Sohu explains why China might need to buy an F-35


The Chinese press is discussing a topic regarding how the military aircraft industry in the PRC and the alignment of forces in the region could change if China had the opportunity to purchase an American F-35 fighter.


On the pages of the Sohu information portal, the author reminds Chinese readers that at the moment, the purchase of the F-35 from the United States is impossible primarily because the United States has a ban on the export of this equipment to countries outside the production cooperation. In addition, Washington initially prohibited the sale of any military equipment or weapons to Beijing.

From the article:

At the same time, the Americans are actively selling their fifth-generation fighters to South Korea and Japan, trying to achieve a strategic advantage in their favor in the Asia-Pacific region.

The author notes that if there was a hypothetical possibility of acquiring the F-35 from the United States, then China would "study in detail the engine technologies used by the Americans."

From the article:

At one time, the Su-35 in Russia was acquired for the PLA air force. This allowed us to study Russian engines and advance in our own aircraft engine technology. Buying a Su-35 is absolutely the right choice.

The Chinese author does not hide the fact that China used Russian technology to develop its fifth-generation fighter program. It is noted that the purchase of the F-35 would provide important information about the stealth coverage of an American fighter. This is despite the fact that earlier in the same Sohu claimed that Chinese manufacturers "succeeded in creating their own coating to reduce visibility" - for example, the J-20 fighter.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

40 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Kote Pan Kokhanka 9 March 2020 15: 14 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    All right! Copy !!!
    1. kit88 9 March 2020 17: 16 New
      • 7
      • 3
      +4
      Is there a person in the world who thinks differently ....
  2. voyaka uh 9 March 2020 15: 16 New
    • 7
    • 8
    -1
    China does not have its vertical. The only significant gap in their line of aviation types.
    1. BREAKTHROUGH READY 9 March 2020 16: 11 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      They do not really need it, when choosing a course for the construction of full-fledged aircraft carriers.
      1. voyaka uh 9 March 2020 16: 25 New
        • 6
        • 9
        -3
        Why is this course chosen?
        No vertical bars.
        Americans quickly build simple UDC with a flat deck. No springboard, no catapults, no finishers: 10 F-35B, 10 helicopters. Light aircraft carriers.
        1. BREAKTHROUGH READY 9 March 2020 17: 27 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Why is this course chosen?
          because it is much more promising and the combat value of a full-fledged wing is incomparably higher.
          No vertical bars.
          maybe because not much needed? China had the opportunity to buy all the developments on yak36 and 141, it may well find a “harrier2” on the second hand, and is able to master its vertical line and add the developed technology for stealth fighters.
          Americans quickly build simple UDC with a flat deck.
          the rich have their own quirks, but the core of the American fleet (and perhaps all the armed forces) are still full-fledged aircraft carriers.
          1. Avior 9 March 2020 22: 18 New
            • 1
            • 2
            -1
            What makes you think that the Chinese are capable of this?
            Scheme f-35B no None of the aircraft in the world.
      2. Grigory_45 9 March 2020 17: 10 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        Quote: BREAKTHROUGH READY
        They do not really need it, when choosing a course for the construction of full-fledged aircraft carriers.

        With VTOL, China would significantly expand its fleet of aircraft carriers. Conventional UDC can carry 10-12 vertical fly, turning into a light aircraft carrier
        1. BREAKTHROUGH READY 9 March 2020 17: 15 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Now UDC can be considered as exarc aircraft carriers for the poor. The Chinese thought and decided it was wiser to invest in a full-fledged aircraft carrier with catapults. Personally, I think they are right.
          1. Grigory_45 9 March 2020 17: 21 New
            • 4
            • 2
            +2
            Quote: BREAKTHROUGH READY
            it makes more sense to invest in a full-fledged aircraft carrier with catapults

            the whole trick is that even so rich countries like the US do not give up light aircraft carriers (based on the same UDC).

            Of course, a 100-thousandth atomic AB is cool) But it is very expensive, and in some applications it is redundant (or risking it is not very justified). It was here that light aircraft carriers (formerly called escort) rescued, relatively inexpensive ships that can escort convoys, carry out small-group air defense, and support landing.
            Moreover, nowadays almost all countries that have a fleet have such ships - starting from the countries of South America, small countries of Europe (such as Spain), and ending with the countries of Asia.

            A light aircraft carrier is not a substitute for a full-fledged one, but an addition.
      3. Lopatov 9 March 2020 18: 09 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: BREAKTHROUGH READY
        They don’t really need it.

        On the contrary.
        Given the practice of building air bases on the disputed islands.
    2. tomket 9 March 2020 16: 28 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Quote: voyaka uh
      China does not have its vertical. The only significant gap in their line of aviation types.

