In 1999, the United States led NATO’s high-tech blitz in Kosovo. When the operation ended without a hitch, the Pentagon didn’t rest on its laurels. Instead, it kicked off an ambitious military-transformation project: the Future Combat Systems (FCS), intended to morph a traditional, mechanized army into a full “informatization” force.
Yet two decades later, even the sharpest Pentagon experts and the most ardent amateur military buffs are still scratching their heads over what rolled down Beijing’s parade ground. After all, the “legendary” US FCS never progressed beyond PowerPoint slide decks—whereas the PLA’s own take on Future Combat Systems is said to be battlefield-ready.
Hollywood Scripts vs. Real-World Roadblocks
Back in 2003, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ordered the US Army to become, by 2030, a “new, information-age strategic response force capable of dominating across all environments and operations.” Ambitious? Absolutely. Feasible? The FCS’s ultra-avant-garde concepts ran headlong into technical hurdles so severe that some joked the program belonged on the silver screen rather than the battlefield.
Mainland military enthusiast Shi Lao—host of the popular show Shi Lao Hu Zhao—quipped that, had Rumsfeld witnessed Beijing’s September 3 parade, he’d be applauding the PLA. Picture US Army decision-makers dragging their feet while Rumsfeld’s own pet project remained stuck on PowerPoints, maybe flirting with selling its script to Hollywood, starring Tom Cruise as “the future warrior.”
The truth is, FCS was a DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) project in collaboration with the Army, born in pre-9/11 optimism—an era convinced that no foreign power could threaten America’s vital interests with conventional force. Then a single catastrophic event shattered that belief.
People say, “Bad luck comes in threes”. Its 2019 annual report noted that overly futuristic tech not only delayed FCS repeatedly but sent projected R&D costs spiralling. Between 2003 and 2004 alone, procurement budgets ballooned from US$91.4 billion to US$160 billion—doubly raising doubts about the programme’s viability. Furthermore,
Once the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq erupted, the US found itself mired in conflict. By early 2007, FCS funds were slashed to pay for urgent wartime acquisitions. Then the 2008 financial crisis blew a hole in government coffers, and in May 2009, the Department of Defense pulled the plug on FCS entirely.
Enter Fudan University’s Professor Shen Yi—Shi Lao’s co-host—who pointed to Beijing’s unveiling of “100 Tanks” as the living embodiment of America’s once-cherished FCS dream. According to Global Times, these 100 tanks and their 100 support vehicles boast high levels of automation and coordination: a next-generation armored assault force with exceptional manoeuvrability and breakthrough power.
Steel Sentinels on Parade—China’s FCS Realized
Shen paints the picture: steel sentinels advance on the enemy, engage targets they can destroy on the spot, and—if outmatched—don’t retreat. Instead, they relay contacts via communications; commanders, guided by satellite positioning, direct long-range fires to clear the threat. Once the battlefield is secured, the tanks and support vehicles press on—transforming a tide of steel into untamed, demonic beasts.
Imagining Rumsfeld’s spirit looking on, one can almost hear him say with a grin: “In my next life, I want to be Chinese!” or perhaps, “I’d rather not be American in my next life,” if you prefer.
Deep Blue
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
The “decapitation” hype just hit fever pitch. Here’s the bold new chatter: Japan’s defense officials told local media that if the Fujian carrier ever enters the Taiwan Strait, Japan’s Self-Defense Forces should team up with the US military and put sinking it at the top of their to-do list.
This is what some war games lay out: If China ever expands its strikes from Kyushu and Okinawa all the way down to the Nansei Islands—plus every US base along the chain—Japan would recoil into defensive mode. And then, Taiwan has no choice but to do the same, as well as the US. Suddenly Tokyo, Taipei, and Washington are all in the same foxhole. The old “defend Taiwan” story morphs into an East Asia mega-battle, where there’s zero daylight between countering threats to Taiwan and threats to Japan.
That’s why, as Taiwan commentator Lai Yi-chung pointed out back in July 2023, everyone needs ironclad, three-way security channels—whether defending Taiwan, Japan, or America.
Solid logic, the old Russian doll theory: If Taiwan’s in trouble, so is Japan, so is the US. Back under Abe, nerves in Tokyo were already frayed, serving the right wing a golden opportunity. When COVID still stalked the world in 2022, Japan mapped out a plan for 1,000 anti-ship missiles—that’s three for each of China’s 300 warships (now nearly 400, more than even America fields). Their message was clear: Chinese carriers are to be sunk before they ever manage to sail. Taiwan’s mainstream loved it. Double insurance from both the US and Japan, island stability—no need for unification nor independence. Case closed.
Then came reality—the Fujian carrier entered service, and shattered this stack of Russian dolls to dust. America sobered up first. The others? Not even worth a footnote.
Punchline to the War Game
Last weekend, China Central TV pulled back the curtain: “2 Seconds, 20+ Years—The Untold Grit Behind Fujian’s Launch.” Here’s the money quote from the expert: “Sure, our carrier jets can blast off in two seconds. But getting to that moment took more than 20 years of grit. At the start, plenty doubted. Foreign giants spent decades and still fell short. Could China pull it off? Turns out, yes we can.”
The narrative’s heart-tugging, but the real story is buried in the specs. Qiao Jia, who led the Fujian’s construction, spells it out: Unlike Liaoning or Shandong, the Fujian is China’s first homegrown, catapult-equipped aircraft carrier. And it doesn’t just use any catapult system—it’s the world’s first with a conventional-power electromagnetic catapult. Every inch of that tech pushed China’s engineers to the brink, and they didn’t blink.
Here’s the cold, hard takeaway: Don’t just stare at the Fujian in awe, or obsess over the road China traveled to get here. The killer fact is, after more than 20 years of grinding, China now owns this tech—and its world-class manufacturing machine means the next Fujian-level carrier could roll out in two years, one year, half a year, or even just two months.
No Magic, Just Muscle
Why should anyone take China at its word? Are the claims real—or just bluster? Against nonstop foreign skepticism and a wall of Western tech barricades, CCTV lays it bare: “We started from zero. No playbook. No shortcuts. Real power tech isn’t handed down or bought in a back room. Only by blazing new trails, daring to outdo the world, grinding in silence, and refusing to quit can we keep smashing ceilings—and locking core tech in Chinese hands.” In short, that “Made in China” label? It’s the one thing no rival can beat.
Let’s cut the magic act—there’s no David Copperfield here. Think Japan’s top brass wants to wait for a Trump comeback to “sink Fujian”? By all means, keep waiting. If you’ve got the nerve, then step up and show us.
