
Jet by jet, US losing Pacific air superiority over China
China is racing to shatter US air dominance in the Pacific—one stealth jet, long-range missile and cratered runway at a time.
This month, a top US official stated that China is rapidly building its capacity to challenge US air superiority in the Pacific, particularly within the strategically vital First Island Chain.
Testifying before the US Senate Armed Services Committee, Admiral Samuel Paparo, head of US Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM), warned that the People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF), with an order of battle of 2,100 fighters and over 200 H-6 bombers, is outproducing the US in fighter aircraft at a ratio of 1.2 to 1.
Paparo credited China with 'high marks' for its ability to deny US air superiority along the First Island Chain, citing its fast-growing fighter fleet, advanced long-range air-to-air missiles and sweeping modernization across all warfighting domains.
Holding air superiority along the First Island Chain, which stretches from Japan to the Philippines, is essential for the US to operate and support allies like Taiwan.
Paparo stressed that air supremacy—total control of the air—will not be enjoyed by either side, but warned that without credible investment in long-range fires, integrated air and missile defenses, and advanced command and control systems, the US risks falling behind. 'Ceding air superiority is not an option,' he cautioned.
Seth Jones and Alexander Palmer mention in a March 2024 report for the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) that while China's fighter production capacity is impressive, it is still behind the US in aircraft numbers, with the US maintaining an advantage in fifth-generation aircraft such as the F-22 and F-35 in particular.
However, Jones and Palmer point out that China is closing the production gap with the US. They note China is reportedly producing 100 fifth-generation J-20 fighters annually and tripling the production of other aircraft types, such as the J-10C and J-16, suggesting a high production rate. Jones and Palmer attribute China's high fighter output to its centralized, whole-of-government approach to defense production.
In terms of long-range air-to-air missiles, Tyler Rogoway mentions in a December 2023 article for The War Zone (TWZ) that China's new PL-17 is most likely a very long-range air-to-air missile with an estimated 300-kilometer range.
Rogoway notes that the PL-17 may be intended against airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft, other aircraft close to the target, ground-based radar or satellites. He mentions that the size of the PL-17 may restrict it to being carried externally by China's J-16 or J-20 fighters.
As for China's rapid airpower growth, the US Department of Defense's (DOD) 2024 China Military Power Report (CMPR) states that the PLAAF and PLA Naval Aviation comprise the Indo-Pacific's largest air force, with 3,150 aircraft—1,900 of them fighters—an increase of 400 in the last three years, per Aquilino.
Aquilino warns that if trends persist, China could soon overtake the US in total airpower, complementing its dominance on land and sea.
Given China's looming quantitative fighter advantage, Matthew Revels mentions in an April 2023 Journal of Indo-Pacific Affairs article that in an invasion of Taiwan, the PLA would likely mass air assets over the self-governing island to achieve localized, tactical air superiority instead of fighting to achieve strategic air dominance.
Beyond sheer fighter numbers, China's missile capabilities pose an even greater threat to US air operations in the region.
Eamon Passey mentions in a December 2024 article for the American Foreign Policy Council that when it comes to conventional missiles, the PLA Rocket Force (PLARF) has a significant hardware advantage over the US.
Passey notes China has developed an extensive array of ballistic and cruise missiles that are oftentimes more numerous and sophisticated than their US counterparts. He says that while the US invests in hypersonic weapons technology, it lags behind China in development and deployment due to high costs and the complexity of integrating those weapons into its military framework.
Passey observes that China can make substantial investments in its missile capabilities mainly due to the absence of constraining arms control treaties. He also points out that the PLARF manages an autonomous, intensely focused and extensive missile program that has quickly developed to unite nuclear and conventional capabilities under a single command structure.
The PLARF is critical in China's counter-intervention strategy in regional conflicts. Christopher Mihal mentions in a 2021 Military Review article that China, as of that year, has 2,200 conventional ballistic missiles and enough anti-ship missiles to attack every US surface combatant in the South China Sea, with sufficient firepower to overcome each ship's missile defenses.
Further, Kelly Grieco and other writers mention in a December 2024 Stimson Center report that the PLARF is expected to play a leading role in neutralizing US airbases in Japan, Guam, and other Pacific locations, launching coordinated missile attacks to destroy US aircraft on the ground and cratering runways to make them unusable.
These missile capabilities threaten the US's forward-deployed airpower, which remains highly vulnerable due to inadequate base fortifications, Greico writes.
