thobbesToday I think China would suffer very badly against the US and it Pacific Allies. Yet, like you said China reinvented itself in the last 20 years. So, if the trend continues who knows? Which, is why many are feeling more threaten than ever by China.
It’s easier to reinvent off a smaller base.
I’ll use economics as an example.
Mozambique can grow at 10% per annum because it’s economic base is so small (c. US$500 per capita). Opening a single large factory can massively increase the GDP of the country.
It’s much more difficult for Australia to grow at 10% per annum because it’s economic base is large (c. $62,000 per capita). That same large factory is a drop in the ocean and it’s contribution to GDP per capita growth is minimal.
Now look at PLAAF/PLANAF:
The technological base was small (1950s technology), pilot hours low and overall structure primitive.
High growth is possible – a couple of hundred Su-27/J-11s offers a massive increase in capability over old J-6s. It also allows increase in hours. Any capability boost even to 1980s levels (e.g. JH-7) is a massive increase.
20 years later and it’s not so easy as you now have to start focusing on qualitative factors that can’t be expressed in terms of raw flight hours, aircraft or missile performance.
These qualitative factors (i.e. superior training, logistics, command and control, coordination) are what makes NATO forces the best air forces in the world and why even when loaded up with latest planes, the Arabs generally aren’t.
thobbesRegarding flight hours, what kind of flight hours are those?
I’d sooner rely on a pilot flying only 100 hours pa of intensive combat training than a pilot who does 200 hours a year flying basic flight profiles.
Also how good is the Chinese training syllabus?
Remember the American (and thus most allied ones) training syllabus is based on decades of varied combat experience from Vietnam on.
The Western logistics and command systems have also been shaped by years of varied experience.
It’s enforced by true DACT in the form of multinational exercises, pilot exchanges, NATO professional development courses etc etc.
China (and Russia) have neither of this – their air forces have little modern* combat experience and their connections to other top tier airforces are limited.
*Modern as in modern tactics and combat – West was surprised at how little guided munitions Russia used over Georgia and also how poor overall command and coordination of forces was.
Both countries have had to rebuild their training programs – China switching from a 1950s model and Russia rebuilding after virtual collapse of their conventional forces following collapse of the USSR (and 2008 seems to indicate Russia still has a long way to go).
Hence how good are their training programs? How efficient are their logistics and command structures? How well are their forces at coordination of combined arms?
And have both sides managed to shake off prior institutional values that are at odds with modern warfare concepts? Again 2008 seems to indicate Russia has a long way to go.
thobbesIf the rationale is jobs, rather than gains on investment,
then it is cheaper to hire half of that workforce to carry one stone each from point A to point B 30 km away,
and have the other half of that workforce carry them back to point A
The point of the Australian Submarine Corporation was job creation. Some of it’s main supporters was the unions and the program was the pet project of then Defence Minister Kim “Bomber” Beazley.
thobbesOf course. This is why nobody is suggesting that India’s economy will ever grow to become triple the size of the United States as mere population would suggest. Nonetheless, India’s ongoing problems will not prevent it from attaining superpower status by 2050.
I do not see India growing to super power status for all the factors above.
Nothing wrong with it in and of itself, it’s only if you wish to be considered something other than a mercenary that it becomes an issue.
I guess all those Indian doctors wanting a job with my division are mercernary as they’re trying to get to Australia as opposed to looking after the poor in India.
thobbesThe other qualitative advantages are pilot training including such things such as pilot initiative as well as command and control structures.
PLAAF had a 1950s mentality up to recently and cultural change is difficult to implement on a massive scale.
PLAAF’s last combat experience was in 1979 and it performed poorly.
The US has had considerable combat experience since the 1960s and this has allowed it to hone command and control mechanisms. It also had a far more initiative based military culture than at least old PLA. To a degree this reflects overall culture as well (Americans are individual orientated, most Asians including Koreans and Japanese are collective orientated).
Now how much of this C3 experience, emphasis on quality and overall culture has flowed on to Korean and Japanese Air Forces is anyones guess. Given USA created both forces, it can be assumed at least some of it has flowed but has this since been replaced by local values.
Koreans still practice augmenting US military units and their Marines were tough ******* in Vietnam.
ROCAF had good results against Chinese in 1950s and their pilots were very good and brave (e.g. Black Cat Squadron).
But again that was 1950-1960s.
Whatever the case PLA has had to actually completely reinvent itself in last 20 years. Whether that has been successful is anyone’s guess as well. Just like Saudis buying F-15s and Eurofighters doesn’t make RSAF a superb force due to cultural and training issue, PRC buying Su-27s and AWACS doesn’t automatically indicate qualitative improvements in human capital.
