Russian Planes Are Second Rate and China Copied Them

Russian fighter jets are being shot down in Ukraine by US Stinger missiles and Ukraine’s soviet era air defences. The Ukrainian defense ministry claims its forces have destroyed about 100 Russian fixed-wing aircraft. Independent observers have confirmed at least a dozen of those kills. Verified losses include five Su-25 attack planes, two Su-30 and four Su-34 fighters and an An-26 transport.

China has bought Russian jets and copied Russians jets. Russian jets have second-rate engines and the electronic warfare and other systems have again been shown to be second-rate and vulnerable. China’s domestic jets have third rate engines. Russian jet engines are inferior to US engines and China’s engines have been inferior to Russian engines.

China’s pilots like Russia’s pilots only have about 100 hours per year in flight training. This is not enough to get proficient at wild weasel techniques. Wild weasel techniques is where a pair of jets go into enemy air space to take out air defences and air radar. One plane acts as the decoy and the other targets the air defences.

The performance of the Russian air force and jets in Ukraine calls into serious question all of the “modern” planes that China has built.

It seems very likely that the entire Chinese air force is vulnerable to older jets and to stinger missiles and other surface to air missiles. Taiwan’s air force and air defences are stronger than Ukraine’s.

The Shenyang J-15 is a copy of the Russian Sukhoi Su-33. China had some technology shared by the Russians and some they reverse-engineered or stole. China has made over fifty J-15 jets and are used by the Chinese Navy.

The Shenyang J-11 and J-16 are copies of the Russian Sukhoi Su-27. There are about 530 J-11s and about 100-200 J-16.

China has a few unproven and inferior copies of the US F-22 and F-35.
The Chengdu J-20 is developed from stolen data about the U.S. F-22 Raptor. China has about 150 J-20s.

The China FC-31 is copied from the US F-35.

SOURCES- Wikipedia, National Interest, Popular Mechanics
Written By Brian Wang,

46 thoughts on “Russian Planes Are Second Rate and China Copied Them”

  1. Do we still have energy resources for these movements (or are the energy resources controlled by ideology and wealth, serving their priorities, and not prepared for instant and sustained movements) in reality? Who would offer that flexibility for that kind of "election"/choice of nationality/"planing system"? What share of population would agree in adjusting to (maybe) frequently (and/or despotic) changing political rules by moving (how many miles? and at what frequency?)?
    Do you see humane advancement for leaders in systems advertising for people to join (different to "economical knowledge buy out")?

  2. Before Taiwan was controlled by China, it was controlled by Holland. So they should have the superior claim.

  3. Then who did the US copy to make the turkey that is the F-35?
    Or was that just 'merican execeptionalism at its finest.?

  4. Another solution to is total freedom of movement. People don't have to stay on the same patch of dirt until they die, and everyone can simply move to the country that fits their political preferences. On the other hand, that would deny people the right to exclude new members.

    This is an important right if you want to prevent ideological takeover (imagine if the larger block just sent some of their members to join the smaller block until they reach a 51% majority and become a vassal state).

    That in turn could be countered with strong constitutions that are very hard to change. If you can vote with your feet you don't need as much input into changing how your system governs anyway.

    All of this become easier with seasteads, but very messy on limited land with natural resources and cultural history attached.

  5. Taiwan was a part of mainland China so should it exist as a separate country now?

    No, it's an island. The last time it was part of the mainland was before China existed.

  6. All of the political stuff you see is subject to our growing understanding of power addiction. As a result of childhood trauma, a form of mental illness.

  7. China within China (from outside), me guessing, no, China for Africa, more likely (planed economy, but personal liberty; they did not forget where they come from, a developing country; AFAIK)
    Parts of the "Western World" (wanted to forget and) forgot where they came from ("Congo Conference", best knowledge of "their" time)?
    ( Mark Twain, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1884), Jacob Riis, How the Other Half Lives (1890), Emily Dickinson, Poems (1890) recommended by the Lib. of Con., what "they" did not enter (instead of the Cap.) to "free" for the people )

  8. maybe in "100"yrs; me, not young enough for trusting on people, not supporting irrational(?) leaders, even with watching interesting space movies
    putting it for the "fine" democracies (without spreading support for useless hierarchies, criticism is not fundamental opposition): What are the majorities (and why), what is the purpose of "free" people within "free" societies and what values are bigger than majorities (?)
    [ That's the head, but it feels like arrogance in the light of experienced history and peoples lived civil liberty within ]

  9. Spurious logic.

    That was because the freaking president was picking the targets himself every day, having them fly the same routes every day (so all you had to do was time when you started shooting, since your gun emplacement and even the angle of your AA from the previous day was still good) and, oh yeah, some idiots were filing the bombers flight plans in the Philippines and those were being called in to Hanoi before they even took off. We don't play by those rules anymore.

  10. Wishful thinking? Hardly. I was a war planner for the US Air Force at one point. Keeping large numbers of modern military aircraft mission capable is a challenge even when you have enormous budgets, highly trained technicians, plenty of spare parts, and virtually no corruption.

    Now try it with an economy smaller than Italy's, a training program that probably leaves a lot to be desired, and incredible levels of corruption. Out of the 800 or so fixed wing military aircraft (not counting bombers and cargo carriers) that Russia had at the war's start, it would be somewhat surprising if more than about a quarter of those were mission capable. 75 (which is what they started out using, before they were forced to add more) out of 200 is not 5%.

    Explains quite a lot, actually.

    Of course, on a related topic, training pilots requires lots of flying hours and those are very expensive. Training hours being cutback is one of the first things that happens when money gets tight. That would also explain a lot.

