims excellent manoeuvrability and agility in combat. The J-10C is equipped with an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, which offers enhanced detection, tracking, and targeting capabilities in all weather conditions. Advanced avionics and integrated electronic warfare systems for jamming enemy radar and countering electronic threats enhance survivability. The jet can carry various armaments, including the PL-15 beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile (BVR-AAM), which has a range of over 200 km.

 

JF-17 aircraft. The JF-17 Thunder is a single-engine, lightweight, multi-role combat aircraft. With a maximum speed of approximately 1,200 mph and a service ceiling of 50,000 feet, the JF-17 can carry out various tasks. It is designed to carry Chinese weaponry on its seven hardpoints, including the LS-6 GPS-guided glide bombs, the PL-5 short-range air-to-air missile, and the YJ-12 supersonic and YJ-83 subsonic anti-shipping missiles. Although not directly integrated, the JF-17 can also be equipped with external pods that carry self-defence jammers and electro-optical/infrared sensors. Since its induction in the PAF in 2007, the JF-17 has been upgraded several times. If Bangladesh decides to go for the JF-17, it will likely purchase the Block III variant with superior manoeuvrability, extended range, and enhanced combat capabilities.

 

Comparative Analysis: JF-17 Thunder vs. J-10C

 

The JF-17 Thunder and the J-10C are modern fighter jets developed by China. The former was a collaborative effort between China and Pakistan. They are designed for different roles, customers, and operational needs.

 

Development Background. The JF-17 Thunder was developed jointly by China’s Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (CAC) and Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC). It is designed as a cost-effective, lightweight, multirole fighter for export markets and Pakistan’s Air Force (PAF).  The aircraft is projected for its affordability and ease of maintenance. On the other hand, the J-10C was developed solely by the CAC for the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF). It is a more advanced, multirole, fourth-generation-plus fighter designed for high-end performance and greater sophistication.

 

Roles and Missions. The JF-17 Thunder is a lightweight multirole fighter suited for air defence, close air support, and precision strike roles. It targets countries with limited defence budgets. In comparison, the J-10C is designed as a medium-weight multirole fighter capable of air superiority, ground attack, and advanced electronic warfare. It operates in high-threat environments against sophisticated adversaries.

 

Airframe and Design. The JF-17 Thunder is lightweight (approximately 12.7 tons max take-off weight), with a conventional layout and a focus on simplicity and agility. It uses composite materials to reduce weight and cost. Being small and lighter, it is easier to deploy from forward airbases. In contrast, the J-10C is medium-weight (approximately 19 tons max take-off weight), with a canard-delta wing configuration for superior manoeuvrability and aerodynamics—higher use of advanced composites for reduced radar cross-section. The larger size offers a better payload and range.

 

Avionics and Sensors. The newer JF-17 Thunder variant has the KLJ-7 or NRIET KLJ-7A active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar. It has a decent avionics suite, including a glass cockpit and helmet-mounted display (HMD). On the other hand, the J-10C has an advanced AESA radar with superior range and tracking capability, highly advanced fully digital flight systems and integrated HMD, and a robust EW suite capable of countering high-end threats.

 

Engines and Performance. The Russian RD-93 or Chinese WS-13 engine powers the JF-17 Thunder. The engine has an 85 kN thrust, enabling the aircraft to attain a speed of Mach 1.6, a combat radius of 1,352 km, and a service ceiling of 55,000 feet. Comparatively, the J-10C initially had an AL-31FN (Russian) engine. The newer variants use China’s WS-10B Taihang engine with a 132 kN thrust. The aircraft can attain a speed of Mach 2.2, has a combat radius of 1,700 km, and a service ceiling of 59,055 feet.

 

Weapons Systems. The JF-17 Thunder can carry PL-5, PL-9, PL-10, or PL-15 beyond-visual-range (BVR) missiles, precision-guided munitions like laser-guided bombs and cruise missiles (Ra’ad), and CM-400AKG Anti-ship missile. Its total payload is 3,600 kg. The J-10C has a total payload of 6,000 kg, including advanced PL-10 (IR-guided) and PL-15 (BVR) Air to air missiles with longer ranges, precision-strike capability with advanced guided munitions, and advanced anti-ship missiles for maritime strike roles.

 

Stealth and Survivability. The JF-17 Thunder has limited stealth features and focuses on reduced radar cross-section (RCS) using composites. By contrast, the J-10C possesses a semi-stealth design with reduced RCS due to airframe shaping and the use of RAM (Radar-Absorbing Material). It is more survivable in contested environments.

 

Cost. The JF-17 Thunder reportedly costs approximately $30-40 million per unit (depending on the variant), whereas the J-10C costs roughly $60-70 million per unit.

 

The JF-17 Thunder is projected as an affordable and versatile fighter, ideal for nations needing a cheaper and reliable multirole platform. In contrast, the J-10C is a more capable and sophisticated aircraft, suitable for nations looking for high-end performance and advanced technology.

 

Key Dynamics

Bangladesh is considering acquiring the Chinese JF-17 Thunder and possibly the J-10C for its next-generation fighter program. While the JF-17 Thunder offers a cost-effective, multirole platform with decent air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities, the J-10C aircraft, with its advanced capabilities, including AESA radar, stealth features, and modern weaponry, aligns with Bangladesh’s ambitions to bolster regional deterrence. However, the final decision will depend upon numerous factors, such as balancing operational requirements, geopolitical considerations, and financial viability.

 

Strategic Ties with China. Bangladesh maintains strong defence and economic ties with China, its largest military hardware supplier. Bangladesh is China’s second-largest arms buyer after Pakistan. China has previously supplied naval ships, tanks, and other defence systems to Bangladesh, making Chinese aircraft a logical choice for continuity.