And organisational change is hard – the Russians are still struggling with creating a professional force, and good NCOs (apparently professional Russian troops did not perform any better than conscripts in 2008 War against Georgia).
Also I think the US would not help Vietnam or Philippines out over a small scat spat over some islands.
I do think it’d come into bat for Japan or Taiwan though – the risk of not doing so would be to show the USA as weak and not willing to support allies. Plus there does appear to be some elements in the US chomping at the bit for an altercation with China.
thobbesBrazil to a degree has been a regional hegemon for decades now – e.g. Mercosur (est’d 1991) basically gave Brazil access to several other economies. They were glad for Brazillian investment and access to Brazillian markets.
Major powers generally have a more global reach and for Germany and Japan a considerable say in economic affairs of the world.
thobbesI agree that Brazil will remain a merely modest military power for the foreseeable future, and its influence limited largely to South America. But nonetheless I think it is instructive to look at where they are investing their limited resources: we find them developing their own aircraft, designing their own missiles, and maintaining rare carrier skillsets, whilst pursuing nuclear submarines and an industry-focused combat aircraft program in FX-2. Their approach is very much like India’s, only without the greater urgency that comes from facing credible present-day threats in China and Pakistan. Another point of comparison for Brazil would be as a less developed Japan.
Actually the Brazillians appear to not give a crud about military affairs other than counter narcotics and COIN because that is the true threat to them.
You talk about FX-2 but it’s perpetually delayed.
One area where they’re like India is aircraft manufacture but the Brazillians did it the smart way with emphasis on transports/light airliners (EMB110/EMB111) and trainers (T-25 Universal, EMB312/314, licence production of MB326). They then moved onto turbofan airliners and dead ended with light strike (AMX).
As such they’re now a world leader in aviation and export around the world unlike HAL who can only flog Dhruv off to third world types.
Not yet, no. The next generation is China’s, the generation after that is India’s. In terms of GDP, India should overtake FR/UK within a decade and Japan by 2030. For its part Brazil should overtake Japan in mid-2030s.
India has a number of massive internal problems that hinder it’s development and have done so for decades:
1. Lack of open internal trade – hinders development and investment.
2. High illiteracy rates (1 in 4 Indians can’t read or write, compared to China where literacy is 92%).
3. Inefficient government and extreme bureaucratisation (Chinese government is far more efficient here especially at controlling economic development)
4. Multicultural society with significant cultural and religious tension (China is 90+ Han Chinese with generally same language). India has zones that are borderline civil war (Assam, Kashmir) and occassionally mindless butchery does erupt (e.g.slaughter of Muslims in Gujarat a few years back).
This is why India has not had much luck taking over China for manufactured goods. However good English skills and reasonable University system means India has become the back office for the world for things like software, accounting and call centres.
However as India struggles to resolve the above problems, it can never rise to its potential.
And here I thought ADF personnel were all selfless heroes faithfully serving their country.
People want to do the best for their families. How is that wrong?
thobbesTo be fair, WWIII type situations are not very interesting to discuss in terms of military confrontation, because the end result will always be the same, and quite lopsidedly so too, and may end with nukes. The economic and political implications of a state of total war is also not worth thinking about, because by that stage everything will be *******ed anyway and will take decades to rebuild.
The issue is that any potential Asian confrontation with China (or Russia) is automatically a WWIII type situation.
I do not see potential for limited wars ala 1960s Indian-Chinese War or 1979 invasion of Vietnam or even 1965 and 1971 India-Pakistan Wars.
I think J-8s with BVR could give F-15s a run for their money if used correctly with AEW assets. And I think J-10As can certainly put up a fight with F-15J, I do not see any particular advantage the F-15J (or in any case, non 5th gen and non AESA equipped 4th gen fighters like F-15C, F-16C, F-18C) holds over J-10A and J-11B in the air, apart from HOBS SRAAMs. It’ll take a while for PLAAF to get PL-10 in large quantities.
F-15 has advantage of range/endurance which is critical in any Asian conflict.
Greater endurance gives you more options in a dog fight and takes out an important factor in combat (think issues with Mirage IIIs over Falklands or Bf 109s over Britain).
Also F-15 is more likely to have better quality AWACS support than a J-8 as well potentially jammer support courtesy USN E/A-18Gs.
Whatever the case, the Western style forces have dominated in the electonic combat sphere for decades now.
