There is nothing to say they will not as in past encounters the Chinese have always used mass numbers.

Where did you get that from???

PLA believes it will suffer greater casulties against high tech opponents such as 1st ID and thus it need more troops to absorb loses but definately not human wave as people have been suggesting.
Look it up in the PLA officers hand book.
Typically PLA will deploy 1 Div against 1 brigade and PLA division are organized so that it can retain strengh even after 50% casualties.

This is China’s F-111, used primarily as a naval strike platform against the US CBGs. Secondary role might include the support missileer for other Chinese fighter jets.

So what is JH-7 and the rumored stealth version for?
Plus how do you suppose J-20 carry ASMs?
It is simply unbelievable that you think PLA would want a stealth fighter and yet wreck the stealth by carrying the armaments underwing.

China’s carrier program is mostly for a show-off patrol, having little strategic values in wartime. All of China’s enemies are near by, and many of them are armed with supersonic antiship missiles and a large fleet of subs, making them an easy target in war time.

Right…vietnam, malaysia, phillippines all have large fleets of subs.
:rolleyes:

China builds carriers not because it needs them, but because the Chinese leaders think that carriers are an essential element of being a superpower.

Yes China did not invest in Africa and have no need to protect its investments…
charles de gaulle class is useless for the french as well.

I don’t see a need for H-6 replacement, with all the cruise and ballistic missile availability.

Yes with all the ICBMs the soviets owned there really was no need to develop the Blackjack…

China is essentially trapped within the first island chain, and one of following things must happen in order for China to gain a safe passage to the Pacific Ocean.

1. Conquest of Taiwan.
2. Taking of Diaoyu Islands.

You are a funny guy. Taiwan is lost. That ship has sailed years ago along with economic integration.

Wonder why Taiwan hasn’t bought any large quantities of weapons lately?

You have to love the way PLAWolf spins things…real literary Jedi. Lock on usually denotes a shift to a higher PRF/CWI/ICWI mode on an MFR set or a handover to a dedicated director to provide the highest possible resolution for a firing solution. Its not something that can easily be confused with a nav radar.

In this case the reports suggest a distinct fire control set was laid on the Japanese ship, and earlier a helicopter, so it would be the latter case. If memory serves this class of PLAN frigate uses a copy of the ubiquitous Thomson Castor set for FC so I cant really imagine that there is a huge ELINT coup for the Japanese to derive from this…long range radar characteristics are usually far more useful to map for ID purposes.

…and TR1’s quite right 3000yds is a pretty safe distance to be standing off…I’ve sailed between merchies in the English Channel with less gap than that!.

With no factual evidence provided this is just a simple game of he said she said. IMHO this US Japan mud slinging game is based on nothing but media manipulation.

i.e. as of now, Japan does not prove anything and US collaborates with a fictional account.

If Japan has some thing to prove then prove it. If not lets move on.

As I’m sure it has been pointed out many times before, the red elements seen on the J-10B’s radar are similar to those seen in older PESA radars and slotted array antennas.

But it does not rule out AESA…
At this point we are all guessing.
Maybe Chengdu likes to use them for IFF purposes.
Trying to visually differentiate between AESA or PESA is quite impossible in my view.

Apparently 14th Institute in Nanjing held a party for winning the J-10B radar supplier contract with an AESA bid. 607 institute went with a PESA design and lost.

Quite surprising since 607 designed the AESA for J-11B…

Interesting concept.
Does the weight balance out?
The gun mount and engine compartment seem to be all in the back. Does the VLS in the front weight that much?

you are okay, you didn’t make such a claim. cannot say the same about your compatriots such as this loony in this thread
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showpost.php?p=1217633&postcount=37

from
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=78462

You are confusing the issues.

I mean the blue units have better trained pilots and have better situational awareness due to AEW and ECM support. This is the edge that they enjoy inorder to train the red units for dissimilar combat.

I’m not making any claim on the J-10 or J-11. So if you want to attack Plawolf’s opinion then please leave me out.

Volume search 10sec per rotation.
High value targets 1sec per rotation.
Sensor fusion technology employed to merge AEW sensor data including comm, IFF, navigation etc. to give sustained tracking, surveillance and firing solution.
Miniaturization of equipment so as to achieve the same results on a smaller platform. (perhaps alluding to KJ-200)

Theater tactical nukes wipes out airbase and ground crew. End of discussion.
All this what if is just unrealistic.

If the opponent is Russia or China the war won’t be conventional and the initial loses on both sides will be staggering.

The better question would be do you have enough reserves after your front line units are nuked.