 

Dependence on China. A heavy reliance on Chinese defence equipment could limit Bangladesh’s strategic autonomy and expose it to geopolitical pressure from Beijing.

 

Affordability and Financing. Chinese fighter jets are significantly cheaper than Western counterparts like the Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, or Lockheed Martin F-16. China offers flexible financing options, which would appeal to Bangladesh.

 

Operational Costs. While the upfront costs are low, operational and maintenance costs can accumulate over time, especially if Bangladesh opts for higher-end platforms like the J-10C. Financing through Chinese loans might deepen Bangladesh’s economic reliance on Beijing, potentially leading to broader strategic vulnerabilities.

 

Challenges and Concerns. Although Chinese aircraft like the JF-17 and J-10C are advanced, they may lag behind Western jets in reliability, engine performance, and software integration. Critics argue that the aircraft relies heavily on older technologies and reverse-engineered components.

 

Geopolitics. Geopolitical tension in the Indo-Pacific is rising, with China and the United States wanting Bangladesh in their camp. Bangladesh’s shift towards China could strain its relationship with the United States.

 

Balancing Foreign Policy. The U.S. and Western nations might view Bangladesh’s deepening defence ties with China as a shift away from a balanced foreign policy. This alignment might affect Bangladesh’s ability to balance relationships with other major powers. It could also impact Bangladesh’s access to Western defence technology and economic support.

 

Indian Concern. Bangladesh’s acquisition of Chinese jets would deepen its defence ties with Beijing, aligning with China’s broader strategy of counterbalancing India’s regional influence. This could shift the balance of power in South Asia. Acquiring Chinese jets and aligning with China would complicate Dhaka’s relationship with New Delhi.

 

Conclusion

 

Likely Scenario. Bangladesh’s need to rapidly upgrade its air force, budget constraints, strategic ties with China, and other geopolitical considerations make a deal to procure the JF-17 Thunder Block III comparatively more likely.

 

Bangladesh’s potential acquisition of Chinese fighter jets represents both an opportunity and a risk. On one hand, they would enhance the Bangladesh Air Force’s capabilities, improving its deterrence and operational flexibility. On the other hand, the move comes with substantial financial, operational, and geopolitical challenges that could outweigh the benefits if not carefully managed. The decision also carries significant implications for Bangladesh’s strategic autonomy. Bangladesh must carefully weigh its strategic, operational, and economic priorities to make an informed decision that enhances its national security while maintaining a balanced foreign policy approach.

 

Please do Comment.

 

1014
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

Link to the Article on the website:-

https://www.eurasiantimes.com/j-10c-vs-jf-17-two-chinese-fighter-jets-battle/

 

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

References:-

  1. Farhana, S. “Bangladesh’s Defence Modernisation: The Role of Chinese Military Hardware.” Journal of South Asian Defence Studies, vol. 18, no. 4, 2023, pp. 97-116.
  1. Sayed Ahmed, “The Role of Chinese Fighter Jets in Bangladesh’s Air Force Modernisation”, Bangladesh Defence Journal, 2022.
  1. Muhammad Tariq, “Assessing the Performance of the JF-17 Thunder in the South Asian Context”, Defence Studies Quarterly, 2020.
  1. Chowdhury, A. “J-10C Jets for Bangladesh: Boosting Capabilities or a Risky Gamble?” Strategic Studies Quarterly, vol. 9, no. 2, 2024, pp. 72-89.
  1. Beijing Insight. “Bangladesh’s Potential Purchase of Chinese J-10C Jets: Analysing Strategic Choices.” The Diplomat, 15 December 2023.
  1. “The Strategic Consequences of Bangladesh Acquiring Chinese Fighter Jets.” South Asian Voices, 10 December 2023.
  1. Tanvir A. Siddique, “Bangladesh’s Balancing Act: Military Procurement from China and the West”, Asian Security Review, 2023.
  1. Shahab Enam Khan, “Bangladesh Defence Policy and Strategic Outlook”, BIISS, 2019.

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

Posted on

585: IMPERIAL OVERSTRESSING: A CRUCIAL ASPECT IN THE RISE AND FALL OF EMPIRES

 

Pics Courtesy Net

 

My Article published on the Life of  Soldier website on 24 Jan 25.

 

Imperialism—the extension of a nation’s power through military force, diplomacy, and economic means—has been a driving force behind much of world history. The sustainability of such power often hinges on how well an empire can manage its vast resources and territories. The idea that empires succumb to imperial overstretch stems from the concept first articulated by historian Paul Kennedy in his book The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. The idea of imperial overstressing refers to the point at which the burden of managing expansive territories, diverse populations, and economic interests becomes too great to bear. It posits that empires decline when their ambitions and commitments abroad exceed their economic and societal resources. The hypothesis is not outdated but is a relevant issue for current global powers like the United States and China.

 

Theories of Imperialism

 

Understanding imperial overstressing is not just a theoretical exercise but a crucial aspect of understanding historical and contemporary geopolitics. It requires a foundation in the different theories of imperialism that have shaped historical and modern geopolitics and their practical application in analysing the rise and fall of empires.

 

Economic Theory. A Key Driver of Imperialism. This theory, championed by thinkers like John Hobson and Vladimir Lenin, offers a unique perspective on the motivations behind imperialism. It posits that the search for new markets, investment opportunities, and surplus capital drives imperial expansion, with the need to find profitable avenues for surplus capital being a key factor. Lenin’s emphasis on imperialism as a monopoly stage of capitalism, where the economic elite seeks new outlets for their excess capital by exploiting weaker regions, further enriches our understanding of this phenomenon.

