Principles of PLA watching

  • Thread starter Deleted member 13312
  • Start date

SinoSoldier

Colonel
I can kind of understand the rationale considering how few air refuelling tankers they have had to begin with, and that it would take a while until they were able to acquire a sufficient number of tankers to make their non-combat aircraft (including force multipliers and transports) air refuelable a worthwhile exercise.

However, IMO it would have been an oversight if they had not designed Y-20 and Y-9 to both be capable of modification for air refuelling without significant modifications.


Fortunately, the fact that KJ-500 seems to have an air refuelling probe suggests to me that it shouldn't be a big issue for the rest of the Y-9 family to have it as well either through new production or MLU.

Can a refuelling probe be MLU-ed to current airframes though? Like you mentioned it would be quite shortsighted for the PLAAF to order these airframes without retaining the ability to install these later on when tankers become more abundant.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
All of this (bolded) sounds like you're referring to forums or general articles. If there are publicly available sources that show US intelligence underestimating the J-20, feel free to post them.

I can't demonstrate what they knew about it because such things usually aren't publicized. My basic position is (among other things) that they aren't less competent than SDF posters, even after allowing for the amazing professionalism and all-around brilliance on display here.

I'm sure that there are some elements in the US intelligence and defence community who have been able to get accurate reads on PLA developments, probably much more accurate than us, assuming they have competent military espionage efforts.

HOWEVER, based on the reports that we have open to us, the declassified reports -- I think it is absolutely fair to say that they were absolutely inadequate and frankly shamefully incomptent in their reporting of big ticket Chinese military developments like J-20.



In this part

you seem to be saying there are declassified reports that underestimate the J-20. If you post them, I'll gladly take a look. Otherwise, people simply asserting something remains unpersuasive.

(If the moderators delete or move this post, hopefully the action will be consistent for other offending posts.)

I am saying that there are few if any declassified US govt and military reports in the years leading up to the unveiling of J-20 which had accurately described the characteristics or general role or class of aircraft that J-20 ended up being.


The thing is, I cannot "prove a negative".

When you ask me for reports that "underestimate" the J-20, it makes it sound like I am supposed to produce a report that says the US believed China's next generation fighter would be explicitly incapable or inferior relative to XYZ in ABC ways.

However, what I can do is demonstrate that there are few if any reports which were able to predict the imminent arrival of J-20 and what it would end up looking like.
Therefore, the burden of the evidence instead falls now on you to show me some US govt and military reports that were able to accurately describe J-XX/J-20 and the role it would serve and the aircraft it would seek to compete with.


But, I am a good sport, so I looked up one of the most high profile reports on the PLA in 2009 to see what they wrote about J-20.

Here's the 2009 China military report to congress. In the "Air Forces and Air Defence forces" section, on page 50, they mention NOTHING about J-XX or J-20. They don't even acknowledge the existence of such a programme.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!




Now, there were a few individuals in the English language/US thinktankland who were able to get an accurate read of J-20, like Richard Fisher (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
), and select individual reports from US military officers that make passing reference to a 5th generation fighter under development (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)...

But you will be hard pressed to find any official US national govt or military service level reports about the PLA that accurately described the J-20 in the years leading up to its unveiling.

I know, because I voraciously searched for that information between 2006 and 2008 in the early years of my PLA watching, and official US govt and military reports on the PLA were the first and second places I looked.



If you can find some reports that prove me wrong and indicate that the US govt and military were aware of what kind of aircraft the J-20 would be in the span between 2000-2010 -- which should be easy, as that would be "proving a positive" rather than me "proving a negative" -- then by all means show me the reports and articles.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
SecDef Gates was off by roughly ~7 years (which is not bad considering how early the predictions were). The US intelligence groups had expected the J-XX to be comparable to their US fifth generation counterparts which is also reiterated in Mr. Gates' statement.

Nah, being off by a whole 7 years is actually pretty terrible.

We should be assuming that the freaking Secretary of Defense should have had the full might of US clandestine military intelligence at the time to have informed him about the US's strategic rivals and major weapons developments.

If the SecDef was off by a whole freaking 7 years, considering that claim was made in freaking 2009 (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
) merely a year before the first J-20 prototype would make its maiden flight... then we have to assume that either there was some immense SNAFU between conveying vital information from US military intelligence to their Secretary of Defence, or even more concerningly the US military intelligence establishment had completely dropped the ball on even being able to acquire or conclude that intelligence in the first place!



I'd also warn against assuming that the J-20 can "rival" the F-35 or F-22 without further light being shed on these systems. Just because the J-20 comes with one or two additional gadgets does not mean it possesses an equal or greater level of modularity or sensor capability than the F-22/35.

