The push is clearly for A-10 to be retired early as a budget saving measure – this means retiring before 2020.

The C-130 fleet is to be reduced in terms of overall numbers. The new C-130Js are replacing older C-130E (retired) and C-130Hs but certainly not on a 1:1 basis.

And the USAF transport and tanking assets are in high demand across the planet.

The Ospreys can’t do what a C-27 or C-130 can, but what is overkill for a C-17.

And again an A-10 does different things to an AH-64 or AH-1 – it’s faster (greater response time), packs more punch, has better loiter ability (both internal fuel and refuelling) and has that awesome gun on it.

UAVs currently have higher attrition rates than normal aircraft. Hence ordering less seems to indicate a reduction to numbers of units fielding them.

There is no Mach 2.5 2500km range missile. The Long Sword is a typical subsonic cruise missile, based on studies of the Soviet Granat.

Nothing less, nothing more.

Fair point. I don’t know much about Cruise Missiles.

Even if the Chinese did have super awesome cruise missiles that were better than anything Russian/American, there’s still the issues of geography and opfor defences to overcome.

Numbers alone do not determine the winner of a battle. Take the Battle of Britain, where numerically inferior British planes beat off numerically superior German planes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain

Not to mention each J-10B can simultaneously engage up to 4 or 6 enemy planes.

Even if to does everything you say, it’s still a short range fighter that’s useless for long range missions without air refuelling tankers that China doesn’t have, nor will have by 2025 or even 2030.

And how are you launching those CJ-10s?

Via ancient and slow H-6Ks?

This assumes ROCAF is destroyed and assumes no prepositioned US assets in Philippines or US naval forces in the Western Pacific. H-6s are toast for any AEGIS ship or US/allied combat aircraft.

It was easier for the Russians who had open access to Pacific and who could attempt to flood a target with multiple regiments of supersonic Tu-22Ms and backed up by a healthy fleet of jammers.

Chances are the US would not get involved. Let’s suppose somehow that the US does get involved. Quantitative advantage of American forces would be neutralized by qualitative edge of Chinese forces. Type 052D is superior to any warship of the US navy. J-10B is superior to any war jet of the US air force except possibly F-22. J-10B and KJ-2000 combo has no rival in the US air force. The US cannot hold a prolonged war against China. 1 billion + people is simply too much.

Qualitative edge? I seriously doubt the Chinese have qualitative edge in terms of tactics and training. PLA is an untried force. It’s last war in 1979 was attrociously handled.

And even technologically, your high end is very small compared to USA. A third of your airforce is still based on MiG-19 MiG-21F-13 and MiG-21MF (aka Q-5, J-7, J-8). The average tank is still a T-54 derivative (Type 59/69/79).

As for 1 billion people, are you just going to hand every man and his dog an Ak-47 (sorry Type 56 and 81) and some floatation rings and tell them to start paddling to Japan?

In the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, suppose the US somehow gets involved, American strategy would be to have a quick war whereas Chinese strategy would be to fight a dragged out war lasting as long as years because America cannot afford to fight a bogged down war halfway around the world given its weak economic situation.

Geez what happened in 1941-45?

US went from an economic depression (current situation is nowhere near as bad) to fighting major campaigns in Atlantic and Pacific whilst providing huge amounts of materiel for its allies.

Also long war is bad for China – China automatically loses access to virtually all Pacific and SE Asian trade routes.

This is due to simnple geography – China doesn’t have direct access to Pacific and is ringed by US allies – South Korea, Japan, Philippines to the Pacific and at least Singapore and Thailand and probably Malaysia and Indonesia to the south. Oh and any Chinese container ship/tanker that manages to get through to Indian Ocean somehow will be easy prey for whatever SSNs or Australia based MPA’s are around.

It loses all it’s imports to wealthy USA, Europe and Middle East.

China would have to launch invasions of Japan or SE Asia to capture essential sealanes. China does not have capacity to do this now or in 2025. It would spread Chinese forces too thinly.

Remember US+allies (Japan, Australia, Taiwan and possibly South Korea) outnumber PLA in terms of ships, submarines and aircraft. Throw in Thailand, Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia etc and that outnumbering is even more problematic.

So it’s losing cash flow and it’s losing access to oil and other resources. Meanwhile it’s also losing high value military assets – Taiwan would not just surrender and neither would Japan.

There’s also greater risk of US striking mainland China too. China in the meantime has virtually zero capability of striking mainland US targets other than a small number of ICBMs.

So long war plays into US favour:

1. Building up forces in Asia Pacific – as done in 1941-45
2. Build up industrial capacity – as done in 1941-45.
3. Long term maritime blockade of China starves China of key imports – as done against Germany in 1914-18 and 1939-45.

Best option for China would be a quick take over of Taiwan.

But this is probably not possible. Taiwan isn’t exactly tank territory and it’s heavily fortified. Even once Chinese have air superiority, the Taiwanese can draw out the fighting as much as possible in urban combat.

Also if PLA fails to make the attack a surprise, then ROCAF/ROCN have much better chance of heavily damaging attacking PLA formations – after all they have the home ground advantage, a great motivational driver (defence of their homes).

Technology is to a degree irrelevant

In the long run PLA wins regardless of whether it’s fighters are J-6s or J-10s or J-20s or it’s ships are Type 053s or Type 054s.

But amphibious assaults are very risky affairs and even when you have 100% air superiority, defence, terrain and even the weather etc can make it a real slog for the attacker. Not to mention breaking out of a beachhead is in itself a difficult affair – e.g. Normandy, Anzio, Salerno.

Interesting article on Taiwanese defence options:

http://offshorebalancer.wordpress.com/2013/08/23/ham-omelettes-and-taiwans-defence/