I do agree the US would probably still win because of their better overall equipment fit, but not without casualities.

And the US can not afford to have more then minimal causalities, therefore they need to ensure total technology superiority.

Originally posted by m.ileduets
Agreed, but how does the Raptor fit in there? If they wanted to counter this thread, they would need excellent carrier based aircrafts. Can the Super Hornet counter it? I doubt it.
The F-22s are useless for this scenario, unless they place them in Taiwan, which would be very offensive to China.

Indeed in a thread assessment Taiwan shouldn’t play a major role for US security concerns. There are clearly other priorities now. Taiwan is sth. China and Taiwan have to sort out themselves.

Also agreed. But the F-22 could operate from Okinawa.

And China is a good example of countries modernising their armed forces. Only some years earlier they would have been few planes in the chinese inventory that could challenge a F-15.

It is highly likely that the F-15 will be outclassed by many countries in the air to air role in 10 years. So if the US wants to keep their air superiority, then they need a new fighter.

I try to explain. The ISAF force is a NATO operation. Iceland has no military forces, but is a member of NATO. So their contribution is to payy for the transportation of the Dutch Apaches to Afghanistan.

Basing your future millitary projects on an assesment of your future needs and opponents ist a good millitary strategy.
I would believe that China is considering building its forces to a level at which China can regain control of the “renegade republic called Taiwan” millitary, while being able to fight of an US intervention.

So it is prudent for the US to make plans that will counter such ideas.

In Europe states did increase thei millitary spending based on a perchieved threat ofr decades during the cold war. That was done on both sides of the iron curtain. Today the states in europe cut their spending because the likelyhodd of war in europe is small and only few countries try to play an international role.
But even the smaller ones are reshaping their forces to make them more out of area capable.

It is done everywhere and by everybody, nothing special about it.

-> The only difference is the fact that the US sees the world as their area of interest and influence. A discusion about the motivations and reasons for that view is as interesting as it is senseless.

Why not. It is a pretty accurate desciption of the current situation. China is the only major power that might come into conflicht with the US and that is capable enough to beat current US weapons systems.

So it is a prudent move, to base current porjects on threat scenario based on predictions of future chinese millitary powers.

Well first off all the EF is two engined while the JSF is single engined, so it is like comparing an F-16 to an F-18 when it comes to operating costs.

So we will have to wait and see.

All very nice. Yet if conducting landing operations the ship still can only use the right front spot for takeoff.

And at the moment it can not use spot 1 + 2+ 3 together.

And Kuzentsov is pretty big. I doubt adding steam catapults would make any difference. You coulkd propably move the front left spot out of the way of the landing area. Which would mean you can launch 2 aircrafts while conducting landing operations.

Add the third catapult and the carrier can launch 3 planes – regardless of type and weight.

But I´m a catapult believer. 😉 So don´t take this post too serious.

@ Flanker : Your idea is also pretty good, if you would really use apowder catapult, then you caould launch heavy aircrafts without having to built a complex steam system.