Surely its better to diversify when it comes to weapons as it de risks significantly chances of your arsenal becoming obsolete due to the use of a singular jamming or avoidance method.

😮

brilliant.

reply in blue

Using PPP to measure government budgets, is like saying millimeters are equal to inches.

not really, it gives a rough Idea how much a “stuff” a government can buy in a local economy, given an amount of local currency. you can’t feed people and build bridges out of paper money would you?
having a trillion dollar budget isn’t that impressive if a peice of bread cost a billion dollars.

Well thats still not going to make your you-know-what measuring contests work out. Second, being proud of massive waste and inefficient allocation of resources by governments, isn’t something to be very proud of. Third, total gov. expenditures in the US at all levels, are greater than 6 trillion,

Yep, US government is extremely efficient. yep.

about 5 times more than China. Don’t worry…by the time you get to this level, you’ll be just as broke and messed up as us.

yep, and an average aerospace engineer’s starting salaries is about 5-10 times smaller in china as those In US.
hum.
and I thought by washington’s consensus Yuan is under valued? why?

Oh wait! Thats racism!

keep beating that horse eh? taking the comment out of context eh? just lovin’ it huh?

Thats a terribly poor strategy for dealing that will result in nothing.

why would it be result in nothing? they can basically finish off all of taiwan’s fix installations with out even using their longer range missiles. long range artillery rockets would surffice. don’t even need any thing taking off from ground from China. and if they feel like to spend a little more money, they can put sensor fused munition inside the rockets and make it more interesting.

China doesn’t have the detection capabilities (AWACS or not) to have a clear view over Taiwan, and to stay out of threats (SAM or aircraft or ship-borne), you’re still going to have to be pretty far from Taiwan…too far perhaps to be of any use if you have to drop those tanks in a combat situation.

huh, back in 80s even before china got AWACs its ground based ELINT and long range radars would have a pretty good picture over west side of taiwan.
I am sorry to inform you but geography is in favor of the guys on the west side of taiwan strait.

and,
in 2008 one kj2000 was surfice to direct all of Air traffic covering entire Sichuan province and two provinces over. what range do you think KJ2000 got? care to take a shot at it?

Especially since you now have provided a nice group of loitering short-legged aircraft in the middle of the ocean for F-22/35s to go after.

curious, Why would those J-10s be loitering “in middle of the ocean?”.

Oh jeeze! Here we go again! If you REALLY want to push this ridiculous scenario to its absolute…if China attacks with ballistic missiles US airbases in Japan…the F-22 and B-1R is the LAST thing it will have to worry about.

Oh god the empty threats again.
well spell your idea out. empty threats don’t make carry weight.
Whatelse?

:rolleyes:

Well see this is why you didn’t understand what I said earlier…about different levels and types of commitments, and different escalations of conflict. Providing aerial defense to Taiwan in the case of Chinese attack…is quite a different thing that “pounding China”.

why should any one distinguish between these two? providing bases to aid in war is basically declaring war yourself. Full scale ground invasions of a sovereign state has been initiated on lesser ground than that.

Yeah. And its rubbish.

then tell me why it is rubbish besides these stupid one liners.

Yeah. And thats rubbish. J-7s and J-8s are too short-legged to play a part in this conflict. J-10s can only mount dismal sortie rates, if useful at all. That means there cannot be any “swarms” of any kind, that conventional means can’t meet.

I would love to hear how you arive at the “dismal sortie rate. ” part from J-10. stuff coming out of your “mouth” again?

And its rubbish because if China attempts to attack those bases, the US will no longer be simply providing defense for Taiwan, but will be going after mainland China itself.

spell it out then, how will US going after mainland china, after US bases that are mounting sorties to fight a air war over taiwan are hit. methods, targets, opposing force, etc. please, spell it out.

And its rubbish, because China isn’t stupid and knows this. And why would it launch all-out war against Taiwan, US and Japan, when it knows full well that it has no capability of getting any troops on Taiwan to begin with. There’s nothing for China to gain from any of this.

political calculation has nothing to do with any of this discussion isn’t it?

??? Defense from what?

oh brother :rolleyes:

Like??

well, please show me that E-3s has a better attenna than KJ-2000.
if you can’t, please do refrain from these ridiculous one liners.

Like the claims that a J-10 is equivalent to a Eurofighter?

and where have I claimed that?

you understand being snarky doesn’t bring you any points?

Apparently the example I chose wasn’t ridiculous enough to make clear that it was a joke. 😮

I enjoy slinging **** at the F-35 as much as anyone else with an appreciation for the absurd, but sometimes it just gets a bit much y’know? No, the -B is not going to murder your family in your sleep. :p

oh ah… ha ha.

particular numbers I really don’t care.