 

Strategic Theory. The Significance of Key Areas.  This approach focuses on the strategic importance of key areas such as naval routes, ports, and choke points. It underscores the significant advantages these areas provide in global power projection and how empires expanded to dominate these regions, securing trade routes and protecting vital interests. For instance, the British Empire’s control over the Suez Canal allowed it to maintain influence in the Indian Ocean and Asia, highlighting the strategic value of such key areas.

 

Cultural Theory. The cultural theory views imperialism as driven by a desire to spread dominant cultural, religious, or ideological values. It justified expansion as a form of “civilising mission,” presenting imperial control as beneficial for native populations. The British Empire’s justification for colonisation in Africa and Asia often emphasised the need to introduce Christianity and Western civilisation to supposedly “backward” societies.

 

Historical Context: Case Studies

 

The Roman Empire

 

Expansion and Limits. At its height, the Roman Empire spanned from the British Isles to the Middle East, encompassing diverse cultures, languages, and resources. The Roman system of governance needed to be equipped to handle the complexities of such a vast empire. Maintaining an enormous legionary force stretched the empire’s resources, especially when dealing with distant provinces needing protection and oversight.

 

Economic Strain.  The Roman Empire faced profound economic challenges. It relied heavily on slave labour, heavy taxes from provinces, and tributes from conquered peoples to fund its expenditures. The vast system of roads, military garrisons, and cities required a continuous flow of resources. The reliance on trade and the dependence on foreign resources, such as grain from Africa and olive oil from Spain, made the empire vulnerable to disruptions.

 

Military and Political Challenges.  The Roman military’s attempts to expand—through campaigns in Parthia, for example—often overstretched the system. Long supply lines, the need for vast garrisons, and the difficulty of integrating newly conquered peoples into the Roman system all contributed to inefficiencies. The Roman political system struggled to manage these challenges, with corruption, favouritism, and nepotism undermining administrative effectiveness.

 

Decline and Fall. The decline of the Western Roman Empire is often attributed to the failure to manage the economic, military, and administrative challenges of ruling such a vast territory. The Roman system could not adapt to the pressures of dealing with a constantly shrinking tax base, the costs of suppressing rebellions, and the necessity of defending its borders against ever-increasing barbarian invasions. The eventual collapse in 476 AD was a military defeat and a reflection of the empire’s inability to control its territories.

 

The British Empire

 

 

Global Reach and Maintenance. At its zenith, the British Empire controlled vast territories across Africa, Asia, the Americas, and the Pacific. The imperial model relied on leveraging colonies for economic gain—extracting resources and creating markets for British goods. However, maintaining global control required significant military presence and administrative oversight.

 

Financial Strain. Maintaining an empire was costly. The British government had to fund the Royal Navy, military expeditions, and administrative costs in distant colonies. The burden of protection, trade route security, and the suppression of rebellions greatly strained the British economy. The need to finance these efforts led to increased taxes at home, public discontent, and growing resistance in the colonies.

 

World Wars as Catalysts. The impact of World Wars I and II on the British Empire was pivotal. The financial costs of these wars were staggering—Britain’s debt ballooned, and the economic impact was felt domestically and internationally. The wars also disrupted global trade and the imperial system, with colonies demanding greater autonomy and independence post-war. The military strain of controlling distant regions was revealed as the British Army was spread thin across multiple fronts, significantly increasing the empire’s burden and contributing to its eventual downfall.

 

Decolonisation. The aftermath of World War II marked the beginning of the end for the British Empire. The pressure to rebuild post-war economies, combined with nationalist movements across the empire, forced Britain to reassess its imperial strategy. As students, scholars, and individuals interested in history, geopolitics, and imperialism, your understanding and analysis of these events can contribute to reassessing imperial strategies. Decolonisation was hastened by the realisation that the costs of maintaining control over colonies far outweighed the benefits. The granting of independence to India, Pakistan, and other African and Caribbean colonies marked the final phase of British imperial overstretch.

 

The Soviet Union

 

 

Expansion and Control. The Soviet Union extended its influence over Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and parts of the Middle East and Africa. The need to maintain control over these regions placed significant strain on Soviet resources. The empire’s reliance on military force to maintain its influence was economically and politically costly.

 

Economic Costs. The Soviet Union’s economic model was centred on heavy industry and military spending. The costs of the Cold War arms race with the United States required vast resources. The Soviet leadership prioritised military expenditure over consumer goods and economic diversification, resulting in stagnant living standards and economic growth. The command economy, characterised by state ownership of the means of production and centralised planning, could not allocate resources efficiently, exacerbating the strain on the Soviet system.

 

Afghan War and Dissolution. The Soviet intervention in Afghanistan exposed the limits of Soviet military power. The conflict drained economic resources, led to a protracted war effort, and showed the logistical difficulties of fighting a guerrilla war in a foreign country. The Soviet military, despite its size and capabilities, was overstretched, unable to sustain the conflict or effectively pacify the Afghan population. The economic burden of the war, combined with the impact on public morale and Soviet legitimacy, contributed to the eventual dissolution of the USSR in 1991.

 

End of the Soviet Empire. Economic stagnation, the inability to adapt to internal and external pressures, and the need for rapid reform precipitated the collapse of the Soviet Union. Gorbachev’s glasnost and perestroika policies accelerated the fragmentation and collapse process. The Soviet system could not control its expansive borders and diverse populations.

 

Analysis of the Present Situation

 

Understanding the impact of imperial overstressing is crucial for contemporary global powers—particularly the United States and China. They face unique challenges in expanding and maintaining influence while avoiding the pitfalls of past empires.

 

United States: Policy of Sharing the Burden

 

Many scholars and commentators argue that the U.S. is experiencing symptoms of overstretch, especially in the 21st century.

 

Global Presence. The U.S. maintains a vast network of over 750 military bases across over 80 countries and regions, spending nearly $900 billion annually on defence (as of 2023).  However, the costs—both financial and political—are high. While this ensures global influence and deterrence, the financial burden of maintaining this military dominance has grown unsustainable.