What jobjed said was "What the US didn't know and didn't even bother considering, is the Chinese next-gen will ultimately rival the US' next-gen, and in a lot of crucial areas, even show greater realised capabilities as well as greater potential for future retrofitting of new capabilities."

I don't think that is a statement making any overreach in assumptions at all tbh.


Edit: Deino, please move all of these past, current and future OT posts to a new thread when you have the time. Much appreciated.

This discussion about the incompetency of the majority of western govt, intelligence and military "authorities" and their seemingly inability to adequately predict new PLA developments and systems is a matter that I've actually been keen to discuss for a few years now.
 
Last edited:
...


Edit: Deino, please move all of these past, current and future OT posts to a new thread when you have the time. Much appreciated.

but you didn't establish a new thread yet, I mean I can't see it in
Recent Threads

saying this just because:
This discussion about the incompetency of the majority of western govt, intelligence and military "authorities" and their seemingly inability to adequately predict new PLA developments and systems is a matter that I've actually been keen to discuss for a few years now.
I'd read it
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
but you didn't establish a new thread yet, I mean I can't see it in
Recent Threads

saying this just because:

I'd read it

I haven't established a new thread, because I don't want to start a discussion over there and then have to move the preexisting posts here into a new thread that has its own new discussion.

Easier to just have all the discussion in one single thread, and then move everything over in one go instead of trying to merge two threads about the same topic together.
 
I haven't established a new thread, because I don't want to start a discussion over there and then have to move the preexisting posts here into a new thread that has its own new discussion.

Easier to just have all the discussion in one single thread, and then move everything over in one go instead of trying to merge two threads about the same topic together.
I see your point

another reason they should make you
Bltizo
a Mod

but ... LOL
 

Klon

Junior Member
Registered Member
Apparently the discussion continues here.


I'm sure that there are some elements in the US intelligence and defence community who have been able to get accurate reads on PLA developments, probably much more accurate than us, assuming they have competent military espionage efforts.

HOWEVER, based on the reports that we have open to us, the declassified reports -- I think it is absolutely fair to say that they were absolutely inadequate and frankly shamefully incomptent in their reporting of big ticket Chinese military developments like J-20.
Again, are we talking about reporting or intelligence?


I am saying that there are few if any declassified US govt and military reports in the years leading up to the unveiling of J-20 which had accurately described the characteristics or general role or class of aircraft that J-20 ended up being.


The thing is, I cannot "prove a negative".

When you ask me for reports that "underestimate" the J-20, it makes it sound like I am supposed to produce a report that says the US believed China's next generation fighter would be explicitly incapable or inferior relative to XYZ in ABC ways.

However, what I can do is demonstrate that there are few if any reports which were able to predict the imminent arrival of J-20 and what it would end up looking like.
Therefore, the burden of the evidence instead falls now on you to show me some US govt and military reports that were able to accurately describe J-XX/J-20 and the role it would serve and the aircraft it would seek to compete with.
First of all, there is no "proving a negative" involved here, and blatant attempts at shifting the burden of proof won't work.
My position is that US intelligence was well informed about the J-20, both its capabilities and timelines, which would include China's intention for it to compete with American fifth-generation fighters and the progress of technologies going into it. Your position is that US intelligence vastly underestimated the aircraft, not considering it a fully fifth-generation platform. The two claims are clearly comparable and there is no reason why there would only be evidence for one (assuming each is true).

So, if US intelligence thought the J-20 wasn't a serious attempt at a fifth-generation fighter (by the way, did they think it was supposed to be a 4.5-generation design? 4.75?), you should be able to come up with assessments stating so.


But, I am a good sport, so I looked up one of the most high profile reports on the PLA in 2009 to see what they wrote about J-20.
I'd think doing that is the minimum necessary to support one's position.


Here's the 2009 China military report to congress. In the "Air Forces and Air Defence forces" section, on page 50, they mention NOTHING about J-XX or J-20. They don't even acknowledge the existence of such a programme.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
I also looked at the DOD reports to Congress. I found that the J-20 was never mentioned until the 2011 edition following its first flight and that it hasn't received heavy attention since. To me, this reads like a clear choice on how to report on developments and not delusion or ignorance. For example, these reports could easily include a ten year projection on the balance of power, updated each year. That they don't is a sign that they're more focused on present developments and barely look to the future.

The rest of my response is in the next comment.
 

Klon

Junior Member
Registered Member
Now, there were a few individuals in the English language/US thinktankland who were able to get an accurate read of J-20, like Richard Fisher (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
), and select individual reports from US military officers that make passing reference to a 5th generation fighter under development (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)...

