KapedaniOk.
1) We have no way of knowing the technical capabilities of the KJ-2000 system. We have very little way of knowing the technical capabilities of the latest E-3s for that matter, or latest E-2s. Simply because its an AESA system, doesn’t tell us anything. And simply because E-3 doesn’t have such a radar yet, doesn’t tell us anything either except that the USAF doesn’t really consider this a priority (since AESA equipped AEW aircraft are exported by the US to allied nations). USN systems take priority. So if the argument was “China can do it and US can’t”…thats a d*** measuring argument.
2) Your examples of the “technical capabilities” of the KJ-2000 are not only meaningless, they’re thinly veiled propaganda (or at best journalistic gibberish you get from any journalistic source in the world). Sachuan province is about 560miles in circumference. Your “source” (which I assume was PLA Daily), claims it covered air traffic in this province and 2 others. Does it mean it covered air traffic SIMULTANEOUSLY, or over the course of a mission? Thats two very different things. But even if we assume 560 miles, this isn’t something unusual…thats a 280 mile detection range. If we’re talking civilian airliners with 100 sq m RCS, detection ranges of 300 miles are not out of the question for E-3s or E-2s. Hell E-2s claim a 400 mile detection range. For what type of targets? We don’t know.
But again, this sounds very much like propaganda (from both sides). What do these ranges mean for real combat situations where the targets being detected are not civilian airliners? Range isn’t even the most important thing here. We have no idea what kind of command and control capabilities these systems have, or what kind of capabilities the receiving platforms have to use this data.
3) This is why I didn’t bring up these supposed “technical superiorities”. We know nothing about it, or about the US systems. You’re just assuming and making up all sorts of “comparisons” which have no validity. Its not as if China developed any of these things on its own. These are all copies of other systems, with somewhat known capabilities. So you heard that the Chinese had scale wind tunnel models of scramjets…therefore this means they are equivalent to X-51. Really?? This isn’t technical anything. This is old-fashioned d*** measuring.
Did any of this really need to be said?
May I ask… are you holding a MA or MSc?
Not really relevant, I brought it up because he insisted on giving economics lectures for no apparent reason. (but since you asked, an MA is not related to either field)
KapedaniMaybe a related question, but weren’t Egyptian Tu-16s employed in DEAD mission in 1973 using AS-5 missiles? How were such missions carried out? What was their success?
KapedaniTell me about it :p Your context is pretty clear; you want a d*** measuring contest.
Kapedani –
The purpose of such a system would be to passively track and target a contact, be it either conventional or LO, at ranges greater than at least twice that of what F-35’s EOTS could passively detect.
Ok I understand. But such a system would still need to be slaved to a radar, and would not allow for identification at the ranges such a stand-off platform would realistically be operating from (unless I’m underestimating the capabilities of this)
KapedaniLol..very true.Even accounting for serviceability , transit and rotation
Well yeah. Accounting for actual sorties they can put up, assuming no “attempts on their life”, it means they can have 1 max 2 positions covered.
Oh, no doubt! U.S. levels going down, ChiCom levels going up
Come on! 11 carriers, 1000+ combat aircraft, 90 aegis ships etc etc. PLAN has at best 2-4 ships in total that compare, and 11 total ships that are somewhat modern. USN levels aren’t going down, and of course PLAN will improve over time. But as I said earlier, this isn’t a “gap”…this is the Grand Canyon.
But of course, the comparison is empty. The PLAN isn’t intending on competing with the USN. Its competing with Taiwan and other regional powers
China will try to establish strong presence in other theatres (e.g. Indian Ocean, via Pakistan and Burma) and that has to be countered.
There’s plenty of other navies in Asia that will do that. Thats not USN’s job.
I’d say factor two to three in the 2020/25 timeframe
2, 3x levels will still mean it will be several times smaller than USN, still. But I don’t think thats what they’re going for. And if they do, they’d be wasting their time.
The U.S. will have no more than hald a dozen carriers available at the max,
Half a dozen you say? The plan is to retain 10, with the Fords replacing the Nimitz class over the next several decades.
But not all is lost The ChiComs will be pretty naked for a looong time when it comes to breaking out of the barrier island chain and establishing robust links to the resource areas of the south and in Africa (Seems familiar? Dust off War Plan Orange and have a look at the Japanese Operations B, J, L, U). There’s no use and no realistic chance of winning a war on the extended Chinese peripherie. But outside it’s a whole different ball game.
The US and USN have absolutely no interest in hindering China’s economic activity or ties with other countries, in Africa or elsewhere. Not only is it not that job, its not in their interest. There’s a huge paranoia here, often from both sides, which is far out of proportion to reality.
P.S.: Kapedani, are you working for Rendon?
Never heard of them.
KapedaniDistiller unfortunately you’re right. Qaddafi achieved what he need to…proved that he cannot be overthrown even by a massive rebellion. Now no one will get a similar idea.
The UN, again, proves its uselessness. But it will be interesting to see how the Europeans handle this without direct US air involvement (or are we still expecting to see this materialize?)