  11. An old libertarian saw is that you cannot have one Liberty, free market economics, without the other Liberty, personal liberty. China is running a test of this theory.

  12. Putin would not go with that plan. I am trying to get a rule for Putin's actions as to the break away of part of a country. As a libertarian, we may have common ground. HAR! The rule he is bound to, by using, will not have to be rational, just typical power addict stuff will do.

  13. This article makes claims and backs it up with anecdotal evidence that does not strongly lead to the conclusion it claims.
    "Russian planes are bad" because "Ukraine is shooting them down".
    One does not necessarily follow from the other.
    There are many reasons why Ukraine is having success against Russian aircraft. Poor hardware may be one factor, but there are other likely reasons as well:

    • poor piloting due to lack of training
    • insufficient operational planning
    • poor doctrine

    Since the claim of Russian airplanes being inferior hasn't been proven, we then cannot conclude that Chinese planes are also inferior.

  14. Uh….what?
    Holding back?
    Holding back what? The chance for air superiority ti protect their ground forces that are getting completely decimated?
    Oh yea. Brilliant strategy. Napolean would be proud.

  15. They wouldn't send their entire air force. It'd leave them with no air superiority over Russia itself.

  16. 'in a world without violence'
    Imagine 100000 soldiers installing solar panels or wind energy converters, because a big leader told them to do so?

  17. Not everyone will reunite but in a world without violence people would be friendlier and more likely for closely related ethnic groups to group into bigger entities. Possibly would not get countries as large as us, china, or russia emerge but not every country would be the size of Monaco either.

  18. Why it is often a matter what ECONOMICAL (?) benefit to its "historic" or new mainland an area has, for making a decision what nationality heading for or what "group" to (re)unite with?

  19. Could be the fact that they anticipate or cautiously consider that there might be further escalation ?

  20. Click to develop the thread
    Click to develop the sub-threads
    Click to develop the messages deemed too long…
    Is it me or is there a serious flaw in the architecture of this forum?

  21. The biggest difference isn't technology, it is training. The US does a much better job of training its pilots.

  22. "Mainland China actually broke away from the older gov in Taiwan, not that it really matters." So its Taiwan that should be threatening China!

  23. Well, yes i do think peoples/regions should be able to break away. However it has to be done in a civilized manner, so probably by voting with an agreed upon majority required. Everyone needs to be onboard and agree to not use violence, intimidation or threats.
    Of course the logical conclusion to this 'method' is that ultimately everyone can declare their house to be a separate country.

    The downside is that standards of living would plummet as everyone would be a president and no-one actually do anything. In reality the world would probably splinter into many small countries but eventually some would recombine and they would become economic powerhouses so the pendulum would swing the other way and a general conglomeration would ensue just to stay competitive and maintain a certain standard of living (for the majority).

    Whether it would ever stabilize or over the course of decades swing back and forth between territories breaking away and then reuniting I don't know.

    Of course we live in a world where violence is unfortunately used.

  24. What is not obvious is whether they are *voluntarily* holding back, or is there some trouble in there? To think there is no trouble in there would be wishful thinking.

    ""It means *Russia* must be humiliated, limited, shattered, divided and destroyed," Medvedev, 56, said in a 550-word statement.". Of course, you have to sub Putin for Russia, to understand the reality.

  25. I was trying to get DD to say something specific, such as a rule. Mainland China actually broke away from the older gov in Taiwan, not that it really matters. So do you agree with "Putin's support of small areas being able to break away and become independent?" Broadly. In general. As a right. Try to give a rule, not a restated question ("it comes down to how much right do a large majority") or unrelated better ideas ("far easier for Russia to offer the citizens").

  26. Russian pilots do not receive as much flying time. And, they almost never do any large scale training. It costs too much. (Now, they are paying the price.)

  27. Well it comes down to how much right do a large majority in an area have to breakaway from a larger territory whose lines are more often than not a historical accident or arbitrarily drawn decades ago by people with other priorities. Taiwan was a part of mainland China so should it exist as a separate country now?
    I think they should be able to breakaway though i also think that it would have been far easier for Russia to offer the citizens of the breakaway regions a place in Russia itself, its certainly large enough than to engage in a war.

  28. I think it's quite possible that all this talk about the Chinese aircraft inferiority is misinformation propaganda from Chinese-connected sources.

  29. So you agree with "Putin's support of small areas being able to break away and become independent?" Broadly. In general. As a right.

  30. Just like Kosovo. If Russia is strong enough, have many allies and its allies are strong enough, everything is possible.

  31. "How about Putin's support of small areas being able to break away and become independent?" Broadly.

  32. Brian, Russia has used less than 5% of their Air Force in Ukraine. It's obvious they're holding back. Anything else is just wishful thinking.

  33. This is false. Russian failures have nothing to do with equipment or technology. They have everything to do with failures in planning and organization. Russian planes are very good. Their tactics are very bad, and it doesn't even seem like they have competent tactics for the SEAD role.

  34. It's long term. If Russia can solve its problems and come back stronger, they will be ok in their geopolitics game. If they fail, they will crumble.

  35. So, different outcome. How about Putin's support of small areas being able to break away and become independent?

  36. It came naturally as vietnam is a symbol of a weaker defender can destroy the will to fight of a much stronger opponent its will is strong enough. But I still doubt Ukraine have that will against Russia.

  37. Like soviet tanks vs german tanks. It's just a trade off between quality vs price and easy to produce. Vietnam used soviet air defences and a small number of soviet aircrafts but they took down so many (thousands???) US aircrafts.

Comments are closed.