 

Military Commitments.  It engages in conflicts from the Middle East to East Asia and supports NATO’s collective defence. The prolonged wars in Afghanistan and Iraq cost the U.S. trillions of dollars while yielding questionable strategic benefits. These wars drained resources and contributed to domestic political fatigue regarding foreign interventions.

 

Rising Competition. American hegemony faces challenges as the unipolar world established after the Cold War transitions to a multipolar order. The emergence of peer competitors like China and Russia, combined with regional challenges from powers like Iran and North Korea, strains U.S. resources further. China’s Belt and Road Initiative, technological advancements, and growing military assertiveness directly challenge U.S. supremacy in Asia and beyond. Long-standing allies like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and even parts of Europe are exploring partnerships with non-Western powers, reflecting diminishing U.S. influence. Efforts by BRICS nations and others to establish alternative financial systems weaken the U.S. dollar’s hegemony, reducing America’s economic leverage.

 

Domestic issues. Imperial overstretch often involves prioritising external ambitions over internal needs. Internal dysfunction amplifies the effects of overstretching. The U.S. national debt surpassed $33 trillion in 2023, with significant portions of government revenue devoted to servicing debt rather than addressing domestic priorities. Growing public resistance to foreign interventions is challenging the traditional support for expansive global engagement. Deep political polarisation and frequent gridlock in Congress undermine the ability to formulate coherent foreign and domestic policies and the nation’s capacity to adapt to changing global realities.

 

Economic Costs and Political Dilemmas. The U.S. faces a strategic dilemma—maintaining influence without overcommitting resources. The domestic debate over defence spending, the impact on social services, and the need for economic diversification reflect a broader concern about imperial overstretch. The U.S. must find ways to project power through strategic partnerships, financial ties, and multilateral engagements.

 

Unique Advantages. While the risks of overstretch are accurate, the U.S. retains unique advantages. America’s technological innovation remains unparalleled, especially in AI, biotechnology, and defence. Unlike many competitors, the U.S. benefits from a relatively youthful and diverse population due to immigration. While strained, the U.S.’s network of allies and partners remains formidable compared to competitors like China.

 

Possible Way Out. To avoid imperial overstretch, the U.S. must prioritise strategic restraint, focus on domestic revitalisation, and foster multilateral approaches to global challenges.  The U.S. can learn from past empires’ decline by focusing on flexibility, adaptability, and the strategic use of alliances. The creation of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) and Quad partnership illustrates an attempt to share the burden of regional security with like-minded partners in the Indo-Pacific, avoiding the direct military engagement that could lead to overstretch. Whether it can effectively recalibrate its ambitions remains the key question for its future.

 

China: Influence through Revival of Trade Routes

 

While China is often viewed as a rising power, some argue it is also at risk of imperial overstretch. As Beijing pursues ambitious global and regional objectives, its expanding commitments could exceed its economic, political, and military capacity, creating vulnerabilities.

 

Strategic Expansion. China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), launched in 2013, is a cornerstone of its global strategy. It aims to connect Asia, Africa, and Europe through infrastructure projects. The initiative extends China’s influence through economic investment in infrastructure, trade agreements, and soft power initiatives. It includes projects in Asia, Africa, and Europe, linking China’s markets with new consumers and supply chains.

 

Challenges. Many BRI recipient countries, such as Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Zambia, struggle to repay Chinese loans. This has led to debt crises and project defaults, reducing China’s investment returns. The “debt-trap diplomacy” narrative has damaged China’s reputation, forcing it to restructure or forgive loans, adding financial strain. Resistance to the BRI has grown, with countries like Malaysia renegotiating or cancelling projects. Anti-Chinese sentiment in Africa and Southeast Asia complicates China’s efforts to maintain influence. Further, securing Chinese investments in politically unstable regions, such as Central Asia or the Middle East, increases China’s overseas military and diplomatic commitments.

 

Taiwan and Regional Ambitions: Risk of Overreach. China’s ambitions to assert dominance in its neighbourhood, particularly over Taiwan, risk provoking military and economic overstretch. A military invasion of Taiwan would likely trigger U.S. and allied intervention. This scenario could escalate into a costly conflict, depleting China’s resources and potentially destabilising the Communist Party’s rule.

 

South China Sea and Border Conflicts. China’s militarisation of the South China Sea has alienated neighbouring countries, such as Vietnam and the Philippines, driving them closer to the U.S. This increases the cost of managing regional security while undermining Beijing’s goals. Persistent tensions with India along the Himalayan border require significant military deployments, distracting resources from other priorities.

 

Economic Challenges. China’s economic engine, long its greatest strength, is now showing signs of strain, which could undermine its ability to sustain global ambitions. Post-pandemic recovery has been sluggish, with growth rates declining to their lowest in decades. Youth unemployment and a slowing property market exacerbate internal vulnerabilities. The transition from export-driven to domestic consumption-driven growth has proven difficult, limiting China’s ability to finance overseas commitments. The U.S.-led “decoupling” of supply chains and restrictions on technology exports, such as advanced semiconductors, threatens China’s technological ambitions and long-term competitiveness.

 

Domestic Difficulties. China’s authoritarian model under Xi Jinping centralises power but creates systemic risks that could exacerbate overstretch. Xi’s consolidation of power reduces flexibility in decision-making and increases the risk of policy mistakes. For instance, China’s zero-COVID policy severely disrupted its economy and global supply chains. China faces a demographic decline due to decades of the one-child policy. Fewer workers and a rapidly ageing population reduce economic productivity and increase social welfare costs. Economic inequality, ethnic tensions in regions like Xinjiang and Tibet, and crackdowns on freedoms create internal unrest, diverting attention and resources from external ambitions. While China has invested heavily in modernising its military, sustaining this pace of spending strains its economy, particularly during a period of slower growth.