But you will be hard pressed to find any official US national govt or military service level reports about the PLA that accurately described the J-20 in the years leading up to its unveiling.

I know, because I voraciously searched for that information between 2006 and 2008 in the early years of my PLA watching, and official US govt and military reports on the PLA were the first and second places I looked.



If you can find some reports that prove me wrong and indicate that the US govt and military were aware of what kind of aircraft the J-20 would be in the span between 2000-2010 -- which should be easy, as that would be "proving a positive" rather than me "proving a negative" -- then by all means show me the reports and articles.
Simply put, that various public articles and reports didn't write about a fifth-generation fighter coming from China (before 2011) doesn't have anything to do with what US intelligence knew about the program. Since you spent several pages arguing that China doesn't have to reveal things about its military developments, surely you agree that US intelligence doesn't have to comment on them either. That China's intelligence services don't make public comments about secret weapons projects in other countries doesn't mean they don't know about them or are for some reason underestimating them.

Now, I'll post some sources showing what US intelligence agencies did say publicly about the J-20. If they were underestimating it, you should be able to find similar articles with wrong assessments.

The first is the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
article from 1997.
China focuses on XXJ
China has begun preliminary design studies on a twin-engined multi-role fighter, says the US Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). Dubbed the XXJ by the ONI, the programme may be referred to as the F-12 in China [unclear if this is from ONI or Flight Global, ultimately irrelevant]. Sources within combat-aircraft manufacturer Chengdu confirm that it is looking at a twin-engined design. The ONI suggests that the aircraft could enter service around 2015. Chengdu sources say that they are examining single-and two-crew configurations.
From Richard Fisher's article that you linked, we also know it was described by the ONI as having "a reduced radar signature design". Everything attributed to the ONI here is correct.

Second,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in May 2010.
China is building an advanced combat jet that may rival within eight years Lockheed Martin Corp’s F-22 Raptor, the premier U.S. fighter, a U.S. intelligence official said. [...]
“We’re anticipating China to have a fifth-generation fighter ... operational right around 2018,” Wayne Ulman of the National Air and Space Intelligence Center testified on Thursday to a congressionally mandated group that studies national security implications of U.S.-China economic ties. [...]
Ulman is China “issues manager” at the center that is the U.S. military’s prime intelligence producer on foreign air and space forces, weapons and systems. He said China’s military was eyeing options for possible use of force against Taiwan, which Beijing deems a rogue province. [...]
Actually, let's see what Ulman said at that
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in full.
Yes. I can speak a little bit to China's next generation fighter. This is something that we've been referring to notionally as the "XXJ." Certainly there's plenty of, out in the blogosphere, discussions about what it may actually be called. There may be more than one program underway. Certainly you've got main airframers at Chengdu and Shenyang. At some point both the flanker, the J-11, and the F-10, which is produced at Chengdu, both of those aircraft will run their course, and so there will be some sort of follow on aircraft probably at both of those facilities.
So both of those are likely to be some sort of next generation system, much as we're doing with F-22 and F-35. We're anticipating China to have a fifth generation fighter that, like I said, we've been referring to as the XXJ, operational right around 2018.
There's a lot of a vagaries in terms of, if they run into some roadblocks that are unanticipated, could be longer than that. If everything goes real smoothly, it could be a little bit quicker than that. And certainly that will have all the major, the major elements that you'd look for in a fifth generation fighter in terms of advanced avionics and
radar, low-observable design, potentially super-cruise, all of these things.
It's yet to be seen exactly how that will compare one on one with, say, an F-22, but it will certainly be in that ball park.
Even by the exacting standards of SDF, this is spot on.

Third,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in 2009.
DIA on China's new fighter
The Defense Intelligence Agency is sticking by its estimates of when China will deploy a fifth-generation jet fighter after recent remarks by a Chinese general that Beijing's most advanced jet could be fielded by 2017 - years earlier than U.S. intelligence projections.

"We believe that first flight of a Chinese fifth-generation fighter will occur in the next few years; however, we also believe it will take about 10 years before the [People's Liberation Army] begins to operationally deploy a fifth-generation fighter in meaningful numbers," DIA spokesman Donald Black told Inside the Ring. [...]

Asked if U.S. projections about the new Chinese jet were incorrect, Mr. Black said "the intelligence community has been warning of the development of a Chinese fifth-generation fighter for several years." [emphasis added]

"Intelligence estimates typically provide a range of dates associated with operational deployment," he said. "Gen. He's comments are generally consistent with these intelligence community estimates of Chinese fifth-generation fighter operational deployment." [...]