Given lack of experience and harddata, it is hard to know how Chinese or Russian top of the line systems perform.
thobbesAlso still not sold on Brazil as a major power.
Militarily Brazil is a midget – it’s air force and navy are extremely outdated and small (Brazil has a mere 10 frigates, the most modern ones are from the early 1980s). It’s growth plans are limited too.
Economically and politically it’s influence is restricted to South America, where they always have been.
India might be a military big wig in Indian Ocean but again it doesn’t have the same pull economically and politically.
Both countries lack true potential for major power status in the future – they’ll still be dwarfed economically by the likes of USA, PRC and Japan and they both still appear inward looking and lack the global scope of countries such as France, Russia and UK.
Particularly given the induction of the personnel-draining LHDs.
Actually the real issue seems to be work in mining and oil/gas industries.
I know people in the Navy and also in commercial maritime industry and they said recruiters are often waiting to pounce on any RAN ship coming into port. Money on things such as oil rig supply vessels is excellent and you get a cushy 4 weeks on- 4 weeks off as opposed to long patrols that sometimes go on for months.
thobbesRegarding crews, Australia struggled to maintain crews for Collins class subs.
Doubling the fleet to a dozen larger boats will be unsustainable.
However building 12 larger boats will keep voters in the South Australian electoral division of Port Adelaide happy.
thobbesTomcat, in case you didn’t notice, US-UK 1998 bombing of Iraq saw lots of attacks on Iraqi Air Defence system as well as HQs and even Presidential palaces, even though none of these were connected to WMD.
The real purpose of the attacks was regime destablisation.
Similarly in 1999, NATO targets included bridges in northern Serbia, power plants and other targets not associated with Serbian offensive in Kosovo.
Syrian action will probably be the same – they will pound the crud out of anything that they can, except the chemical weapons themselves due to environmental concerns.
thobbesAll your assumptions are entirely wrong. North Asians can offer nothing and same is Australlia.
All these countries extremely dependend on Chinese trade. (opposite is also true). but other thing is 100% dependency on imported energy.
Fighters/Training/weopons/fuelparts/ manpower expensive. that need very well funcitioning economic system to sustain. sustainment means continous upgrades.(like Japanese F-15s with Old engines. Old engines cant provide the kind of power for new electronics/EW)
This is not possible in North Asia/Australia.
We are talking a hypothetical WWIII style situation with an assumption of Chinese offensive action.
As for things like old Japanese F-15s I’d sooner bet on them than Chinese J-7/J-8s which still form the bulk of the Chinese fighter fleet or even J-10As.
Also Australia is not 100% reliant on imported energy. In fact we’re one of the biggest coal and uranium producers and produce oil locally.
In any war against China, Australia automatically goes into bat for USA regardless of economic factors.
Up to 2012, Australian Defence White Papers were focusing on China as most likely enemy. The rhetoric has since changed in 2013 White Paper but I doubt the military planning has really shifted away from China as potential enemy number 1.
And as in WWII, Australia gives USA a big base with strategic depth – i.e. an unsinkable aircraft carrier.
In fact bases in continental Australia as well as Cocos Islands allows Americans to completely shut down Indian Ocean as a route for Chinese energy imports.
thobbesAs it involves F-35B, Scooter will now take it as fact that RAN is going to take delivery of I400s with F-35Bs. :eagerness:
thobbesThe other thing people have not taken into account is that if the tanker/AWACS is more vulnerable, the opponent will either load up on escorts which reduces number of aircraft for offensive operations or they will operate from further out thus reducing range and time over target.
Either way that’s a good outcome for the J-20/T-50 operator.
thobbesBlitzo:
Great analysis and one that I’ve always believed myself.
Interesting thing is, JH-7As are still in production.
I suspect Q-5s will be replaced with JH-7As, while J-16s will replace earlier Su-30s (which have probably racked up high flight hours by now), and earlier JH-7As.
JH-7B is supposedly just a JH-7A with newer avionics, and may supplement J-16 (the latter of which will act as the PLA’s high end long range strike fighter)
The Chinese were still taking on J-8s and J-7E/Gs when more modern platforms were coming on line.
Despite Goldust’s wet dreams, the Chinese don’t seem to able to keep up production with requirements.
Doesn’t help Soviet era jets (as well as engines) that Chinese one’s are based on have short lifespans.
Besides, IADS cannot project power, which is more or less what thobbes has been saying this whole time — that PLAAF/NAF do not have the assets to meaningfully project power consistent with its aircraft number.
Well put.
Sign In