      They have no modern information security, no attack aircraft, no modern strategist, vertical is not the most important thing
      1. voyaka uh 9 March 2020 16: 33 New
        • 5
        • 8
        -3
        China has fighters and fighter-bombers. Attack aircraft are not needed at all, strategists are not specifically needed by the Chinese.
        1. Darcs 9 March 2020 16: 57 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          in general, in their opinion, stormtroopers are also needed, as they can carry specialized weapons, the United States does not abandon their pigs Russia also does not refuse rooks
          1. Grigory_45 9 March 2020 17: 15 New
            • 0
            • 2
            -2
            Quote: Darcs
            in general, in their opinion, stormtroopers are also needed, as they can carry specialized weapons, the United States does not abandon their pigs Russia also does not refuse rooks

            Helicopter helicopters take the place of specialized attack aircraft in China
      2. Grigory_45 9 March 2020 17: 13 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        Quote: tomket
        Quote: voyaka uh
        China does not have its vertical. The only significant gap in their line of aviation types.

        They have no modern information security, no attack aircraft, no modern strategist, vertical is not the most important thing

        China has modern information security, including deck-mounted. They don’t plan a stateg, they don’t need it, they plan a long-range bomber to replace the already obsolete missile carriers - analogues of the Soviet Tu-16
    3. Observer2014 9 March 2020 17: 15 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      China does not have its vertical. The only significant gap in their line of aviation types.

      yes This is because the Yak 141 used to be interested in the Americans. The Soviet school of design is the greatest school. Yes, it’s understandable. Bring to the finished product and send to the series. That was a little different. Now really is not something to construct. The IL-112 is an example for everyone, easy transport.
    4. kit88 9 March 2020 17: 20 New
      • 7
      • 5
      +2
      China does not have its vertical.

      Here you have the whole "advancement" of the Chinese aircraft industry.
      There is nothing to copy, therefore not.
      They themselves can’t do anything.
    5. boriz 9 March 2020 17: 40 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      A much more serious gap is the long and heavy bomber.
    6. Zaurbek 9 March 2020 17: 56 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      They can buy Yakovlev Design Bureau from their Yak141.
    7. Alexey LK 10 March 2020 03: 32 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      China does not have its vertical. The only significant gap in their line of aviation types.

      So the only one? And the attack aircraft? And heavy (not medium) transporters? What about tankers? Strategic, long-range bombers? Heavy transport helicopters?
  3. Guru 9 March 2020 15: 21 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    the possibility of acquiring the F-35 from the United States, China would "study in detail the engine technology used by the Americans."

    The lip is rolled out, and even their plagiarism do not hide.
  4. Thrifty 9 March 2020 15: 29 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Although they honestly write that they need to steal those technologies in which there is a critical lag. Only, the problem is to study the plane, this does not mean that you can get the right technology in this way! Some examples of apparatus and equipment are possible, but certainly not technology! They themselves need to be created from scratch. Copying someone else’s without creating a password of their own is a dead end.
    1. rudolff 9 March 2020 16: 55 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      They seem to have their own 5th generation airplane in the series and a second on the way. Want to improve, what's wrong?
      1. Grigory_45 9 March 2020 17: 41 New
        • 1
        • 4
        -3
        Quote: rudolff
        They have their own 5th generation aircraft in a series

        But how many serial J-20 do they have ???

        Quote: rudolff
        Want to improve, what's wrong?

        maybe not improve, but bring to an acceptable level?
        We can say, I’m sure that in China, unlike the USA and the USSR (Russia), there is no detailed idea of ​​how to make stealth (including radar absorbing coatings) correctly. Given the relative simplicity of the theory itself, it’s very difficult to achieve a real result, especially without a serious aircraft building school with a good history (it took decades for the leading world aviation powers). But China did not have it, and even now it’s not very ...
        1. rudolff 9 March 2020 18: 12 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          The Chinese do not particularly share information about the number. Officially adopted 2-3 years ago. Presumably to date until the squadron. Considering the speed with which the Chinese are able to build, how many things will not do.
          In terms of stealth technology, we are also not very dense. In fact, the Su-57 is the first such. The Americans before the F-35 had three serial stealth cars.
          1. Grigory_45 9 March 2020 18: 22 New
            • 2
            • 4
            -2
            Quote: rudolff
            Su-57 first such

            first brought to the series. Both we and the Americans had at least a dozen experimental stealth

            Did China have? Or again refer to the notorious secrecy?
            1. rudolff 9 March 2020 19: 13 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Sorry, but I do not see the subject of the dispute or do not understand. China, of course, cannot be compared in terms of experience with either us or the Americans, and they do a lot for the first time. But they are learning and trying to do something of their own. To the best of strength and ability. If you want my opinion, the J-20 doesn't impress me at all. The J-31 promises to be much more interesting.
              1. Grigory_45 9 March 2020 19: 37 New
                • 0
                • 3
                -3
                Quote: rudolff
                China, of course, cannot be compared in terms of experience with either us or the Americans, and they do a lot for the first time.

                and that’s precisely why their technique does not hold out. This can be explained by the same design and technological lag in some areas, which, despite more than generous funding, cannot be quickly made up.
                And therefore it is critically important for them to receive the latest developments - in the field of engine building, stealth coatings, etc. I don’t have my own school, I don’t have any experience, and I have to introduce reverse engineering into the business

                Quote: rudolff
                But they learn

                are learning. By actively studying the experience of other countries, by hook or by crook, extracting objects of study. Of course, you cannot blame them especially for that, although there remains a residue from the methods (but, to be honest, not a single country in the world has disdained such methods). I do not consider China to be backward, but I also do not believe in the breakthrough technologies of the Chinese.