I am just expound my way to look at things a bit.

again, reply in blue’

So far as I understand it PPP is most useful for making basic ‘cost of living’ comparisons for your average citizen and is less useful when applied to those areas traditionally used as indicators of national power. Obviously the cost of labour is an input into everything and USD $1 goes further in the Chinese military establishment than in the American, but when considering such things I think it’s more accurate to use the nominal figure (with an added fudge factor if suitable) than the PPP figure. China’s middle class at the moment is no larger than America’s, whereas by 2030 it’ll be more than twice as large.

true. you have made an execellent point. and believe it or not some things will cost more in china to develope.
but not all indicator of national power requires high-tech military technology.
transportation network, power grids, physical infrastructure, etc, these “low tech”, in alot of chinese political elite’s opinions are also an important indicator (and force-multiplier) of national power vs. pure high tech military power. in these things ppp matters alot.

Which is one of the reasons why folks thinking that America can Reagan its way out of these changes in the global order (which of course extend well beyond China) are dreaming. Barring a major revolution in the way the nation functions or the election of The Joker to the Presidency, the current fiscal climate is here to stay … for the next several decades.

I will keep it short as it is not pertaining directly to the topic at hand:
The problem is not debt itself. the problem is lack of consistent and rational strategy and the political system and “Will” that’s needed to inject the long term investments necessary to grow your economy to pay for the debt.
you will never, ever, ever solve your fiscal problem by slashing budgets. you will, however, require a new way to look at gv’t budgets as investments (not mere “spending”), investment that in long term will fundamentally improve the productivity of a national-state, which the return will be in form of increased tax revenues and economic growth!

I heard that the F-35 turns like a Foxbat.

The point is what is the L/D at what L/alpha/G. given mach number.
that’s the key to sustained turn performance.

sure you can make up by having a bigger motor. but only by so much.

C version would prob has a better L/D than A at high alphas, at subsonic speeds, just by the virture of a bigger wing.

stubby wing of A prob has something to do with USAF’s insistence on hitting a top speed.

see my reply in blue

And when it gets into a combat situation and has to jettison those tanks, will it be swimming back home?

it can use those tanks to loiter behind the SAM screen, just beyond the battlefield. , Vector in by GCI and AWACS. as required. you don’t need to maintain a presence on the battlefield.

(oh and please don’t insult me by again saying its racist of me to assume the Chinese can’t! )

being racists is not your most pressing problem, being blind is.

Okinawa is about 500 miles away from the nearest Chinese airfield.

Who says one must require another airfields to neutralize Airfields?

China is going to attack both Taiwan and Okinawa now? Because a full retaliation by US and Japan is going to be in China’s favor?

Uh, your logic is rather flawed.
If USAF is to sortie from Japanese bases , that is basically a declaration of war on China by Japan. I don’t see why china wouldn’t go ahead and mount a full out offensive to neutralize the threat. what’s to loose? they are already ponding you from those bases anyways.

Rand has an agenda. If you get paid to produce these studies….

Don’t take it out of context.
we are not here talking about some one’s agenda. we are taking the premise of their study and examining the merit of their logic and facts. you must understand that.

Their (RAND’s) starting point is all of those bases would be knocked out. thus require something like a B-1R to base out of Guam to provide needed firepower against a swarm of J-7/8/10/11s.

My point is that: yes, it is true that those bases would likely be knocked out. but B-1R is not a good idea because:
1) B-1R it self is too big of a target.
2) tankers and AWACS would be more of a problems/ vulnerability.
3) chinese will not use swarm because they do not have the numbers to swarm.
and last and most important.
4) their tactics would likely be relying on standoff weapons, not fighters , to achieve the minimum degree of air superiority over TW and TW Strait as their doctrine required, and use its IADS network and AWACS+fighter screens to play mostly defense, not offensive. , Thus those BVR AAMs B-1R carries would be not useful unless they can engage ballistic missiles and mostly likely the most numerous long range artillery rockets.

you just constantly uttering useless one line retorts while gross underestimating the chinese capability in face of pretty solid evidence to the contrary.

If you want to have a decent technical conversation, i am happy to oblige.

Again, an aircraft in the F-16 class is not going to have combat ranges equivalent to an F-15E.

depends on the relative load out.

May be, just may be, J-10s with 3 tanks and 2 PL-12 +2 PL-8 can manage be on par with… oh let’s say a fully loaded F-15E with a full load of stick bombs strapped in.

This perhaps sound like too obvious way of rectify the common nose heaviness in supersonic flight on most fighters, so which fighters employ this seemingly brilliant fix ?

Donno.
I was speaking general terms for “The Airplane”.

Concord, proposed Boeing 2707 etc.

adds system complexity and weight and reliability.
the payoff is your cruise drag.