KapedaniRand = a bunch of policy wonks
Yep. Thats what I’ve been trying to say.
please go back and read my initial point again.
The original argument was on relative technological edge of particular platform in USAF/USN service vs. those in PLAAF service.
not operational capability.
please do not make these twisted arguments.
Yes, I am aware of E-2s if that’s what you are referring to. and guess what. they can’t and dont have the range and capability of KJ-2000.
and E-2Ds are still in flight test. and no, it still doesn’t have the capability of KJ-2000.
5 KJ-2000s, with information based off PLA Daily on their supposed capabilities, and we have established already that the PLAAF has an edge over the US in AEW platforms.
Well what else is new in this thread? Hell…I can see why we might need the B-1R now :p
and no, you haven’t covered why J-10 should have a dismal sortie rate.
17th March 2011 05:23 post covers it pretty well
Two very similar scenarios, both in distances involved, number of aircraft involved (on the attacking side at least), and classes of aircraft involved. It took NATO hundreds of tanker aircraft and countless sorties to support such an operation. And you’re asking us to believe the PLAAF can do the same…with nothing of the sort?
NATO didn’t know what fuel tanks were?
well, with analytical ability like that shown above
Thats an awesome answer. The real question is, what exactly did you think you were going to gain by mentioning such silly (and wrong) economic comparisons? You thought you said something insightful when you mentioned that Chinese engineers start off at 5-10 times less than US ones? Do you know why that is? Must be racism…of course.
They make less not because they’re “worst” than US engineers…but because the overall Chinese economy can only utilize their input to produce 5-10 times less value than the US economy. A nuclear physicist in Zimbabwe is worth absolutely zero dollars…not because he isn’t smart, but because there’s nothing the economy can do with those skills. Thats the fundamental economic equation at play here. Now…of course…you want to play d*** measuring games here. I can’t help you with that.
KapedaniI really wonder why should mainland China attack Formosa? I think we left behind that possibility couple of years ago already. And in case there’d really be a conflict between these two, the mainland would probably use a blockade, not a direct attack. At the end of the day I strongly doubt the U.S. would go to war with China over Formosa.
No doubt, you are right.
having to fight a superior (at least quantitatively) enemy
You’re assuming that in 10-15 years time, the PLAN can numerically approach USN levels? Thats even less realistic than the outlandish scenarios presented throughout this thread.
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.
??? You do realize that the Chinese government doesn’t spend dollars…do you?
Yep, US government is extremely efficient. yep.
You didn’t even understand that it was the US government I was talking about.
yep, and an average aerospace engineer’s starting salaries is about 5-10 times smaller in china as those In US.
Yes. I am also an engineer, and have worked plenty with Chinese engineers (and been there multiple times)…and there’s a reason why they get paid 5-10 times less. Oh wait thats racism too.
Kapedanithen tell me why it is rubbish besides these stupid one liners.
Rand has a political agenda where they constantly come up with these silly studies, which are aimed to provide one point and one point only (provide political excuses for continued funding of projects for whatever defense contractor paid to have the study done). These studies need to resort to incredibly over-the-top scenarios, with very silly strategies and tactics.
This is the 1950s all over again.
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.
The closest point in China is about 170km from Taiwan. Conventional artillery rockets?? What would the accuracy of such munitions be over 170+km ranges?
And I guess Taiwan is a sitting duck with no means of retaliation?
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?
What can I say! If PLA Daily says such claims, who am I to disagree.
curious, Why would those J-10s be loitering “in middle of the ocean?”.
Your “scenario” was that they would be loitering outside of SAM coverage. Well the Taiwan strait is pretty chocked with SAM coverage, and loitering there puts them in pretty good range for just about any type of aerial opponent too. So the only places “outside of SAM coverage” (assuming no naval units in this scenario), are out to sea. But its a silly scenario to being with.
why should any one distinguish between these two?
The difference is US aircraft over Taiwan, or US aircraft over Beijing. You see the difference here?
Full scale ground invasions of a sovereign state has been initiated on lesser ground than that.
Hey! Go for it. See what happens.
I would love to hear how you arive at the “dismal sortie rate. ” part from J-10. stuff coming out of your “mouth” again?
Already covered.
spell it out then, how will US going after mainland china, if US bases that are mounting sorties to fight a air war over taiwan are hit.
The carrier-borne fleet of the USN is bigger than the entire PLAAF. THAT…is also a difference between the different levels of engagements of this hypothetical (and by this point incredibly silly) scenario.
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.
Well its pretty obvious. E-3 is not even the main component of an AEW network in the Pacific. Second, the US has about 20 times more AEW aircraft than China (25 times if we include Taiwanese and Japanese assets too). Did this really need to be said? 5 AWACs are a significant threat? (meriting all sorts of silly ideas presented here, from B-1Rs to AAM armed ballistic missiles?)
Kapedaniwere on earth is the basis for suez parallels?
Don’t worry about it. In the end its all the “wests” fault anyway.
But, does the US even have the assets deployed in the Med for this sort of operation? Can France and England do it on their own?