                The summary is such that so far they themselves cannot pull out the 5th generation airplane project, although, for the sake of public relations, they claim that they have one and even are in serial production.
                But for them to really have one, they need to get the American F-35 or the Russian Su-57, having carefully studied it.

                About such "trifles" as the number of failures per flight hour, the resource of engines, and even a sea of ​​problems (and their programs are orders of magnitude more closed than in Russia and even more so in the USA) - no one except them knows. But the fact that there are problems, and not small ones, seems indisputable
                1. rudolff 9 March 2020 19: 55 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  They are not just learning, they are learning fast. For several years now, as the first place in the number of patents for new discoveries and inventions, ahead of the United States, Germany and Japan. In absolute terms, one cannot even compare with Russia. China is no longer just a big copier.
                  And something ahead of us. The same UAV. Which, by the way, is surprising, knowing what the USSR had in store for UAVs. Or VNEU. They took the Swedish installation, copied and put on their submarines. And now, on the basis of this installation, I am developing purely my second generation with a TTX that is an order of magnitude superior to the Swedes. And we have VNEU on the submarine does not have any. And again, it is surprising, since we successfully conducted tests of our VNEU on ECG with underwater autonomy up to 4 weeks back in the late 80s. The difference between us and China is that China, having nothing, learns and acquires. And we, having everything (!), Sometimes are not even able to save, losing our competence.
                  1. Grigory_45 9 March 2020 20: 29 New
                    • 0
                    • 2
                    -2
                    Quote: rudolff
                    They are not just learning, they are learning fast.

                    nobody argues with that. I won’t offer praises to the Chinese genius (most of their patents and speakers are an improvement on the already known ones), however, judging objectively, they won’t take away the fact that they are actively working. And a few things help them: using the world experience aggressive acquisition of technical documentation and samples, more than generous financing (in those areas where they want to achieve something, they do not spare money), the exact definition of what they want (alas, unlike us - that in Soviet times, what now in Russia, we don’t really know what we want, programs are written vaguely, without specifics, and then often change along the way) and very tight control (carrot and stick) by the state. Well, phenomenal performance, comparable perhaps with the Japanese.

                    However, returning to the original topic, they failed to create the 5th generation fighter (taking into account all the above factors) - and they themselves understand that, although only their odes to national weapons can be read in their press. If they succeeded, they would not have so much interest in competing aircraft.

                    the same purchases of Su-35 fighters - the goal was to get engines. The rest (missiles, radar, etc.) they do not need - have their own, or they are sure that they can create something like that. But the plane is a complex. And even some engines can ruin everything. Despite all the successes of China, he is still among his students. Although no one excludes that someday a student will outgrow his teacher.
                    1. rudolff 9 March 2020 20: 33 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      But the Su-57 engine is also under development.
  5. Lord of the Sith 9 March 2020 15: 33 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Some kind of dreams at the kindergarten level.
    Do you think little of yourself?

    If I was a queen laughing
  6. Scipio 9 March 2020 15: 36 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    They forgot to buy a lip-filling machine .....
  7. Amateur 9 March 2020 15: 44 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    The Chinese press is discussing a topic regarding how the military aircraft industry in China and the alignment of forces in the region could change. if China had the opportunity to purchase American fighter F-35.

    “If I were a queen, -
    Says one maiden, -
    The whole baptized world
    I would have prepared a feast. ”
    “If I were a queen, -
    Says her sister, -
    Then the whole world would be one
    I stumbled on the canvas. "
    (A.S. Pushkin)
  8. Knell wardenheart 9 March 2020 16: 56 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    I think our yellow-faced partners would not refuse to buy and study any modern technology in small batches .. The question is - why are we still selling them such small batches, knowing all this ..
  9. grandfather_Kostya 9 March 2020 18: 34 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    You will be sold the F-35 with the self-destruction function when you try to take the aircraft apart.
  10. akarfoxhound 9 March 2020 21: 35 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    And the Su-35 wasn’t worth selling them ...
  11. Aleks2000 9 March 2020 22: 37 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    They wrote the same thing about Su 57 a week ago.
    Lip no fool.
    Here are the reverse rumors that we will take out their planes, not at all ...
  12. cherkas.oe 9 March 2020 23: 31 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Nothing is new under the moon: - "tyrim, tyrim, tyrim." Because we can’t come up with it ourselves. due to the fact that they smoked opium for a century, at the behest of their older Anglo-Saxon brother. The age-old hole in the genetics of mental development does not misfire. To steal and copy, still to and fro, and to come up with - for this a scientific school and an academic tradition are needed. But with stupid Chinese arrogance and self-confidence, this is not possible.