SU-57: On hold for a decade

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

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2275
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post10 Aug 2018, 14:11

OK.... what's your assessment of China then?

Through espionage and other means, they've come up with some pretty slick designs - like the J-10C. They're building plenty of them, and its comparable to an F-16 (pick your block #). They have plenty of Flankers too, including the latest and greatest SU-35. The J-20 is still somewhat of a wild card, but its clearly going to be something we have to deal with sooner or later.

They've built a pretty slick hi/low mix IMO, and their air to air weapons seem to really be coming along. I'm not sure what their pilot training is like, but certainly it's not good to under-estimate them. They seem to be succeeding where the Russians are failing - building a pretty robust air to air and air to ground capability. Granted, long way to go in the air to air refueling, AWACS dept, but they no doubt know that's a weakness too.

The F-35 has a lot riding on its shoulders, but it sounds like its up to the task. If it's that good. If it's built in the kind of numbers we need. If it doesn't bankrupt us, it'll forever be known as the plane that broke Russia's back, and perhaps even China's too. That's just how I see it. I forsee a few hundred J-20's produced but the J/C-31 or whatever having issues. Big issues, that'll result in it not being mass produced for perhaps another decade..
Offline

lrrpf52

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 210
  • Joined: 29 Mar 2018, 01:52

Unread post10 Aug 2018, 15:40

mixelflick wrote:OK.... what's your assessment of China then?

Through espionage and other means, they've come up with some pretty slick designs - like the J-10C. They're building plenty of them, and its comparable to an F-16 (pick your block #). They have plenty of Flankers too, including the latest and greatest SU-35. The J-20 is still somewhat of a wild card, but its clearly going to be something we have to deal with sooner or later.

They've built a pretty slick hi/low mix IMO, and their air to air weapons seem to really be coming along. I'm not sure what their pilot training is like, but certainly it's not good to under-estimate them. They seem to be succeeding where the Russians are failing - building a pretty robust air to air and air to ground capability. Granted, long way to go in the air to air refueling, AWACS dept, but they no doubt know that's a weakness too.

The F-35 has a lot riding on its shoulders, but it sounds like its up to the task. If it's that good. If it's built in the kind of numbers we need. If it doesn't bankrupt us, it'll forever be known as the plane that broke Russia's back, and perhaps even China's too. That's just how I see it. I forsee a few hundred J-20's produced but the J/C-31 or whatever having issues. Big issues, that'll result in it not being mass produced for perhaps another decade..

Let's assume for a moment that Chinese aerospace is immune from all the problems we see with Chinese production lack of TQM. Let's assume that a J-10 is as capable of an F-16C Block 50, that an Su-30MKK or J-11B has rival capabilities to an F-15C or F-15E, and let's assume the fact that they still have 388 J-7s in service is no indication of their state of capabilities.

Now let's look at what really matters, like AWACS. China has struggled to acquire or develop their own AWACS capability. After being rejected by the Russians, Brits, Americans, and finally helped a little by the Israelis before the US shut that down, they now have:

4 x KJ-2000s (Chinese AWACS built on Russian Il-76 frame using fixed tri-pole AESA in the dome). They claim this is superior to US E-3s of older generations, without addressing US/NATO E-3 generational upgrades.

Image

2 x KJ-200s

Image


In comparison, we have 31 x E-3s, 4 of which are permanently tasked to PACOM, with Japan owning 4 E-767s.

US Navy has 68 E-2C/D in service, with an appropriate number of those always operating in PACOM.

If you're developing an Air Tasking Order for PACOM in the event of a PLAAF and PLAN attempt to break-out of the island containment ring (that constrains their movements as it stands) with military force, how would you allocate assets for eliminating the PLAAF Early Warning and control nodes? What systems rise to the top of your list that would be tasked with elimination of Chinese eyes and ears, because you have a laundry list of hunter-killers as a US Air War Planner.

They'd get their intestinal nozzles wrecked in pretty short order. The level of aerial slaying capability we have with just a portion of our PACOM assets would crush PLAAF in such a devastating manner, it would immediately set a geopolitical recognition of the US and her allies as a true singular global empire, the likes of which the world has never known or imagined-something totally at odds with American foundational principles.