Thomas Shugart III and Timothy Walton mention in a January 2025 Hudson Institute report that in a worst-case scenario, most US aircraft losses will occur on the ground, as its Pacific airbases lack hardened aircraft shelters (HAS) and individual aircraft shelters (IAS).
They mention that US operational concepts have assumed mainly that its aircraft would operate from forward airfields uncontested and that minor threats to those facilities would abate with the cessation of hostilities.
They say that thinking disregards China's growing ability to strike those vulnerable facilities with missiles, aircraft and special forces. Shugart and Walton say China has enough firepower to make dispersal alone an ineffective countermeasure.
These shortcomings could prove catastrophic in the event of a Chinese assault on Taiwan, where a rapid US response would be critical to deterrence and defense.
Timothy Heath and other writers mention in a June 2023 RAND report that Taiwan is vulnerable to defeat in the first 90 days after an invasion, with that time being the minimum required for the US to marshal enough forces for military intervention.
In contrast, Bonny Lin and other writers mention in an August 2024 CSIS report that China can sustain major combat operations against Taiwan for six months as part of a larger blockade, with PLAAF and PLARF strikes aiming to neutralize the latter's naval bases, coastal and air defense batteries and command and control with the option of unleashing more missile and air attacks should Taiwan continue to resist.
Lin and others say those intensified attacks also aim to prevent Taiwan from reconstituting damaged equipment and deploying additional weapons systems. If the US doesn't act fast, the next battle for air superiority could be over before its aircraft even get off the ground.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Asia Times
33 minutes ago
- Asia Times
Why Japan should decline Trump's F-47 offer
Trump's surprise F-47 fighter pitch to Japan exposes the deep tensions between alliance loyalty and Tokyo's growing pursuit of strategic autonomy in a world of contested tech, arms sales and sovereignty. Last month, Asahi Shimbun reported that US President Donald Trump pitched Boeing's F-47 sixth-generation fighter jet and the C-17 transport aircraft to Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba during an unexpected phone call. Trump, who reportedly praised US military aircraft, casually asked Ishiba whether Japan was interested in acquiring US-made fighters, noting that the F-47—believed to be named in honor of Trump as the 47th US president—would replace the F-22. Officials say the topic arose because Ishiba had previously shown interest in the C-17, prompting speculation that Trump viewed Japan as a potential defense customer. Despite Trump's remarks, Japan remained cautious, citing challenges in pilot training and maintenance as key challenges. Japan is concurrently developing a fighter jet with the UK and Italy, complicating procurement decisions. The call, which took place before Japan's trade negotiator left for the US, defied concerns that Trump would pressure Japan on tariffs. Instead, Trump appeared eager to discuss his Middle East trip and reinforce personal ties with Ishiba. Some analysts have suggested Trump sought a receptive audience amid criticism of his regional strategy. The two leaders agreed to meet during the upcoming G-7 summit in Canada, where discussions on trade and security could further clarify Japan's defense priorities. Trump's F-47 pitch underscores Japan's dilemma: whether to invest in a high-tech, alliance-dependent jet that risks eroding its strategic autonomy or hold out for sovereign capabilities that may arrive too late. In a 2025 Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI) report, Sadamasa Oue argues that Japan must acquire sixth-generation fighters in line with its shift from anti-airspace intrusion measures to offensive counter-air operations alongside potential adversaries such as China, which is developing next-generation fighters, including the J-36 and J-50. Sixth-generation fighter capabilities broadly feature extreme stealth, flight efficiency from subsonic to multi-Mach speeds, 'smart skins' with radar, extremely sensitive sensors, optionally manned capability and directed-energy weapons. However, Brandon Weichert argues in a May 2024 article for 1945 that the advent of autonomous systems could make another expensive manned warplane system, such as the F-47, wasteful. Weichert contends that as drone technology advances, it gradually takes on the characteristics