J-20 goes operational

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5646
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post21 Nov 2018, 10:43

wrightwing wrote:That's circular reasoning. Surely they wouldn't want to be outnumbered in heavy bombers, carriers, attack/ballistic missile subs, main battle tanks, etc.... so they must be planning to approach parity, right?



Clearly, China doesn't need parity one for one with the US. Yet, even half that number could approach nearly a thousand.....(i.e. point)
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3249
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post21 Nov 2018, 17:51

It's circular reasoning, regardless of the final number. It's the same kind of argument that PAK FA/Su-57 fans made for years (it must be superior to the F-22, because why would Russia not build something superior? It wouldn't make sense to build an inferior product, right?) There are no other major weapon systems in the Chinese arsenal, where they're trying to be competitive in quantity. They have far different needs and goals, than the US/allies, and in pretty much every case, they use asymmetric capabilities to try and counter us. Bottom line is this, unless they massively increase defense spending, building a huge 5th generation force, isn't economically viable. They're busy trying to modernize in many areas, and increase the force structure. That's going to limit the aviation procurement/sustainment budget.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3361
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post24 Nov 2018, 15:05

Some here are ascribing mass production capabilities to the J-20/31, which I feel is a mistake. Even if they're able to iron out all the performance, RCS spec issues, mass production is a whole 'nother ball of wax. The Russians have apparently run into both issues, but I suspect their ability to mass produce is the bigger problem.

We only built 30 some odd SR-71's. We only ever made 59 F-117's. We built 187 Raptor's (although at this point, they could have continued building them). Now (and only now), are we able to build thousands of F-35's.

There's a lesson there. It's about more than $...
Offline

fidgetspinner

Banned

  • Posts: 67
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2018, 02:27
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post24 Nov 2018, 22:20

Just felt like throwing this in here.

Image

https://twitter.com/Satcom_Guru/status/ ... 12/photo/1

Did Christmas come early for them? Is this how quantum radars are suppose to look? doubts? :roll:
Offline

nefory

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 12
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2018, 04:59

Unread post27 Nov 2018, 04:11

fidgetspinner wrote:Just felt like throwing this in here.

Image

https://twitter.com/Satcom_Guru/status/ ... 12/photo/1

Did Christmas come early for them? Is this how quantum radars are suppose to look? doubts? :roll:


Just a randomly made plastic model.
They wanted to put up something for the show and tell people "yeah, and we are working on that as well".
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5646
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post27 Nov 2018, 04:19

wrightwing wrote:
That's circular reasoning. Surely they wouldn't want to be outnumbered in heavy bombers, carriers, attack/ballistic missile subs, main battle tanks, etc.... so they must be planning to approach parity, right?



Defeat, Not Merely Compete: China's View of Its Military Aerospace Goals and Requirements in Relation to the United States

(Source: Rand Corp.; issued Nov 22, 2018)

Over the past two decades, the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) has made rapid advances in building up new capabilities and operational concepts. Aerospace power has been a core feature of the PLA's rapid modernization. In particular, since 2004, the PLA Air Force has pursued a service strategy aimed at developing the capacity to "simultaneously prosecute offensive and defensive integrated air and space operations."

This report explores the extent to which the desire to "compete" with the U.S. Air Force (or other advanced air forces) shapes PLA thinking about the development of military aerospace power. It examines how China selects between the options of "copying" foreign powers and "innovating" its own solutions to various operational military problems, as well as which areas China chooses to not compete in at all.

KEY FINDINGS

PLA's goal is to defeat, not merely compete

-- The main driver for Chinese military aerospace power development is the PLA's view that it needs to be prepared to deter and, if necessary, defeat the United States in a high-end clash.

-- The PLA appears to copy foreign militaries when it can find low-cost hardware, organizational, or operational concepts that it can adapt from abroad to solve the operational challenges it confronts. In contrast, when foreign capabilities or organizational practices are irrelevant to Chinese military aerospace problem sets, the PLA either innovates its own solution or declines to replicate the foreign capability (although it does continue to track and study these).