And that's based on false assumptions of Chinese parity in quality of systems and systems maintenance. I heard a comment recently from General Horner that stuck out to him from a general he looked up to. "Without maintenance, all I have is a bunch of college kids at the bar who think they're important." You ever see Chinese maintenance? It's not in their culture-doesn't exist. Something breaks, and they literally don't what to do, so they leave it in place or request foreign help.

After Mao's "cultural revolution" (mass murder campaign), who was left? If you didn't escape to Taiwan, Hong Kong, or abroad, and were part of the Nationalist infrastructure (people that knew how to make the society work), you were done. The initial phase of Red Terror from Aug-Dec of 1966 involved targeting of all "Cow-demons" and "snake spirits" including the "5 Black Categories" (landlords, rich peasants, counter-revolutionaries, bad elements, and right-wingers), party leaders, teachers, and academics. Think about that. They purged their society of academics and teachers in 1966 folks.

Mao encouraged students to rise up against their teachers and beat them into submission or death, as they were the embryos of the new cultural revolution. He then turned these new communists against his old guard communist leaders to purge the party of any rivals, further solidifying allegiance to him as a cult of personality.

Image

Study of the Chinese civil war is still considered state secrets to this day, so nobody can even ascertain the death toll that spread throughout mainland China. But trust us, they have superior AWACS to the E-3 because they put a trial-pole AESA in it.

Clown shoes. With a grounded leadership on the US/coalition side, the Chinese would be humiliated worse than Saddam was. Before they inflicted communism on themselves with comrade Mao, they were beaten by every regional power they have contested territory or interests with, including 3 major defeats on the Korean Peninsula from 610-668 AD, wrecked by the Japanese empire and slaughtered wholesale under Japanese occupation, and after the rise of Mao, they were face-punted by the Vietnamese when they thought they could march down into Vietnam and Laos in 1979.

These are not winners. These are losers, historically, culturally, internally, politically, and economically. The place is falling apart, and investors are looking for foreign markets (mainly the US) to park their liquidity before the roller coaster heads down the rickety, Chinese rails.
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 558
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: Irvine, CA

Unread post10 Aug 2018, 20:04

I'm all for realistic assessment of capabilities but dismissing Russian and Chinese cultures as failures seem too far. :|
Offline

lrrpf52

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 210
  • Joined: 29 Mar 2018, 01:52

Unread post10 Aug 2018, 22:39

disconnectedradical wrote:I'm all for realistic assessment of capabilities but dismissing Russian and Chinese cultures as failures seem too far. :|

Show me 3 users all equipped with the same weapons and resources, and I'll show you 3 totally different outcomes.

Show me the culture that drives the organizations.

I also pointed out the extreme quantity advantage we have, even only including PACOM forces.

Then we can talk about training and institutional knowledge.

I'm not making these arguments from a Nationalist or patriotic perspective, as I think those can really create confirmation bias and circular reasoning.

Instead, I'm looking at:

1. Culture
2. Military history
3. Systems of Systems critical nodes (AWACS, EW, R-, theater-ranged weapons, satellites, KCs, carriers, ASW)
4. Peripheral combat systems (fighters, attack, medium bombers, and their weapons)
5. Current and historical training continuum with the above systems
6. National political and military leadership
7. Economic position
8. Geographic position

Across those 8 parameters, China doesn't fair so well at all.

1. Culturally, they're about as backwards and savage as you can get, more comparable with sub-Saharan Africa, smashed with a large coastline with many deep sea ports that give hundreds of millions of uneducated peasants and economic slaves the opportunity to plug into the global trade scheme. We're talking about a people who boil food in sewage water in large cauldrons on the streets still.



2. Chinese military history is shamefully plagued with loss-after-loss with every regional power in their sphere. Only exception is when the Japanese empire was forced to leave Manchuria after the US defeated Japan, and China just happened to be allied with guess who? (the US in World War II).

3. SoS Nodes: They have been scrambling to microwave-cook a ready meal of systems of systems, even claiming superiority over the US in this area, which is painfully-exposing to their true state. When the US controls the technology transfers of these types of systems, and the Russians aren't very helpful either, it's a vertical uphill battle. This is compounded by the fact that the US and our allies in PACOM have numerical and training/interoperability superiority with AWACS, EW, RC, and the emerging fleet of JSF who are their own AWACS network. Add to the fact of how few aerial refueling tankers they have (3), and it isn't looking so hot anymore.