 

Global Backlash: Resistance to Chinese Influence. China’s assertive foreign policy has sparked resistance across various regions, straining its resources and soft power. Western democracies, led by the U.S., have formed coalitions to counter China’s rise, such as AUKUS, the Quad, and NATO’s increased focus on Asia. China must expend significant diplomatic and economic resources to manage these challenges. While China has made inroads in Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia, its investments often face criticism for being extractive and environmentally damaging. Local resistance to Chinese influence, such as protests against Chinese companies in Africa, adds to the cost of maintaining its foothold.

 

Recalibration to Avoid Overstretch. China’s rise is remarkable, but its ambition to reshape the global order comes with significant risks of overreach. Whether it can sustain its ascent without succumbing to imperial overstretch will depend on its ability to balance global ambitions with domestic stability and strategic restraint. To avoid imperial overstretch, China must recalibrate its strategies. It should focus on high-value, strategically important BRI projects rather than overextending into low-return or high-risk regions. Domestic economic stability and technological innovation must be prioritised to support long-term ambitions. Shifting from coercive tactics to building genuine partnerships and addressing local grievances in host countries would pay higher dividends. It should avoid entanglements that could escalate into costly conflicts, particularly with the U.S. or regional neighbours.

 

Conclusion. The historical examples of empires that succumbed to imperial overstretch—such as the Roman Empire, the British Empire, and the Soviet Union—reveal common patterns in the relationship between expansion, resource management, and sustainability. The present-day geopolitical landscape, marked by the U.S. and China, requires these nations to carefully navigate the challenges of imperial overstretch. The United States must balance its global responsibilities with economic constraints, while China’s BRI presents a new form of strategic expansion that relies heavily on economic diplomacy and investment. By learning from the past, contemporary powers can avoid the pitfalls that led to the decline of previous empires. The focus should be on maintaining strategic flexibility, using economic partnerships to share the burden of influence, and avoiding overcommitment in military and economic terms. The future will likely shift from direct imperial control to networks of influence, economic leverage, and strategic alliances—less visible than traditional empires but no less potent in shaping global geopolitics.

 

Your valuable comments are most welcome.

 

Link to the article on the website:-

Imperial Overstressing: A Crucial Aspect in the Rise and Fall of Empires

 

1014
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

References:-

  1. Hobson, John. Imperialism: A Study. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1902.
  1. Lenin, Vladimir I. Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1917.
  1. Ferguson, Niall. Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power. New York: Basic Books, 2003.
  1. Kotkin, Stephen. Armageddon Averted: The Soviet Collapse, 1970-2000. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
  1. Ikenberry, G. John. “The Future of American Power.” Foreign Affairs 89, no. 6 (2010): 56-68.
  1. Trevithick, Richard, “China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Assessing Its Scope, Scale, and Impact.” The Diplomat, September 25, 2023. https://thediplomat.com/2023/09/chinas-belt-and-road-initiative-assessing-its-scope-scale-and-impact/
  1. Chatham House: “The Belt and Road Initiative: Implications for Europe,” June 2023. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2023/06/belt-and-road-initiative-implications-europe
  1. Council on Foreign Relations: “U.S. Global Strategy in an Era of Competitive Great Power Politics,” November 2022. https://www.cfr.org/2022/11/us-global-strategy-era-competitive-great-power-politics

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

Posted on

582:DECODING CHINA’S SIXTH-GENERATION FIGHTER AIRCRAFT PROGRAM

 

 

Pic Courtesy Net

 

My Article published in the SP Aviation Defence Magazine

 

In November 2024, at the Zhuhai Air show, China unveiled a full-scale model of its sixth-generation fighter, named the “White Emperor” or “Baidi.” This aircraft is part of Project Nantianmen’s research initiative exploring future aviation technologies.  However, on 26 Dec 24, pictures and videos of the flight of two advanced prototypes were shared on social media. These are considered to be its sixth-generation fighter jets but seem to have little similarity with the “White Emperor” model shown at Zhuhai Airshow 2024.  This milestone underscores China’s advancing aerospace capabilities and ambition to compete with global superpowers in the future of air combat.

China has made significant strides in developing cutting-edge military technologies in the ongoing arms race among world powers. China’s Sixth-Generation Aircraft program has generated considerable buzz in defence and aviation circles. While official reports and state-controlled media often paint a picture of cutting-edge technology and a new era of Chinese air dominance, the hype surrounding these aircraft usually exceeds the tangible realities. At the heart of China’s push for a sixth-generation fighter is surpassing existing U.S. and Russian technologies by integrating artificial intelligence, enhanced stealth, hypersonic speeds, and advanced weaponry. However, the actual capabilities of these aircraft, still shrouded in secrecy, remain uncertain. Understanding the gap between expectation and reality is crucial for evaluating the true impact of China’s ambitions on global aviation and defence strategies. The successful development and deployment of these sixth-generation fighters could potentially shift the balance of power in the global defence landscape, influencing the strategy and capabilities of other major powers.

 

The Prototypes

 

 

Two advanced jet prototypes were observed flying over China’s airspace, marking a significant milestone in China’s military aviation development.

 

The first (the Cheng-6 on Chinese social media), developed by Chengdu Aircraft Corporation, features a tailless, diamond-shaped modified delta wing design, enhancing its stealth capabilities and aerodynamic efficiency. The airframe is optimised for internal payload storage and has an underside reminiscent of the YF-23. Notably, this aircraft is believed to utilise a unique three-engine configuration, with air intakes positioned atop the fuselage. Underpowered Chinese engines may have driven the apparent three-engine design, or the third engine could be for high-speed space operations. The aircraft will likely have a high fuel/weapons load and a significant range. Its design suggests a focus on long-range missions and advanced stealth features. The design configuration indicates its potential use in roles requiring long-range missions, high-speed flight, and significant payloads, such as heavy tactical fighter or regional bomber missions.

