SOURCE: AFI
The pro-Russian website Bulgarian Military published an article titled “J-20 and J-35 Are Real, China’s White Emperor Is a Big Fake,” authored by Boo Nikolov. The report swiftly ignited widespread discussion within defense circles, dissecting China’s aerospace claims with a critical lens. What followed was even more unexpected: the next day, China’s military media channel Guang Vision on the NetEase platform issued a response that effectively acknowledged the White Emperor as a conceptual aircraft rather than a functional fighter jet.
This rare admission from Chinese media, coupled with international skepticism, has exposed the White Emperor as a piece of strategic propaganda rather than a groundbreaking military asset, raising broader questions about the credibility of China’s military technology claims.
The White Emperor first captured global attention at the Zhuhai Air Show in November 2024, where a sleek, futuristic fighter jet model was unveiled. The aircraft featured a delta-wing layout, prominent side air intakes, and an additional dorsal intake, hinting at a possible three-engine configuration. Its design immediately drew intrigue, with China’s state media aggressively promoting it as a revolutionary platform. The Global Times claimed the White Emperor could wield electromagnetic guns or particle beams for space combat and even suggested it could be launched from a “space carrier” named Luanyao. Additionally, China Central Television (CCTV) featured an engineer who hinted at artificial intelligence integration and cloud-computing systems, portraying the aircraft as capable of autonomous operations in space.
These bold assertions painted the White Emperor as a leap toward sixth-generation fighter technology, blending air and space warfare capabilities. However, the hype was quickly met with skepticism from Western experts and analysts, who questioned the feasibility of such claims given the technological and engineering challenges involved.
Western media and aerospace experts were swift to challenge China’s narrative. On November 14, 2024, The Washington Post cited U.S. aerospace analysts who dismissed the White Emperor’s purported space capabilities, arguing that the technology required to sustain a fighter jet in orbit—such as advanced propulsion systems to escape Earth’s gravity, heat shields for re-entry, and reliable power supplies for vacuum operations—remains decades away, even for a nation advancing as rapidly as China. The model on display at Zhuhai lacked any visible features to support such capabilities, further fueling doubts.
Popular Mechanics took an even harsher stance, labeling the White Emperor a “cosmic joke” and accusing Beijing of deliberately exaggerating its technological prowess. The outlet suggested the model might not even be flight-capable, let alone able to break through the atmosphere. Similarly, The National Interest published an article on the same day, proposing that China may have overstated the White Emperor’s capabilities to provoke the U.S. into pursuing costly countermeasures, such as accelerating its Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program, potentially straining American defense budgets.
On November 20, Defense News reinforced this view, citing anonymous intelligence sources who speculated that the White Emperor was more likely an experimental platform for testing stealth materials or avionics rather than a space combat aircraft. The consensus among U.S. media was clear: while the White Emperor’s design appeared futuristic, its claimed capabilities were largely fictional.
Even pro-government military bloggers in China have acknowledged the White Emperor’s limitations, admitting that its aerodynamic design does not meet the requirements for transatmospheric or suborbital flight. To achieve such feats, a fighter jet would need to reach speeds of at least Mach 5 at high altitudes or in near-space environments, where the thin atmosphere provides insufficient lift for stable flight. The White Emperor’s design, however, appears optimized for speeds between Mach 2 and Mach 3, far below the threshold for hypersonic or transatmospheric missions.
Critics pointed out that the aircraft’s air intake and engine placement are fully exposed to airflow impact, which could lead to compressor stalls or overheating at hypersonic speeds, potentially causing engine shutdowns. Additionally, the shape of its nose and fuselage is better suited for lower-speed flight; at higher velocities, the design would likely become unstable. Chinese bloggers concluded that the White Emperor’s turbo-fan engine configuration and overall structure render it unsuitable for the grandiose claims of space combat, relegating it to a well-marketed illusion rather than a functional aircraft.
The Bulgarian Military article struck a nerve, prompting an unexpected response from China’s military media. On March 6, 2025, Guang Vision published a report on the NetEase platform that tacitly admitted the White Emperor’s status as a conceptual model rather than a deployable asset. The report attempted to downplay earlier claims by citing foreign defense observers, describing the White Emperor as a “device designed to attract attention” and suggesting its purpose was to showcase China’s aerospace ambitions while creating strategic uncertainty. This admission marked a rare moment of transparency from Chinese military media, framing the misinformation as a deliberate tactic with strategic significance.
Notably, the name “White Emperor” appears to have been chosen with symbolic intent. In Chinese mythology, the White Emperor is associated with the element of metal and governs the Western direction, suggesting a deliberate symbolic challenge to the West. This nomenclature aligns with China’s broader propaganda strategy of projecting strength and technological superiority to both domestic and international audiences.
The White Emperor controversy is not an isolated incident but part of a broader pattern in Chinese military propaganda. Take the J-20 fighter jet, which has been in service for years but remains shrouded in controversy over its actual performance. Chinese media have claimed the J-20 can reach speeds of Mach 2.8 to Mach 3, but commentators on platforms like Zhihu, such as a user under the alias Henai Hushi Fen, argue these figures are inflated by about 30%. A photo of the J-20’s technical specifications displayed at the Zhuhai Air Show listed its top speed at Mach 2, a more modest figure than the promoted claims.
The J-20’s engine upgrade, replacing its Russian-made AL-31F with the domestically produced WS-10C, has also been subject to speculation. An accidental leak of the WS-10C’s bypass ratio (0.8, higher than the 0.3–0.4 typical for high-speed fighter engines) suggests it is optimized for fuel efficiency rather than maximum speed. At speeds beyond Mach 1.2 without afterburners, the J-20 may lack the necessary thrust, undermining claims of sustained supersonic flight. Material science analyses further question its capabilities, noting that much of the J-20’s outer skin consists of aluminum alloys and composites, which cannot withstand the heat generated at Mach 3 unless the entire airframe were made of titanium—a costly and impractical proposition.
Similar exaggerations surround the J-35, China’s other operational stealth fighter. Its large airframe, 40° swept-back wings, and estimated empty weight exceeding 15 tons contribute to increased drag, making sustained supersonic flight or high-speed maneuvering unlikely. Analysts compare it to an enlarged MiG-35, with a reduced climb rate of about 210 m/s, far below Western counterparts like the F-16 (360 m/s) or F-15 (340 m/s).
China’s propensity for exaggeration extends beyond aircraft to missile capabilities. The PL-15 air-to-air missile is claimed to have a range of 200–300 km, but its export version, the PL-15E, is limited to 145 km—a noticeable gap. Meanwhile, the U.S. AIM-120D3 has surpassed the 230 km range previously held by the Phoenix missile, casting doubt on China’s competitive edge in this domain.
Safety records also reveal discrepancies. A Chinese commentator claimed the J-20 has flown more hours than the F-35 with a zero-accident rate, but this was challenged on Zhihu by user Love Hushi Fan, who pointed out the lack of supporting data. Official figures suggest over 2,000 Chinese pilots have died in the past 70 years, compared to 1,300 in India—a stark contrast often overlooked in domestic narratives. By comparison, the F-35 has logged 970,000 flight hours with only 10 losses (one crash per 97,000 hours), while the JF-17 has a higher accident rate of one loss per 24,000 hours.
NOTE: AFI is a proud outsourced content creator partner of IDRW.ORG. All content created by AFI is the sole property of AFI and is protected by copyright. AFI takes copyright infringement seriously and will pursue all legal options available to protect its content.