STUDY OF INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY IN CHINA POLICY BRIEF 2014-3 January 2014 A Comparative Study of Global Fighter Development Timelines Maggie MARCUM This policy brief provides a summary of trends in the research, development, 1970s to modern times. This paper expands the evolving practice of RDA and acquisition (RDA) practices of fighter aircraft programs from the analysis by incorporating timeline analysis to compare the length of time the United States, Russia, China, and India take to design, produce, test, and field military fighters. The research suggests that while the United States countries such as China are able to rapidly bridge the gap by copying foreign remains the leader in fighter designs and advanced technology development, designs and building on the experience of collaborative partners. The brief lays the foundation for additional comparative studies that will focus on technology development and the ability of technology followers to emulate sophisticated capabilities for the next generation of fighter aircraft. The Study of Innovation and Technology in China (SITC) is a project of the University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation. SITC Research Briefs provide analysis and recommendations based on the work of project participants. This material is based upon work supported by, or in part by, the U.S. Army Research Laboratory and the U.S. Army Research Office through the Minerva Initiative under grant #W911NF-09-1-0081. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Army Research Laboratory and the U.S. Army Research Office. 1 METHODOLOGY tion through the use of key terms to 1940s with advances in technologies and capabilities leading to the Cold The goal of timeline analysis, as part data mining process. The generic War era quest for military advantage of the RDA analytic framework, is to RDAnarrow process the research framework field providesduring the a between the United States and the capture and categorize activities over structure to cluster key data points Soviet Union. The end of the Korean the life of select programs. This study for comparative timeline analysis. For War is seen as the advent of the avia- examines the development timelines this study, the indicators detailed in tion technology arms race as the Table 1 were used to categorize infor- countries faced off for air superiority. on the United States, Russia, China, mation and to track the length of time of 14 fighter programs while focusing and India to compare the RDA pro- a foundation for the most enduring These early-generation fighters laid betweenThe RDA fourth- process and frameworkfifth-generation pro- that still inspire imitation in develop- cesses for fourth- and fifth-generation may help to bring greater certainty videsfighter a programway to organize, milestones. diagram, and ingand defensetechnologically industrial advanced bases suchfighters as fighters. Documenting past practices when predicting future trends by present data that can later be trans- China and India. identifying indicators that might ferred to a timeline graphic to indi- signal the start and progression of a cate key observable events. RDA sign- Fourth-Generation Fighters posts are plotted and updated as new The stages of a defense RDA pro- information becomes available, high- The 1991 Gulf War air campaign dem- sixth-generation fighter program. cess include milestones for S&T lighting changes in the length of time onstrated the technical prowess of the studies, requirement and concept between milestones from program to United States. Within 10 years of the development, technical and systems production of US F-15 and F-16 and development, testing, production, and exact dates for R&D, therefore this - delivery of military equipment. Earlier briefprogram. uses It the often most is difficult widely toaccepted obtain ers, other design and development the Russian Su-27 and Mig-29 fight studies of defense RDA systems sug- milestones available. teams emulated these programs with gest a similar basic defense develop- their own fourth-generation variants. Analysis of the development mile- RDA process. The literature describes JET FIGHTER DEVELOPMENT stones for select fourth-generation thement use structure, of timelines defined as an as analytic the generic tool to manage large amounts of informa- can trace their origin to the late United States and Russia took an Leaders in jet fighter development fighter programs suggests that the Table 1. Pre-ProgramKey indicatorsRequirements for timeline analysisResearch of fighter and aircraftDevelopment development and Production Operations and Design Demonstration Maintenance - Air Force re- Research, dem- Systems inte- Production Rollout quirements onstration, and approval gration Service acceptance Fourth, fifth-gen validation Technology re- Acquisition plan Production strategy eration fighter Preliminary and Maintenance plans search program Acquisition Requirements Production rates strategy Technology gaps Technology study or system Model simulation established programs Develop concept final design Full-scale pro- operational performance Develop prototypes upgrades duction specifications/concepts/threats objectives and pilot models Modifications/recommended Follow-on Acceptance testing Reconfigured System capability Project analysis Prototype testing Retired requirements/ and evaluation Final production Systems/technol- capability gap ogy integra- Design modi- Feasibility study/ tion plan project scope Performance Delivery/fielding Risk assessments fications - criteria Contract com- tion/request pletion Final approval Projectfor proposals defini and validation or information Contract award Low rate/initial Budget Delivery projection production Life cycle costs Technology development 2 YEARS 0–5 5–10 10–15 15–20 20–25 25–30 30–35 F-15 4 1 3 4 F-16 1 3 2 3 Su-27 1 7 3 8 MiG29 3 1 3 7 PROGRAMS Euro 4 4 8 4 J-11B 20 (approximated) 7 4–5 3 J-10 5 15 2 2–3 Figure 1. Overview of fourth-generation fighter timelines average of 12 years from study to When countries that are still de- France withdrew from the consor- delivery of their fourth-generation veloping their defense industrial bas- tium and returned to developing its - es attempt to indigenously design and opment program took about 17 years - fromsystems. program The Eurofighter initiation tojoint delivery. devel ger development timelines because generationown fighter. Rafael, It would just takeshy ofsome the 1714 China was able to cut corners when theyproduce are aincapable fighter they of completeoften face self-lon years fromfor France program to fieldinitiation its fourth- to de- it replicated Russia’s Su-27 designs reliance. This is the case with India’s to springboard its J-11B version some Tejas program, which began with Late Followers seven years later. The J-10, however, technical studies in the mid-1970s livery of the Eurofighter. Other country’s designs have been shows the weakness in China’s tech- and has yet to be delivered to opera- nical skills and experience, leading to tional forces. - a much longer timeline of nearly 25 Joint Programs ers.influenced China byhas the successfully capabilities ofincor U.S.- years to convert foreign designs and Unable to individually develop a poratedand Russian knowledge fourth-generation gained through fight its collaboration with Russia on the Figure 1). assistance to a fielded fighter (see Kingdom and Germany in 1983 be- Su-27 licensed production to emu- Technology Innovators ganfourth-generation plans to design fighter, and thebuild United the late an advanced program. India, on The fourth-generation capabilities of the other hand, continues its attempt the United States are built on a histo- ry of incrementally improved techni- previousEurofighter research Typhoon studies collaborative conducted press coverage reports numerous de- cal levels. Russia has drawn from the byfighter. the United The program Kingdom, drew France, heavily Spain, on laysto develop because the of Tejas funding, fighter, political although bat- and Italy, with each committing to tles over the program, lack of domes- fourth-generation capabilities. France contribute designs and technologies tic technical capabilities, and a culture andSukhoi Sweden, and MiG too, fighterbuilt on family predecessor for its from their own studies. Although ill-prepared to implement a complex designs for the Rafael and Gripen, tak- on the surface this seemed to be the ing a little more than 15 years from best bet for the partners to develop a India committed to indigenous design - andfighter production program. of Nearly a fourth-generation 40 years after tion variants. program was daunting. Eventually, study to fielding their fourth-genera multi-role fighter, management of the fighter, it has yet to deliver. 3 China entered the era of fourth- concept development. Aviation ex- have begun as early as 1993, draw- perts continue to debate the existence ing from the Su-27 family of designs. production of Russia’s Su-27SK. It is uncleargeneration when fighters China with began its research licensed- new avionics, radar, and a reduced ra- ing the technology to build its own thatof a breakawayit is more aboutcapability marketing that defines than Sukhoi is promoting a fighter with abouta fifth newgeneration, capabilities. with some claiming testing in 2007 and was in assembly Russia arrived in China around 1999 The F-22 was developed