and capabilities of manned systems. He says that the current crop of fifth-generation aircraft, such as the F-35 that Japan already operates, continues to be upgraded to keep pace with evolving threats from near-peer adversaries. In line with that, Breaking Defense reported last month that a 'fifth-generation plus' F-35 could have optionally manned capability as part of upgrades that aim to bring the aircraft to '80% sixth-generation capability' at 'half the price.' Trump's F-47 pitch highlights Japan's struggle to balance its reliance on alliances with the need for strategic independence, especially as delays in its Global Combat Air Program (GCAP) raise concerns about the UK and Italy's commitment to the trilateral project. The Japan Times reported last month that Japan is growing increasingly doubtful that the GCAP program will meet its 2035 target date and could be pushed into the 2040s due to a perceived lack of urgency from the UK and Italy. However, the US has a checkered record of sharing sensitive fighter technology with Japan. Mario Daniels points out in a July 2024 article published in the peer-reviewed History and Technology journal that during the FSX jet fighter controversy in the 1980s and 1990s, the US withheld advanced fighter jet technology from Japan due to fears that sharing dual-use technology would erode its economic and military superiority. Daniels says at the time, US officials increasingly viewed Japan as a formidable high-tech competitor whose access to US aerospace know-how could empower its civilian aircraft industry to rival Boeing. As a result, he notes that the US initially imposed export controls, which were originally devised for the Soviet bloc, against Japan. He says these controls black-boxed critical systems, such as software, radar, and composite materials, to prevent irreversible technological transfer and preserve US strategic advantage. Further, Christopher Hughes points out in a March 2025 article in the peer-reviewed Defense Studies journal that as Japan moves up the defense production ladder into more sensitive technologies that could compete with the US, the latter could increase demands on the Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) to buy its equipment to strengthen interoperability and alleviate trade frictions. Hughes pointed out that Trump was transactional in managing the US-Japan alliance, insisting that Japan purchase possibly overpriced US equipment in politically motivated deals for security guarantees, even if that hardware may not align with Japan's defense requirements. Japan's changing arms export policies may also play into US concerns about getting outcompeted by Japan in weapon sales. In March 2024, the Associated Press (AP) reported that Japan's cabinet approved a plan to sell future GCAP next-generation fighter jets co-developed with the UK and Italy to other countries. 'In order to achieve a fighter aircraft that meets the necessary performance and to avoid jeopardizing the defense of Japan, it is necessary to transfer finished products from Japan to countries other than partner countries,' said Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi, as quoted in the report. However, maintaining strategic autonomy when it comes to critical capabilities could be a significant factor in any Japan decision not to acquire F-47s. 'The desire to retain significant sovereign capabilities in each of the three (Japan, UK, Italy) nations… is being reinforced by the concerns around the US's behavior,' says Andrew Howard, director of Future Combat Air at Leonardo UK, as quoted in a Financial Times article last month. The F-35 is a case study in how the US maintains control over exported military hardware. Brent Eastwood writes in a March 2025 article for 1945 that rumors have persisted about a 'kill switch' being installed in exported F-35s, which would act as a means to veto geopolitical behavior that is against its interests. While the US F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) states that no such kill switch exists, Stacey Pettyjohn warns in a March 2025 Breaking Defense article that the US could cut off maintenance networks, suspend spare parts shipments and stop critical software updates. Without those, Pettyjohn said the F-35 could still fly, but it would be far more vulnerable to enemy air defenses and fighters, and without US spare parts and maintenance, its international operators would struggle to keep the jets flying. In a world of contested skies and transactional diplomacy, Japan's next jet won't just define its airpower—it will define its strategic independence.