So far, I have shown that US intelligence has known about the project since at least 1997, correctly predicted the timelines and was aware of the technological aims and progress. Conversely, the position that US intelligence significantly underestimated the J-20 remains totally unsupported.

Now, a note on the burden of proof. While I've already stated my view on "proving a negative", there's another issue that needs addressing. That being "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", or that claims that are less likely need more substantiation. One such claim is that US intelligence was vastly wrong about the J-20, or specifically that they knew less about it than posters on SDF.

This is an extraordinary claim because there are large numbers of professionals, across several agencies and departments, whose job it is to gather information on such developments in all available ways. This obviously includes open source, as demonstrated by Fisher and Ulman mentioning blogs, but also things such as hacking and human intelligence. For them to get it vastly wrong means they would have had to totally fail in these attempts or not try at all. For context, we should remember that China repeatedly hacked the US and took "terabytes" of data on the F-35 and other systems. There were also numerous arrests of people accused of stealing classified technology for China. Are we to believe that the US was unable to obtain via hacking any classified documents on the J-20 and unable to compromise even one of the thousands of people working on the J-20 and its subsystems? Obviously, without claims from either side we'll never know if and how much they learned through these means, but it remains extremely unlikely they weren't able to get anything.

In conclusion, my claims are by now well demonstrated.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Apparently the discussion continues here.



Again, are we talking about reporting or intelligence?

Both.

In my post going back to #3389, I wrote "So yes, I absolutely believe that for a long time the declassified US military reports did not actually know how advanced the XXJ/J-XX would end up being."

Note the keyword, declassified.




First of all, there is no "proving a negative" involved here, and blatant attempts at shifting the burden of proof won't work.
My position is that US intelligence was well informed about the J-20, both its capabilities and timelines, which would include China's intention for it to compete with American fifth-generation fighters and the progress of technologies going into it. Your position is that US intelligence vastly underestimated the aircraft, not considering it a fully fifth-generation platform. The two claims are clearly comparable and there is no reason why there would only be evidence for one (assuming each is true).

So, if US intelligence thought the J-20 wasn't a serious attempt at a fifth-generation fighter (by the way, did they think it was supposed to be a 4.5-generation design? 4.75?), you should be able to come up with assessments stating so.

My belief, is that certain elements or individuals in US intelligence may or may not have had accurate assessments of what J-XX or J-20 may be like (especially closer to 2010), however that such information did not rise up to the service level or govt level of intelligence.

In other words, there may have been some groups or analysts in the US intelligence community who had a semi accurate or even accurate understanding of J-XX/J-20 in the years leading up to 2010, but such information for some reason never made its way up to national level or service level appraisals of Chinese next generation fighter developments.




I'd think doing that is the minimum necessary to support one's position.

That is assuming my position is the one where burden of proof lies upon.



I also looked at the DOD reports to Congress. I found that the J-20 was never mentioned until the 2011 edition following its first flight and that it hasn't received heavy attention since. To me, this reads like a clear choice on how to report on developments and not delusion or ignorance. For example, these reports could easily include a ten year projection on the balance of power, updated each year. That they don't is a sign that they're more focused on present developments and barely look to the future.

The rest of my response is in the next comment.

Well then I consider your appraisal to be over generous.

To me, the fact that the DOD report to Congress in 2006 or 2007 (considering that was when the open source information reached us PLA watchers) did not explicitly describe J-XX as a twin engine heavy weight 5th generation fighter intended to compete with the F-22 to be a complete miscarriage of their duty and competency.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Simply put, that various public articles and reports didn't write about a fifth-generation fighter coming from China (before 2011) doesn't have anything to do with what US intelligence knew about the program. Since you spent several pages arguing that China doesn't have to reveal things about its military developments, surely you agree that US intelligence doesn't have to comment on them either. That China's intelligence services don't make public comments about secret weapons projects in other countries doesn't mean they don't know about them or are for some reason underestimating them.

I absolutely agree that the US intelligence doesn't have to reveal their hand.

But we've also been talking about what the US has been willing to openly disclose via their declassified information.

The problem is that we enthusiast and amateur PLA watchers have been able to do a better job of predicting the US govt and military declassified reports in almost all major new weapons developments.

So the big problem which arises, is if we can glean so much from so little open source rumours and forum talk, then why does the US govt and military want to preserve their sources and methods? Especially AFTER such rumours have already been released that they could point to instead?




Now, I'll post some sources showing what US intelligence agencies did say publicly about the J-20. If they were underestimating it, you should be able to find similar articles with wrong assessments.

The first is the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
article from 1997.

From Richard Fisher's article that you linked, we also know it was described by the ONI as having "a reduced radar signature design". Everything attributed to the ONI here is correct.

LOL ONI could have said "China is developing a next generation fighter which will likely be an aircraft with wings and engines" and everything "attributed to ONI" would be correct.

That Flight Global article which really is quoting ONI, says nothing about XXJ being intended to compete with F-22.

Given the way that ONI wrote that particular part of their report, they could have been referring to a 4+ generation fighter instead. With the benefit of hindsight we are able to say that regardless of what ONI may or may not have known, we knew that XXJ ended up being the J-20, a 5th gen fighter.

But back then, the fact that ONI merely indicated a next generation fighter was under development (merely a few years before J-10 made its maiden flight!!) and not explicitly stating it would be intended to be 5th generation, means we are unable to assume at all that they meant what we now know.

Next.



Second,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in May 2010.

Actually, let's see what Ulman said at that
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in full.

Even by the exacting standards of SDF, this is spot on.

That is definitely closer to what we would expect from PLA watching standards, but making such a statement only a year or two before the maiden flight of J-20 is a bit late don't you think?

Considering the rest of the PLA watching community had basically known important everything there was to know about J-XX/J-20 by about 2006/2007.




Third,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in 2009.

So far, I have shown that US intelligence has known about the project since at least 1997, correctly predicted the timelines and was aware of the technological aims and progress. Conversely, the position that US intelligence significantly underestimated the J-20 remains totally unsupported.

You've shown the US intelligence community in 1997 (namely ONI) knew that a next generation fighter was under development in China. The fact that they did not explicitly state such an aircraft would be intended to be 5th generation and rival the F-22 is a massive omission that cannot be used to support the idea that the US had any idea what the then called XXJ would be intended to be capable of.

Only later in the 2000s, did a few members of the US intelligence community explicitly state that China was intending to develop a 5th generation fighter intended to compete with the F-22.
And I would like to add, in my last post I explicitly said that there were individual analysts and commentators who were able to accurately predict the emergence of J-20, and I included a few examples in my own post... however what I also said was this:

But you will be hard pressed to find any official US national govt or military service level reports about the PLA that accurately described the J-20 in the years leading up to its unveiling.

Congressional hearings that quote a few analysts, or reports from a commentator, is unfortunately insufficient to fulfill that criteria of national govt or military service level understanding of what the J-XX/J-20 would end up being.




Now, a note on the burden of proof. While I've already stated my view on "proving a negative", there's another issue that needs addressing. That being "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", or that claims that are less likely need more substantiation. One such claim is that US intelligence was vastly wrong about the J-20, or specifically that they knew less about it than posters on SDF.

This is an extraordinary claim because there are large numbers of professionals, across several agencies and departments, whose job it is to gather information on such developments in all available ways. This obviously includes open source, as demonstrated by Fisher and Ulman mentioning blogs, but also things such as hacking and human intelligence. For them to get it vastly wrong means they would have had to totally fail in these attempts or not try at all. For context, we should remember that China repeatedly hacked the US and took "terabytes" of data on the F-35 and other systems. There were also numerous arrests of people accused of stealing classified technology for China. Are we to believe that the US was unable to obtain via hacking any classified documents on the J-20 and unable to compromise even one of the thousands of people working on the J-20 and its subsystems? Obviously, without claims from either side we'll never know if and how much they learned through these means, but it remains extremely unlikely they weren't able to get anything.

In conclusion, my claims are by now well demonstrated.

I describe my position in my previous reply #3417, but I will repeat the relevant part here:

"My belief, is that certain elements or individuals in US intelligence may or may not have had accurate assessments of what J-XX or J-20 may be like (especially closer to 2010), however that such information did not rise up to the service level or govt level of intelligence.

In other words, there may have been some groups or analysts in the US intelligence community who had a semi accurate or even accurate understanding of J-XX/J-20 in the years leading up to 2010, but such information for some reason never made its way up to national level or service level appraisals of Chinese next generation fighter developments."



To me, the definition of getting it "vastly wrong" is the inability to keep their service level and govt reports up to date with open source PLA watchers who do this as a hobby and being sometimes years behind.

In my reply #3403 I already acknowledged that there are individual analysts and commentators who had made more accurate assessments of J-XX/J-20 than what the govt level and service level reports had made.
That has not been a matter of dispute for me.


So in conclusion, how about you show me a govt or service level declassified report where they were able to report on something about J-XX/J-20 that ended up being true, before we already knew about it on the PLA watching grapevine?
 
Top