 

The second prototype (Shen-6), attributed to Shenyang Aircraft Corporation, also exhibits a tailless design with a twin-engine configuration but a more conventional layout than its Chengdu counterpart. It has a few features similar to those of the U.S. F-22 and F-35 aircraft. This aircraft emphasises stealth characteristics, aiming to minimise radar detection. It could be a low-observable F-35-style multi-role fighter featuring higher manoeuvrability without sacrificing range. It may be a mass-manufacturable second-tier fighter to complement the J-20. The Shen-6’s design characteristics indicate it could be suited for multi-role operations, including carrier-based missions.

 

The simultaneous development of these two prototypes indicates China’s commitment to advancing its aerial combat capabilities and achieving a diversified fleet of next-generation fighter jets. Although this could be a case of two separate companies bidding on the same project, the apparent Maximum Take-off Weight (MTOW) difference may imply different mission roles. The two prototypes seem complementary rather than competitive, with the Chengdu prototype’s design more consistent with characteristics attributed to the JH-XX tactical fighter-bomber concept. In contrast, the Shenyang prototype features seem to enhance operational flexibility. Both aircraft align with principles associated with sixth-generation fighter designs, including advanced stealth, and in all probability, are capable of integration with unmanned systems and networked combat capabilities. It remains unclear whether these are crewed, optionally crewed, or intended to be uncrewed but temporarily feature pilots for the test phase only.

 

Hype vs. Reality

 

The Chinese Ministry of Defence and state media have not officially confirmed the aircraft’s specifications or capabilities. This lack of official confirmation is consistent with China’s typical approach to military advancements, where details are often withheld until the government deems it appropriate to release information. The controlled dissemination of information seems intentional, aiming to generate discussion and speculation about China’s advancements in military aviation. Without official confirmation, the aircraft’s true capabilities and purpose remain speculative. The Chinese Ministry of Defence’s silence leaves room for various interpretations and analyses, making it challenging to ascertain the exact nature of the aircraft and its implications for global military dynamics.

 

Assessing the reality of China’s sixth-generation fighter aircraft program amidst the hype requires a meticulous analysis of the available evidence, China’s broader military capabilities, and historical trends. This scrutiny is essential to separate the facts from the exaggerations and understand China’s ambitions’ actual impact on global aviation and defence strategies.

 

Observable Reality. Two distinct sixth-generation prototypes—one from Chengdu Aircraft Corporation and another from Shenyang Aircraft Corporation—have reportedly conducted flights. Videos and imagery on social media and analysts substantiate these claims. China has made significant strides in aerospace technologies, such as radar-absorbing materials, hypersonic weapons, and advanced sensors. These technologies align with sixth-generation fighter requirements. The prototypes and China’s technological advances are actual. China is progressing quickly in aerospace capabilities, and its sixth-generation fighter program is a credible effort to develop cutting-edge aircraft. These aircraft designs appear consistent with sixth-generation fighter concepts, i.e.  Tailless shapes, advanced stealth features, and potential for artificial intelligence integration. The Chengdu prototype’s three-engine configuration suggests focusing on greater thrust and energy generation, possibly for directed-energy weapons or advanced sensor systems.

 

Likely Exaggerations (Hype). China’s military often uses high-profile unveilings to signal technological prowess, which may not reflect immediate readiness. Publicising advanced aircraft boosts national pride and deter adversaries by creating the perception of parity or superiority in air combat. Historically, Chinese designs often take cues from existing foreign designs. The speed of development may indicate reliance on reverse-engineered components or speculative technologies. Some claims about capabilities—such as seamless artificial intelligence integration, swarm control of drones, or fully functional directed-energy weapons—are unverified and might be aspirational rather than operational. China’s ability to mass-produce sixth-generation fighters remains uncertain, particularly under international sanctions and technological bottlenecks (e.g., domestic jet engine reliability).

 

Comparative Analysis

 

The global race to develop sixth-generation fighter aircraft is focused on pushing the boundaries of air combat capabilities. Comparing China’s emerging sixth-generation fighters with programs in the U.S., Europe, and Russia highlights differences in strategy, technology, and priorities. Subsequent paragraphs compare their core specifications and capabilities.

 

Stealth and Aerodynamics. Prototypes from Chengdu and Shenyang feature tailless designs to reduce radar cross-section and improve stealth. The Chengdu version reportedly has a diamond-shaped delta wing with three engines, possibly enhancing agility and energy management. They prioritise passive stealth with an emphasis on coatings and shaping. U.S. (NGAD Program) will likely incorporate multi-spectral stealth (radar, infrared, and acoustic) with advanced materials and active stealth systems. It may feature variable geometry wings and extreme agility enhancements. The Europe (FCAS/Tempest) is focused on stealth but with added emphasis on low observability across electromagnetic and thermal spectrums and highly modular designs to adapt to mission needs. The Russia (MiG-41, PAK DP) emphasises speed and high-altitude performance over traditional stealth. Claims include hypersonic capabilities.

 

Sensors and Avionics. China emphasises sensor fusion and integration into battlefield networks. It is likely to feature early AI implementations for decision support. Its prototypes reportedly focus on long-range sensor detection and electronic warfare. The U.S. program includes advanced sensor fusion with real-time data sharing across multiple platforms backed by AI. They are likely to incorporate advanced quantum radars and resilient communication systems. The European FCAS emphasises sensor fusion and cooperative engagement capabilities (e.g., directing drone swarms). Russia has a less explicit focus on advanced sensor integration. Historically, it lacks behind in electronics but emphasises long-range detection and targeting systems.