Asia Times
5 days ago
- Asia Times
India's coming counter to Pakistan's Chinese-made fighters
India's new stealth fighter plan aims to reassert air dominance in a region where Pakistan's Chinese-made jets recently drew first blood in an intensifying South Asian arms race. This month, India's Ministry of Defense green-lighted a blueprint for developing its most sophisticated stealth fighter jet, known as the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), Reuters reported. The AMCA twin-engine aircraft project, led by the state-owned Aeronautical Development Agency, aims to enhance the Indian Air Force's declining fleet, which has been reduced to just 31 squadrons, far below the authorized 42. India's planned indigenous upgrade comes as China helps to rapidly improve rival Pakistan's air power, including with Chinese-made J-10 fighters and long-range PL-15 air-to-air missiles. The Indian government intends to partner with a domestic firm for the AMCA, inviting bids from both private and state-owned companies. In March, a defense committee recommended further private sector involvement to enhance production speed and reduce reliance on Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., which has faced delays in delivering Tejas aircraft due to supply chain issues. The AMCA initiative signals India's determination to reassert aerial dominance and reinforce its strategic posture in an increasingly volatile regional security landscape. Reuters reported that Pakistan's new J-10C fighters and India's Rafale jets went head-to-head during skirmishes over Kashmir in April, resulting in Pakistan shooting down multiple Indian aircraft. US officials confirmed the loss of two Indian jets, including a French-made Rafale, which was reportedly downed by a Pakistani J-10, the Reuters report said. The aerial fight highlighted the limitations of the Rafale and the Indian Air Force's overall force composition. A January 2025 report from the French Institute of International Relations (IFRI) indicates that the Rafale's deficiencies in radar stealth and dedicated suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) are significant weaknesses. The report references French Air Force officers who say that operations against stealth fighters during joint exercises are challenging with the Rafale's existing sensor capabilities. It cautions that although the Rafale is effective in the short to medium term, its shortcomings may restrict it to a support role in high-intensity coalition missions led by fifth-generation aircraft. Further, Michael Dahm noted in a podcast this month for the Mitchell Institute of Aerospace Studies that while India has a larger air force than Pakistan, it is a 'hodgepodge' of Western, Israeli, Russian and Indian technology that makes systems integration difficult. In contrast, Wang Xiangsui and Charriot Zhai pointed out in an article for The China Academy this month that Pakistan benefits from a streamlined fighter aircraft fleet consisting of just six types, with all fighter acquisitions since 2000 sourced from China. In contrast, they mention that India utilizes 14 types of fighters from five different countries, which significantly complicates the integration of data links. Further, Pakistan's impending acquisition of fifth-generation fighters has intensified the pressure on India to accelerate its air force modernization. Newsweek reported this month that China was accelerating the delivery of its J-31 fifth-generation fighter to Pakistan, with the first batch expected to arrive in early 2026. The report stated that China was offering a 50% discount on the J-35A jets, along with favorable payment terms, a move interpreted as a reward for Pakistan's military posture and a sign of deepening bilateral defense ties. Regarding capabilities, the J-31 may be considered the 'low-end' fighter in China's 'high-low' fifth-generation fighter force mix, with the J-20 positioned at the 'high-end' of the spectrum. As an all-high-end fighter fleet is prohibitively expensive, a high-low fighter mix balances costs and capabilities, with high-end fighters, such as the J-20, having greater range and heavier armaments to penetrate enemy airspace, while a low-end fighter, such as the J-31, can operate in contested airspace. Air Force Technology notes that the twin-engine J-31 features a diverterless supersonic inlet, a stealth-optimized airframe with titanium spars and a low radar cross-section. The report states that the J-31 is equipped with internal weapons bays and wing-mounted payload hardpoints, and features advanced sensors, electro-optical targeting and infrared search-and-track systems. It notes that the J-31 is powered by Russian-made RD-93 turbofan engines, capable of reaching speeds of 2,200 kilometers per hour with a service ceiling of 20,000 meters. As for AMCA's capabilities, Aero Time reports that the twin-engine aircraft is designed to replace India's aging Russian jets and will incorporate stealth, supercruise, sensor fusion and advanced networking. However, it mentions AMCA is not expected to enter production until the late 2020s or early 2030s. The report says India is also exploring foreign partnerships, possibly with Safran, General Electric or Rolls-Royce, for the development of its high-thrust engine. Pakistan's winning use of Chinese fighters showcased China's military tech to the world, with the April 2025 air clashes over Kashmir becoming a showroom for Chinese-made hardware. Defense Security Asia reported this month that Bangladesh is eyeing the purchase of J-10 fighters to replace its aging F-7s from China. According to the report, if Bangladesh decides to purchase J-10s, India might find itself outflanked by Chinese airpower on two fronts. Additionally, India's shift to domestic fighter production means it could purchase fewer imported aircraft, driving competitors such as France and the US to offer India even better deals or technology to remain relevant. India could also offer its AMCA and Tejas light fighter for export to Southeast Asian countries, such as Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Indonesia, as a counter to China's strategy of exporting sophisticated weapons to India's South Asian rivals. Ultimately, India's stealth fighter program is not just a technological leap but a geopolitical statement, an assertion that it will not readily cede aerial dominance or strategic initiative to a tightening China-Pakistan axis.