4. Peripheral Combat Systems: Their Flankers, 236 J-10s, 388 J-7s, medium bombers, missiles, prototype J-20s and J-31s are all unproven, untested, linked to the small amount of KJ-2000s and KJ-200s they have. The only proven fighter they have that is still in operational service is the J-7 (MiG-21 copy-they claim 388 active in service). It sure is a proven system though, with an exchange ratio of 240 A2A kills (mostly from Egypt and Syria, followed by North Vietnam against 2nd and 3rd Gen jets), with 501 losses. The MiG-21 has been fodder for the F-15C and F-16A since 1979. Why China is still operating 388 J-7's is anyone's guess.

5. Training Continuum: How many Blue Air wings do they have that exploit and simulate USAF, USN, USMC, Japanese AF, ROKAF, Taiwanese AF 4th and 5th Gen fighters? How well do they execute aerial refueling with 3 tankers in an attempted break-out from an allied containment campaign?

6. Leadership: What's their national decision-making dynamic like? Is it filled with plenty of knowledgeable advisors, or is it being transformed into a dictatorship with the singularity of power in the hands of Xi Jinping? Do they war-game realistic campaigns showing true US and allied capabilities, or are they looking at their glossy paint parades and beaming with pride at how spotless all the uniforms are, down to the arresting gear green shirts on their carrier decks.

Image

Image

7. Economy: Their entire economy has been built on a Ponzi scheme, built on rubble over the past generation where contractors and local or regional leaders are rewarded for demonstrating growth, mainly in the form of construction. That has left entire cities built out of the lowest-grade concrete known to the 21st century, sprayed on sub frame facades to appear to be stylish and modern. Buildings that have been erected during this period are now literally falling to the ground, sometimes fully inhabited. It's similar to Khrushchev's 5-year plans for government project housing, only the Russian ones actually stood up to the present (complete with rust, feces, and urine tap water).

Now that Chinese investors look around at their own crumbling society, they instinctively know they need to invest outside of the country, just like the Japanese did in the 1980s before the crash. That's why Xi started strangling power and tying things up in the attempt to prevent capital flight and the cavitation of their economy...while the builders continue to erect apartments in the middle of nowhere.



8. China's geographic position is one of a contrast of regional containment, internal fragmentation and divide, along with major access to the South China Sea. As soon as any Chinese naval vessel points its bow away from the Chinese coast, it runs into a number of problems. The first one is this historical dominant naval power called Japan, the second is the natural containment ring of islands and other regional rivals in Southeast Asia and the Philippines.

Image

There is no way to innovate out of that stranglehold. No amount of paying into the Clinton's campaigns, stealing LM IP, buying off Diane Feinswine, penetrating the WH, Lincoln Bedroom, or B-2 program can make up for their geographic containment. This includes trying to fart out islands all over in other people's territorial waters within the first island chain.

In every critical parameter, China is not only in a state of major disadvantage, but on the verge of societal collapse/revolution due to the fundamental instability of the coastal and interior political-economic struggles that have historically been the linchpin of the rise and fall of mainland China's civilization. Add to that the ability Chinese citizens now have to get a peak of what it's like outside of their cesspool, and the internal political pressure-cooker starts blowing steam.

But don't mind me, let's get back to debating about how the J-20 is going to be a game-changer in PACOM! I'm all about scaring the USAF and USN into demanding the next generation combat system from our contractors so we maintain our bleeding edge gap between feces-scarfing savages, I really am. Looking forward to PCA with hypersonic penetration mission profile and death beams from a graphene-integrated, holistic power-management, multi-source watt generation system from the 6th Gen variable cycle engines, that blends photovoltaic current through the optical camouflage, radar and laser-absorbing, variable geometry skin frame into flaming Flankers from Fang Dong.

Release the dogs of war!
Offline

lrrpf52

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 210
  • Joined: 29 Mar 2018, 01:52

Unread post10 Aug 2018, 22:48

US Global Overlords will rule the space and skies with:

6th Gen Penetrating Counter-Air, Hypersonic death machines
5th Gen Block 4 and 5 F-22As, F-35A/B/C
B-21As

Some new 7th Generation Hypersonic, Inner-Outer Atmosphere Omnirole Space Fighter

HIOASF

The space debris from Chinese and Russian satellites will entertain the masses with meteorite showers for generations to come, to the delight of friends and on-lookers.