-- The PLA appears not to compete in certain areas because it does not need certain capabilities to accomplish its directed mission, or it has other means to address the military problem at hand.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... force.html
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3249
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post27 Nov 2018, 08:50

That's even less realistic, than reaching parity.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5646
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post27 Nov 2018, 09:26

Yes, but it does speak to the numbers of Stealth Fighters China is likely to produce.... :wink:
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3249
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post27 Nov 2018, 19:30

If we're considering scientific wild a$$ guesses, to be credible.
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 826
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post27 Nov 2018, 20:01

Corsair1963 wrote:Defeat, Not Merely Compete

That sounds like the average joe hopeless job interview answer to "what do you think you can mean for this company?"

:mrgreen:
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5646
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post28 Nov 2018, 08:13

wrightwing wrote:If we're considering scientific wild a$$ guesses, to be credible.



If, China is going to put up a "credible" defense. It will have to produce the J-20 and J-31 is good numbers. (500-1000) That is easily supportable. So, honestly don't know what your problem is??? :?
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3249
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post28 Nov 2018, 17:23

Corsair1963 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:If we're considering scientific wild a$$ guesses, to be credible.



If, China is going to put up a "credible" defense. It will have to produce the J-20 and J-31 is good numbers. (500-1000) That is easily supportable. So, honestly don't know what your problem is??? :?

My problem, is that you can't see your circular reasoning, and that there's a world of difference between "if" and "will." At what point in the last 50+ years has China's weapons procurement been based on similar rationale? They didn't build 1000 Flankers to deal with our F-15/16/18s, which were far superior to what they'd had. Our force structure is based upon global expeditionary campaign, in multiple theaters. China's structure is far less ambitious. Homeland defense, and control of surrounding waters/territorial claims, are its primary military interests.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5646
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post29 Nov 2018, 04:42

wrightwing wrote:
My problem, is that you can't see your circular reasoning, and that there's a world of difference between "if" and "will." At what point in the last 50+ years has China's weapons procurement been based on similar rationale? They didn't build 1000 Flankers to deal with our F-15/16/18s, which were far superior to what they'd had. Our force structure is based upon global expeditionary campaign, in multiple theaters. China's structure is far less ambitious. Homeland defense, and control of surrounding waters/territorial claims, are its primary military interests.



Your problem is you're thinking in the past tense. As Chinese resources and ambition are far greater today. Then when she acquired her first Flankers. China is going all out to challenge the US and most of the Regional Powers in Asia directly! (India, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Australia, etc. etc.) Especially, in regards to the South China Sea......

As a matter of fact her Military Ambitions are nothing short of "ravenous". Including building not one but two Stealth Fighters and a Stealth Bomber. Plus, her Navy (PLAN) is building a massive fleet of Aircraft Carriers, Submarines (SSK's, SSN's, and SSBN's), Aegis Type Destroyers, Frigates, etc. etc. The Army (PLA) isn't being overlooked either.


Honestly, all of the above would be wasted. If, China can't provide large numbers of Stealth Fighters to support the PLA (Army) and PLAN (Navy). The US alone will build a couple thousands F-35's for it's military. Which, doesn't count the ones acquired by her "numerous" allies. (many in Asia)
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3249
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post29 Nov 2018, 05:57

They're still far less ambitious in terms of scope and reach. Their interests are primarily regional. They aren't building 10+ CVNs, 20+ LHA/LHD, hundreds of tankers, 100 AWAC/AEW, and their sub fleet is a lot more modest, too.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5646
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post29 Nov 2018, 10:26

The 'globalisation' of China's military power

Jonathan Marcus
Diplomatic correspondent

China's modernisation of its armed forces is proceeding faster than many analysts expected.

Now, according to experts at the International Institute for Strategic Studies - the IISS - in London, it is China and no longer Russia, that increasingly provides the benchmark against which Washington judges the capability requirements for its own armed forces..............


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-43036302
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 11 guests