KapedaniI 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!
Thats some A-grade bull s***. I’m a business PhD candidate, and in freshman year Macro I might give you a B- for that. You try this line of thinking after freshman year, and you fail.
Kapedaniif PPP is factored in Chinese central government budget and tax revenue as a whole is already on par with that of US federal government out lays.
Using PPP to measure government budgets, is like saying millimeters are equal to inches. 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, 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.
Oh wait! Thats racism!
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.
Thats a terribly poor strategy for dealing that will result in nothing. 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.
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.
Who says one must require another airfields to neutralize Airfields?
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.
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?
:rolleyes:
they are already ponding you from those bases anyways.
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”.
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.
Yeah. And its rubbish.
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.
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.
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.
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.
and use its IADS network and AWACS+fighter screens to play mostly defense, not offensive
??? Defense from what?
while gross underestimating the chinese capability in face of pretty solid evidence to the contrary
Like??
If you want to have a decent technical conversation, i am happy to oblige.
Like the claims that a J-10 is equivalent to a Eurofighter?
KapedaniMay 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.
And when it gets into a combat situation and has to jettison those tanks, will it be swimming back home?
Of course a J-10 can, depending on the load-out, make the flight to Taiwan and back from the main airbases. Thats not really the issue. The issue is, if you want to present an air-to-air threat to the opposition, you have to linger around there for a bit, maneuver, engage afterburners maybe. J-10 is very far from an ideal aircraft to do any of this at such distances.
Without massive tanker support, such missions can be at best sporadic. Its not as if we don’t have similar combat operations to draw an example from. We have lots. Look at Kosovo…similar distances involved (actually usually shorter), similar number of aircraft, comparable classes…involving half of the entire NATO tanker fleet (hundreds of aircraft) and God knows how many sorties flown by them.
Now you are asking us to believe that the PLAAF…can put the number of planes needed, with the sortie rates needed, for the duration needed…against similarly-distanced targets…against a numerically very significant opponent…WITHOUT the tanker support? What can the Chinese do that NATO couldn’t in 1999??
(oh and please don’t insult me by again saying its racist of me to assume the Chinese can’t! )
and those bases are close to China, too.
Okinawa is about 500 miles away from the nearest Chinese airfield. 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?
The PLAAF/PLAN/PLANAF are almost certain to continue to close the gap with USAF/USN capabilities over the next twenty years,
Sure. But thats not a gap. Thats the grand canyon.
Today, it’s more like 20
The PLAAF is comparable today to the USAF/USN from 1991?? Not really.
That was the whole point of the Rand proposal
Rand has an agenda. If you get paid to produce these studies, you get paid to produce certain results. And if you have to make up all sorts of fantasies and really silly stuff to prove those results, well thats your job.
KapedaniIf a few units defect to the rebel side the leadership will change.
Why would anyone defect to the rebels anymore? Q has the money, he’s winning, and all the rebels can do is start changing those signs in a hurry to say “please give us a no-fly zone”. This looks pretty much over.
Russia has no real interst to interfere,
Yeah. Its one thing to say “we don’t care”. Its another to say “those planes shown on videos bombing…those are fake!” Russia cares…it cares to get some Qaddafi money.
KapedaniRii, well yes we can have a very broad view of what the major themes will be in the next 20 years (and we’d still probably be wrong). But not in the type of discussion that some people insist on taking this into. (ie they’re interested in you-know-what measuring)
except the couple on taiwan itself they’ll have to come from japan at best, no
Yes, but there are at least 3 Japanese airfields close to Taiwan. Okinawa’s airfields are about 350 miles, and 2 more airfields in islands closer to Taiwan. Plus carriers based aviation.
I could envision two LW IRSTs (maybe enlarged 260mm-280mm aperture derivatives) integrated into the forward looking sphere.
What would be the purpose of such a system if the intended mission is as a stand-off platform? Also, can’t Sniper pods do?
RAND: Airbase vulnerability to conventional cruise missile and ballistic missile attack
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_r…006/MR1028.pdf
There is also a similar CSBA report about anti access threats to theatre air-bases. floating around.
A terribly dated study (12 years old now), with a lot of simplistic assumptions (cruise missiles derived from Serbian UAVs flying at 70knots??)
KapedaniYeah we never do, do we…
Apparently we know enough to assume that a research project in scramjet technology is the “equivalent” of the X-51 🙂 Why the hell not?
Isn’t that what I’ve been asking all along…?
No thats the answer people keep ignoring. Trying to figure out how many aircraft in PLAAF inventory have the capability of such combat missions, isn’t particularly hard.
Depending on what kind of conflict unfolds… if they have closer bases to operate from…
Again, not a particularly hard thing to figure out, that aircraft operating with massive tanker support, aircraft operating from carriers in close proximity to the combat zone, or aircraft operating over their own airbases, are going to have a much higher sortie rate than planes flying long-range missions on their own.
Still, where do you get your specs from?
Again, an aircraft in the F-16 class is not going to have combat ranges equivalent to an F-15E.
Sign In