Asia Times
6 days ago
- Asia Times
How to read Vietnam's F-16 purchase
HO CHI MINH CITY – Vietnam is reportedly poised to purchase F-16 fighter jets from the United States, a deal that would mark a profound shift in Vietnam's defense procurement strategy away from long-standing dependence on Russian weaponry and toward a more diversified and geopolitically calculated approach. A 1945 report says that the acquisition, although no numbers have been revealed, is expected to be for at least 24 aircraft. The report says if and when F-16s are combined with other US platforms Vietnam desires, including C-130 Hercules transport planes, 'it could all add up to the largest defense arrangement ever reached between the two nations.' This development comes as Vietnam faces growing challenges, both economically and strategically. In early 2025, the Trump administration announced steep 46% 'reciprocal' tariffs on Vietnamese goods, including textiles and electronics, citing trade imbalances and currency manipulation. This trade pressure, combined with intensifying US-China competition and a waning Russia, places Vietnam at a critical juncture in balancing its foreign and defense policy. For decades, Vietnam's air force has relied on Soviet- and Russian-made fighters—MiG-21s, Su-22s, and Su-30MK2s. These systems served Vietnam well through the Cold War and into the early 21st century. But today, that dependency presents real risks. Russia's ongoing war in Ukraine and its resulting diplomatic and logistical isolation have slowed its arms production and disrupted global defense supply chains. Maintenance, spare parts and modernization have become increasingly difficult to secure. Vietnam, like many Southeast Asian states, is now seeking to reduce overreliance on a single supplier. Enter the US-made F-16—a versatile, cost-effective, and widely used fighter jet. While it is not the most advanced aircraft in the US arsenal, its interoperability with allied systems and relative ease of integration make it an attractive option for countries in transition. Still, Hanoi's decision is about more than hardware. It reflects a broader strategic recalibration. Vietnam's foreign policy doctrine—especially its 'Four No's' principle (no military alliances, no foreign bases, no siding with one country against another, and no use of force in international relations)—emphasizes independence and multilateralism. The F-16 purchase fits within this framework, allowing Vietnam to modernize while avoiding the perception of falling into Washington's orbit. Rather than signaling alignment with the US, the deal is better understood as an assertion of Vietnam's strategic autonomy. By engaging with multiple defense partners—including Israel, India, Japan, South Korea, and several EU countries—Vietnam is positioning itself as a regional power with options. The regional context is crucial. Southeast Asia has become a theater of strategic maneuvering, with China asserting itself through economic influence and military presence, particularly in the contested South China Sea, where the two sides have overlapping claims. At the same time, the US has sought to reestablish its credibility as a security partner. Countries in the region are not choosing sides, but rather hedging—building ties with all powers while maintaining sovereignty. Examples abound: Indonesia is purchasing French-made Rafales and US F-15EX aircraft. The Philippines is deepening its military cooperation with the US while also acquiring Indian BrahMos missiles. Thailand historically flies US and European fighters but is pursuing Chinese-made submarines. Vietnam's calculated move fits this pattern. It seeks to preserve peace and stability while signaling its willingness to adapt. The F-16 deal also opens doors for future cooperation in areas like pilot training, intelligence sharing, logistics and joint exercises—all without violating Vietnam's core principles. Domestically, the move carries mixed perceptions. Older generations, with deep memories of Soviet support during wartime, may feel uneasy. But younger Vietnamese—especially in urban centers—tend to be more pragmatic, economically focused and wary of China's regional assertiveness. For them, alignment with modern, capable partners like the US represents an investment in national security and global relevance. Russia's response will likely be muted. Its own economic and military constraints limit its ability to retaliate diplomatically. Moscow may instead try to retain influence via energy deals and symbolic gestures. But its long-term hold on Vietnam's defense market appears to be loosening. For Washington, the deal is a quiet diplomatic win. It shows that America remains a viable partner, even for countries with a history of ambivalence. Yet, US policymakers should temper expectations. Vietnam is not becoming an ally—it is engaging on its own terms. Washington should respond not with pressure but with consistency and respect for Vietnam's strategic logic. Ultimately, this deal represents more than a military upgrade. It is a reflection of a new strategic maturity. Vietnam is navigating a complex, multipolar world with deliberate ambiguity. By buying F-16s, Hanoi is not choosing the US—it is choosing leverage, resilience and the space to shape its own future. In an age where great-power competition often demands binary choices, Vietnam offers a compelling alternative: sovereignty through balance. Its evolving foreign policy serves as a case study for other nations seeking to survive—not by taking sides but by maximizing options. Johnny Thai, a pseudonym, is a Vietnam-based geopolitical analyst and independent commentator specializing in Southeast Asian strategic affairs, US-China relations, defense diplomacy and Vietnam's evolving foreign policy posture.