Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. DNI, DIA on the defensive over major China J-20 intelligence failure
East Asia Intel ^ | 1/19/2001 | East Asia Intel

Posted on 01/23/2011 10:25:45 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld

The U.S. Congress is considering an investigation into the U.S. intelligence agencies estimates of China's development of a new stealth jet, the J-20, that was flight tested for the first time last week.

The director of the Office of Naval Intelligence, Vice Adm. David Dorsett told reporters that speed of the development had been underestimated. Dorsett said the emergence of the J-20 was not a surprise but that U.S. intelligence underestimated "the speed at which they are making progress."

Several days later Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates confirmed that U.S. intelligence agencies underestimated China's progress in developing a new stealth jet fighter. Speaking to reporters en route to Beijing, Gates said U.S. intelligence has been closely monitoring China's development of a fifth-generation jet, and "watching these developments all along." "We knew they were working on a stealth aircraft," he said. "I think that what we've seen is that they may be somewhat further ahead in the development of that aircraft than our intelligence had earlier predicted."

Critics of U.S. intelligence on China have said Beijing's development of new missiles, submarines, aircraft and anti-satellite and cyberwarfare weapons have been underestimated by U.S. analysts for more than a decade.

The issue of the J-20 development is strategically significant because in July 2009 Gates canceled further production of the world's only fifth-generation fighter, the Air Force F-22, because China was "projected to have no fifth-generation aircraft by 2020" and would have only a "handful" by 2025, compared to about 1,700 less capable U.S. F-35s.

The F-22, the world's only deployed fifth generation fighter, was developed in part for use in a possible future conflict with China. It has the capability to deliver weapons deep inside of China while avoiding air defenses and cruising at supersonic speeds for longer periods than less capable jets.

(Excerpt) Read more at east-asia-intel.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aerospace; dia; dni; intelligence; j20

1 posted on 01/23/2011 10:25:48 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld

Unfortunately, it is well known that the CIA is full of liberal intellectuals, and has been for years.

This is just the latest “mistake” they have made.

I call them “intended mistakes.”

The good thing is that the J-20 does not appear to be as agile as the F-22. It’s vertical stabilizers are shorter and the fuselage appears to be longer.


2 posted on 01/23/2011 10:37:08 PM PST by kingpins10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingpins10
It [the F-22] has the capability to deliver weapons deep inside of China while avoiding air defenses and cruising at supersonic speeds for longer periods than less capable jets.

It has the capability to deliver really tiny weapons deep inside China. The only strike role the F-22 has is for high threat SEAD, taking out SAM sites with little 250 lb. JDAM.

If somebody thinks it is capable of a strike mission, that would explain why they think we need more of these and don't need the JSF. We do need more F-22s, but we also need JSF.

If one has to get cut, then it will have to be the F-22 and we better hope we don't have to fight China.

3 posted on 01/23/2011 10:49:14 PM PST by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld

It’s easy to put something together when you stole it from someone else.


4 posted on 01/23/2011 10:54:52 PM PST by Free Vulcan (The cult of Islam must be eradicated by any means necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan

China owns us in every way. And what they cant buy, they steal. Sadly we are chinas bi)$@.


5 posted on 01/23/2011 11:12:40 PM PST by hillarys cankles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!; American_Centurion; An.American.Expatriate; ASA.Ranger; ASA Vet; Ax; Azeem; ...

MI Ping


6 posted on 01/24/2011 12:20:41 AM PST by ASA Vet (Natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. De Vattel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld

Here we go again...

While I’m sure the Rats will blame it on George W. Bush, it’s funny how they don’t tie the blindness that allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen to Bill Clinton.


7 posted on 01/24/2011 12:20:47 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USNBandit

If an ICBM with MIRV can send a cluster of nukes, why can’t it also send a cluster of conventional bombs?


8 posted on 01/24/2011 12:22:31 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

If an ICBM with MIRV can send a cluster of nukes, why can’t it also send a cluster of conventional bombs?

“When you care enough to only send the very best....”


9 posted on 01/24/2011 12:37:29 AM PST by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: tet68

An ICBM would be a most expensive way to disburse conventional bombs. Using a set of multiple Cruise Missles with MIRV capability could wreck havoc on china C&C and there is little doubt our folks have been working on such a Cruiser.