Start acquiring relics of the past now gents so the museums and collectors will offer you top global currency in 2050. You heard it here first.
Online
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7283
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post10 Aug 2018, 23:52

Has any country ever achieved military greatness without first undergoing a major trial by fire against a superior combat-proven adversary and emerge victorious at the first attempt?
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

vilters

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 797
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post11 Aug 2018, 00:19

The best Russia can do is melt them down and start over. The PAK-FA "as is" is an Joke for Russia industry.
Get over it. OK, you'v got your LEVCON data, now start building an aircraft.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 646
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post11 Aug 2018, 03:48

yes, yes, *BUT*, I read several somewhere's that both China and Russia are at least 10 years ahead in hypersonic weapons tech, and can wipe the floor with us, purify the entire planet of the agro-anglo impirialist dogs. We may need to use chop-sticks from here! Eating with freakin' cutting-edge STICK technology! We just got complacent, we'd assumed superior fork tech would win, it made sense! But now they've got us over a barrel on this hypersonics stuff. ... :shock: :doh:
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial-Dist = LIFE
Offline

juretrn

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 329
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 01:09
  • Location: Slovenia

Unread post11 Aug 2018, 23:14

We almost forgot:
Image

F
Russia stronk
Offline

nutshell

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 453
  • Joined: 04 May 2016, 13:37

Unread post12 Aug 2018, 01:18

juretrn wrote:We almost forgot:
Image

F



Hahaha :mrgreen:
Offline

viper12

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 205
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2017, 14:58

Unread post12 Aug 2018, 02:04

F :twisted:
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4409
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post13 Aug 2018, 06:16

I am sure Vietnam was counting on the Su-57 to get it into the Stealth Fighter Game! So, now what??? :?
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 646
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post13 Aug 2018, 06:53

Corsair1963 wrote:I am sure Vietnam was counting on the Su-57 to get it into the Stealth Fighter Game! So, now what??? :?


Given the '4.5' SH BkIII is probably better in LO performance than T50 (there are still no actual Su57s) with better fully matured sensors, weapons and comms (and probably cheaper over the life-cycle too) and is a match for the PLAAF Su35 force, I'd be considering a couple of squadrons.

That gets them to an initial interoperabilty level that they're going to need and which they can build on, plus opens up relations with many other forces.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial-Dist = LIFE
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4409
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post13 Aug 2018, 08:53

element1loop wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:I am sure Vietnam was counting on the Su-57 to get it into the Stealth Fighter Game! So, now what??? :?


Given the '4.5' SH BkIII is probably better in LO performance than T50 (there are still no actual Su57s) with better fully matured sensors, weapons and comms (and probably cheaper over the life-cycle too) and is a match for the PLAAF Su35 force, I'd be considering a couple of squadrons.

That gets them to an initial interoperabilty level that they're going to need and which they can build on, plus opens up relations with many other forces.


The Su-57 carries it's Weapons and Fuel internally like the F-22/F-35. So, there is no way the Super Hornet would have a smaller RCS under a combat load. Nor, would the US likely sell Vietnam the Super Hornet in the first place! :shock:
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2275
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post13 Aug 2018, 13:35

Vietnam flys Flankers now, just not sure what type. I don't think they're as advanced as Malaysia's though. Regardless, are they not an enemy of China's? It's tough telling who the good guys/bad guys are in that part of the world, with the exception of the Aussie's.

Speaking of which, Carlo Kopp must be stricken with a good mix of disappointment and rage. First, his country acquires the Super Hornet, then the Growler and now the F-35. That's the exact opposite of what he wanted, albeit it was totally unrealistic. The 2018 F-35 RIAT display alone must have sent him into orbit... :mrgreen:

I just checked air power Australia's page on the PAK FA. No updates in years. I think even he's given up on it seeing the light of day, and clearly outlined how most of it uses the SU-35's systems, engines etc but in a squashed down airframe. Like someone stepped on a Flanker.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: omelet1978 and 11 guests