 

Weapons Systems. China will likely include long-range missiles, hypersonic weapons, and directed-energy systems (e.g., lasers), integrating unmanned wingmen and drone swarms to amplify firepower. In the U.S. design, the directed-energy weapons (laser and microwave systems) are expected to feature prominently along with advanced air-to-air and air-to-ground missile systems, likely with hypersonic and loitering capabilities. FCAS emphasises collaborative engagement with unmanned platforms and electronic warfare capabilities. The Russian design is expected to focus on hypersonic missiles and high-speed intercept weapons.

 

AI and Autonomous Capabilities. China will likely resort to early AI adoption for decision-making and data processing. It is likely to feature semi-autonomous operations and control over unmanned systems.  U.S. has leadership in AI with autonomous systems capable of executing combat missions and controlling drone swarms. It is expected to integrate it with cloud-based battlefield management systems. The European focus is on cooperative AI, particularly in managing multi-platform networks (fighters, drones, and ground systems). Historically, Russia is less advanced in AI integration but may prioritise simpler, rugged autonomous features.

 

Range and Endurance. China’s three-engine design of one prototype suggests a focus on extended range and mission endurance. It likely aims to dominate the Western Pacific and beyond. The U.S. program is designed for global reach with aerial refuelling and extended-range combat. European effort is primarily intended for regional missions within Europe but has some extended capabilities for international deployment. Russia is likely to prioritise high-speed intercept missions over endurance.

 

Strengths and Weaknesses. The strengths and weaknesses of each program are summarised below:-

    • China. Its strengths include rapid development, a focus on stealth, long-range operations, and integration with drone swarms. Its weaknesses are AI maturity, engine reliability, and dependency on reverse engineering.
    • The USA. The U.S. Strengths include leadership in AI, stealth, weapons systems, and operational readiness. However, high costs and complexity could slow down production.
    • Russia. Russia’s strengths are its hypersonic missile focus, speed, and ruggedness. However, it lags in stealth and AI capabilities and has limited resources.
    • Europe. Their strengths are cooperative AI, adaptability, and strong industrial collaboration. Weaknesses include budget constraints and potential delays due to multinational coordination.

 

Time Lines: Technology to Capability

 

A prototype’s first flight is a significant step, but operational readiness involves years of testing, integration, and production. While China has demonstrated rapid progress in its sixth-generation fighter program, several factors will determine how close it is to operational deployment.

    • Development Timeline. The maiden flights of two sixth-generation prototypes indicate the early stages of development. Historically, it takes a decade or more from prototype testing to fielding a combat-ready squadron.
    • Testing and Iteration. Extensive testing is required to validate the aircraft’s performance, systems integration, and combat effectiveness. Early prototypes may evolve significantly before final production models.
    • Technological Maturity. Reliable, high-thrust engines capable of supercruising and supporting advanced systems are critical. China’s WS-15 engine for the J-20 has reportedly faced delays, suggesting potential challenges in developing next-generation engines for sixth-generation aircraft. Sixth-gen fighters must leverage advanced sensor fusion, artificial intelligence, and networked warfare capabilities. Developing and operationalising these technologies will take time. While Directed-Energy Weapons and Drone Swarms are touted as potential features, achieving battlefield-ready versions of such systems remains a significant challenge globally, not just for China.
    • Production and Logistics. Building a squadron requires mass production of advanced components, including stealth materials, avionics, and engines. China has strong manufacturing capabilities but may face bottlenecks due to sanctions and technological dependencies.

 

    • Training and Support Infrastructure. Pilots, ground crews, and logistical support systems must be trained and established to operate and maintain sixth-gen fighters effectively.

 

    • Strategic Drivers. China’s ability to accelerate development depends on how aggressively it prioritises this program over others, including improvements to existing platforms like the J-20 or J-31. Rising tensions with the U.S. and its allies could push China to field these fighters sooner, even in limited numbers, for deterrence purposes.

 

Current Estimate. A cautious view suggests that while China is advancing rapidly, its sixth-generation fighters may still be years away from full operational deployment, with significant technological and logistical challenges to overcome. The U.S. F-35, for instance, first flew in 2006 but reached initial operational capability (IOC) only in 2015. Based on available information and historical parallels, if China follows a similar timeline, its sixth-generation fighters could achieve IOC by the early to mid-2030s. China could field a symbolic squadron earlier, but these would likely have been pre-operational units used for further testing and refinement rather than full combat readiness. A fully Operational Squadron could be formed earliest by 2035, assuming no significant development, production, or integration setbacks are faced.

 

Implications

 

The development of sixth-generation fighter aircraft positions China at the forefront of the global race for sixth-generation fighter technology, potentially challenging the air superiority of other nations and reshaping the dynamics of modern aerial warfare. These developments significantly affect regional security dynamics, particularly in the Far East and South Asia.

 

Broader Geopolitical Implications. A successful sixth-gen program would boost China’s confidence in its ability to deter external intervention, particularly by the U.S., in disputes over Taiwan or the South China Sea. It may embolden China to pursue a more assertive posture in regional disputes. The U.S. will likely increase military support to its allies (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and potentially India) to counterbalance China’s growing air power. Regional powers are likely to boost defence budgets to acquire or develop next-gen capabilities, exacerbating the arms race in Asia. Smaller Southeast Asian nations may seek advanced air defence systems to avoid vulnerability.

 

Overall Regional Impact. China’s advancement in sixth-generation aircraft challenges the air superiority traditionally held by the United States and its allies in the Indo-Pacific. Once operationalised, these fighters could extend China’s ability to project power far beyond its borders, including contested areas like the Taiwan Strait, the South China Sea, and the East China Sea. A credible sixth-generation capability is a deterrent, raising the risks for nations contemplating countering China’s military actions in disputed regions. It also strengthens China’s bargaining power in regional and global negotiations. This development could trigger a technological and military response from neighbouring countries, prompting increased defence spending and collaboration with the U.S. or European powers.

 

Implications for Specific Nations

 

Japan. Japan faces heightened security risks in the East China Sea, particularly around the disputed Senkaku Islands, as advanced Chinese aircraft could dominate contested airspace. China’s long-range strike capabilities threaten Japan’s strategic assets and population centers. Japan has already committed to the F-X program, a sixth-generation fighter co-developed with the UK (Tempest) and Italy. This program may accelerate to counter China’s advancements. It may strengthen the U.S.-Japan alliance, hosting more advanced U.S. assets like the F-35 and NGAD platforms.

 

South Korea. The Korean Peninsula’s proximity to China makes South Korea vulnerable to Chinese air power in any regional conflict. Chinese sixth-generation fighters could neutralise South Korea’s current air force, including its F-35 fleet. South Korea may fast-track its KF-21 Boramae fighter program and consider deeper integration with U.S. defence systems. It may enhance missile defence and joint military drills with the U.S. and Japan to prepare for aerial threats.

 

Taiwan. Taiwan is the most directly threatened. Sixth-generation fighters could overwhelm Taiwan’s defences, outmatch its current fleet, and enforce air superiority over the Taiwan Strait. Combined with unmanned systems and precision weapons, China could use these fighters in a potential blockade or invasion scenario. Taiwan must invest heavily in asymmetric defence strategies, such as anti-air systems, drones, and missile capabilities, to offset China’s technological advantage. It will strengthen U.S.-Taiwan collaboration, particularly for advanced defensive systems like the Patriot and Aegis missile systems.

 

India. While geographically distant from East Asia, India faces security challenges along its disputed borders with China. Chinese sixth-generation fighters could provide superior air power in a conflict scenario, outmatching India’s existing fourth-generation aircraft, such as the Su-30MKI or its limited fleet of Rafales.  India’s AMCA (Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft) project gains urgency to develop a fifth-generation platform and potentially leapfrog into sixth-gen technologies. It may need to strengthen partnerships and collaborations with Western nations, emphasising indigenous development and joint ventures.

 

China’s sixth-generation fighter program signifies a leap forward in its military modernisation. It presents a direct challenge to the regional balance of power, making it a pivotal development in shaping the strategic dynamics of the Indo-Pacific. The operationalisation of China’s sixth-generation fighters could reorder regional air power dynamics, with the U.S. and its allies responding with their advanced capabilities.

 

Conclusion

 

China’s sixth-generation fighter aircraft program is impressive, and as it inches closer to operational readiness, it signals a pivotal shift in global airpower dynamics. By leveraging advanced technologies like artificial intelligence, stealth, and hypersonic capabilities, China aims to achieve dominance in air combat and strategic deterrence. Compared to the United States and its contemporaries, Beijing’s accelerated progress highlights its determination to close the technology gap. While equally ambitious, the U.S. Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program emphasises joint combat capabilities and seamless integration within a broader technological ecosystem. Meanwhile, Europe’s Tempest and FCAS programs underscore the necessity for international collaboration but face delays and funding challenges.

 

The sixth-generation race is not merely about the aircraft but about the strategic ecosystems they represent. China’s approach, marked by centralised control and rapid prototyping, offers speed but raises questions about operational reliability and sustainability. Notwithstanding, the implications of this development are profound. It mandates investments in asymmetric warfare and counter-stealth technologies for regional countries to mitigate a growing disparity. Globally, China’s advancements could prompt a new arms race, influencing defence spending and alliances. 

 

Request Please do Comment

 

1014
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

 

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

References:-

  1. Global Times. “China Showcases Sixth-Gen Fighter Model at Zhuhai Air show.” Published November 15, 2024.
  1. South China Morning Post. “China’s Sixth-Gen Fighter: Prototypes Take to the Skies.” Published December 27, 2024.
  1. BBC News. “China’s Advanced Fighters: How They Compare with the US and Europe.” Published December 2024.
  1. The Guardian. “What China’s Sixth-Generation Fighter Program Means for Global Security.” Published December 2024.
  1. CNN International. “China’s Aerospace Leap: Sixth-Gen Fighters Take Center Stage.” Published December 2024.
  1. Defence News. “A Tale of Two Prototypes: China’s Sixth-Gen Fighter Race Heats Up.” Published December 2024.
  1. Breaking Defence. “China’s Sixth-Gen Jets: Decoding the Strategic Message.” Published November 2024.
  1. The Straits Times. “Asia Responds to China’s Next-Gen Fighter Developments.” Published December 2024.
  1. The Economic Times (India). “Implications of China’s Sixth-Gen Aircraft on Indian Security.” Published December 2024.
  1. Nikkei Asia. “How China’s Sixth-Generation Fighters Could Reshape the Indo-Pacific.” Published December 2024.
  1. Foreign Affairs. “Arming the Future: The Sixth-Generation Fighter Race.” Published December 2024.
  1. Reuters. “China’s Military Aviation Milestone: What the World Needs to Know.” Published December 2024.
  1. Al Jazeera. “The Geopolitical Fallout of China’s Sixth-Gen Fighter Program.” Published December 2024.
  1. U.S. Department of Defence. Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China. Washington D.C., 2024.

 

  1. RAND Corporation. The Future of Airpower: Comparative Analysis of Next-Gen Fighter Programs, 2024.
  1. Indian Defence Review. “China’s Sixth-Generation Fighter Program: Implications for India’s Air Defence Strategy.” IDR, December 2024.
  1. European Defence Agency. Collaborative Combat: The Future of the FCAS and Tempest Programs. EDA Technical Report, 2024.

English हिंदी