All these “we’re doomed as doomed can be” white flaggers who are ready to give up just looking at a J20 photo, are fooling.

Suspecting there is a lot more to stealthy than meets the slanty eye.


10 posted on 01/24/2011 2:59:32 AM PST by dusttoyou ("Progressives" are wee-weeing all over themselves, Foc nobama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld
"U.S. intelligence agencies underestimated China's progress in developing a new stealth jet fighter"

Should I be concerned with estimates of 3-5 years for Iran's nukes?

11 posted on 01/24/2011 3:28:43 AM PST by mikey_hates_everything
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mikey_hates_everything

Yes.
Too many people looked at the Chinese and thought of the days of the Cultural Revolution. They looked at Iran and though of primitive camel jockeys.


12 posted on 01/24/2011 3:49:50 AM PST by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
If an ICBM with MIRV can send a cluster of nukes, why can’t it also send a cluster of conventional bombs?

Trident II (D5) CEP = 120m

Minutemann III (LGM-30) CEP = 150m

13 posted on 01/24/2011 3:51:21 AM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard

I.e. can’t home in close enough?


14 posted on 01/24/2011 4:43:23 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
Right ... They're designed to deliver 200kT to 600kT nukes, not 2000 lb high-explosive bombs.

Worse, the missiles cost multiple million $$$, and the assembly lines closed a long time ago. They're expenseive, irreplaceable assets which would not deliver the conventional weapon close enough to do any good. Cruise missiles are a much better option; accurate enough, much less expensive and still in production.

15 posted on 01/24/2011 5:17:54 AM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck; ArrogantBustard
Simplest answer is that the target country has no way of knowing whether the ICBM is carrying a nuclear payload or if it is carrying conventional bomblets or tungsten rods. Now, if the country is Zambia or New Zealand then it is not a problem. However, if the country is Russia/China/USA/France/UK/Israel, then an ICBM coming in from Russia/China/USA/France/UK/Israel may VERY easily bring about a nuclear retaliation! There was a plan of using American ICBMs with conventional warheads that was shelved for this very reason. Imagine you are Papa Bush/Clinton/Dubya/Obama, and you launch 10 conventional ICBMs against a target in Kazahkstan. Well, niggling at the back of your mind is a question on what Putin will be thinking, and if he may decide to respond to what his sensors are registering as a US nuclear strike. Sure, the numbers do not seem big (only 10), but what if they are airburst EMP warheads? As US POTUS, would you be willing to risk that? Or imagine that Putin launches 2 Topol-Ms at targets in Mexico that he claims are sheltering the heads of the Chechen Al Queda who just attacked some place in Russia. He needs to use ICBMs because in less than 30 minutes they are dead and he doesn't have time to waste (or less than 15 minutes if he uses a Bulava SLBM from a submarine). You are president Palin. That could be an EMP to knock most of the civilian US systems down. It could be one of the superadvanced biological weapons the Russuans allegedly have. Or it could be filled with nothint but teddybears and crackerjacks! You, as president Palin, what do you so?

That is why no nation would risk using conventional strike ICBMs even with the advantages they have, and why the US and Russia are investing in hypersonic cruise missiles at MUCH greater cost and complexity. You cannot afford a misunderstanding, unless you are certain the other guy will chicken. However, if you are wrong, it's your @$$ (and that of your fellow American/Russian/French/Chinese/British/Israeli citizens).

16 posted on 01/24/2011 9:06:18 AM PST by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
There are already things on the drawing board to convert some Ohio class subs for something like that. The issue becomes when you fire these things some nations with sophisticated detection devices will think you are going nuke.

For instance, you couldn't use such a weapon against China or Russia without risking an immediate nuclear retaliation. I think that would also be an issue if you were to use a hypersonic possible trans-atmospheric weapon, like the Air Force wants to produce. You are really going to have a limit on who you can use it against for fear of a nuclear response.

That being said it might be nice to have such a weapon if you found out that Osama bin Laden was going to be at location x for the next half hour. Deliverable anywhere in the world in 20 minutes. It would be faster than even the most psychotic Domino's driver.

17 posted on 01/24/2011 1:37:23 PM PST by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: USNBandit

Hmm are there means of telling whether a given ICBM is carrying something radioactive while it’s still way out there?


18 posted on 01/24/2011 7:52:00 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson