KapedaniLet the you-know-what measuring begin!
Yeah, the J-20’s really an F-117 spliced with a Mig 1.44 and the PLAAF are still flying J-6s… Ooooh and the Varyag is still due to be a casino. Can’t have good security for the slot machines these days without ciws and aesas!
An excellent argument.
Isn’t it usually?
What else would it be?
on the topic of AWACS.
as far as actual array technology goes KJ-2000 edges E-3 out. I don’t think anyone should doubt that. and their system can volume search, track, act as a datalink, electronic attack and listening, at same time, on the same attenna.this kind of capability in one platform would not materialize until the E-10 buys.
at least on this front, they are ahead of E-3C. IMHO.
the advantage E-3 got is there is way more of E-3 then the 4-5 birds KJ-2000 fleet. and it is a more mature system.
Thats a wonderfully deep assessment, and no doubt very interesting.
Except that you forgot that E-3s are unlikely to be the only, or primary AEW asset to be deployed in the Pacific.
Numbers absolutely do matter, but interestingly numbers and unit technological edge are not in USAF favor at same time any more, USAF would have to resort to numerical superiority again, at least in this specific area.
The US has a numerical disadvantage over China in AEW platforms? Oh boy
on the topic of racism…
Mr. Kapedani conviently left out the whole quote, instead choosing the first part. here is my quote in its entirety.“of course I would expect you to brush these examples off as a mere propaganda and/or un-reliable un-tested less-capable systems, as those mere commie/orientals can’t possibly be technically capable to do these things.
then so was Chennault’s initial reports on the performance of Mitsubishi Zero back in 1939. “
as we can see, context is not one of Mr. Kapedani’s strong points.
Well yours was such a strong argument, there was nothing I COULD say about it.
Kapedani-sigh- I use the term “sino-X-37B” loosely… How many other notable unmanned space planes have there been in the last few years?
Thats entirely irrelevant. We don’t even know if this Chinese thing even flew.
I think most of us understand 500 nm is +900 km… So?
So…saying I said so and he said that, reveals nothing since we are talking about two different distances. I’m saying, that the major Chinese airbases are at least 350 miles from Taiwan. It doesn’t matter how many there are 575 miles or 1000 miles. The question is, how many aircraft in the PLAAF inventory have the capability of a 350 mile combat radius? And what does this do for sortie rates? Taiwanese or US aircraft will be flying from much closer bases, over friendly territory, and can have a turn around rate much quicker.
So realistically, there’s no possibly of “outnumbering”…which makes this B-1R concept redundant.
Yeah they have references for a reason… Quoting the reference isn’t different to quoting the page, just the latter sounds marginally less credible. (Combat radius is 1100km, btw, not 1500)
Where do you get your specs, then?
Oh! A reference? Here’s what the “reference” says:
Recent Chinese media reports, however, offer the following:
ie, the reference is Chinese press. I don’t need any “specs” to know that an aircraft in the class of an F-16 is not going to have a combat radius equivalent to an F-15E. But then again, stranger things have been claimed in this thread.
Maybe the USAF should buy a couple
And you think the USAF doesn’t have them, because it…can’t? The US sells them to its allies. The USN has the E-2D. You never through that maybe, a USAF program is a low priority?
Kapedaniand here is a Kh-25 on a Su-30MKI
Just a small correction, but there’s no Kh-25 on that aircraft.
KapedaniThe rebels have CLEARLY and repeatedly declared they did not want any foreign intervention, what else do you need in order to prevent you from sticking your nose into everything?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/…71Q1CT20110227
You serve the mankind much better…
:rolleyes: Thats one massive fail of yours. If only you checked DATES of your articles:
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_17600622?nclick_check=1
But this is why its a good thing America didn’t get involved. Between anti-western “westerners” (look above), and anti-western “easterners”, there is absolutely nothing the US can ever do that will make these people happy. Its like dealing with brick walls. They already declared that their defeat…as usual…is America’s fault!
Mohamad Ahmed, a rebel fighter in Misrata told Reuters by telephone:
“The fighters here and the people of Misrata hold the international community responsible for the fall of Zawiyah and for all the deaths that happened.”
Maybe they’re right. Its not our fight. Let them go ask Russia or China to help them.
KapedaniWe’ve already seen pictures of the Sino X-37B/Shenlong?
See, again here’s the problem with these assumptions. A car with 4 wheels is not like every other car with 4 wheels. A sub-scale shuttle prototype is not the same like all sub-scale shuttle prototypes. Such vehicles have been tested since the 1970s by both the US and the USSR. In what way is that Chinese program in any way similar to X-37B?
Cause its got wings and flies? Yeah…and Chinese tanks are just like the M1.
In post 74 he said only 4 airfields closer than 350 miles to taiwan, and plawolf later quoted rand saying 27 airbaes within 500nm of taiwan… I personally think the latter gives a broader view
I don’t think some people understand that 500nm is 575 miles, or about 930km. If he had gone to 1000nm, he would have counted 350 airbases. Then he REALLY would have won.
J-10s — I quoted a ~1500km combat radius a few pages back, from wiki who got it from richard fisher
😮 J-10 has the combat range of an Su-34 and an F-15E? Yeah…go wikipedia
KapedaniSure, I said “not as potent”, but You can’t deny the width and depth of their programs. show me who one else on earth is developing/flight testing a X-37-type Spaceplane, an-asat missile, and a stealth fighter program at same time? besides the Americans?
Who else on earth is doing ANYTHING? Oh yeah I forgot…Iran :p
once again you are twisting my words
Thats a funny joke coming form you.
They have comparable organization and comparably programs
No they don’t.
well, has USAFfielded an AWACS system with an active electronically scanned array, Today?
:rolleyes: Israel sells them on discount.
Does USN have a 2000km range anti-shipping ballistic missile, in service, Today?
That anti-ship ballistic missile story was the best joke the Chinese have come up with in a while. I can’t believe people took that joke seriously.
of course I would expect you to brush these examples off as a mere propaganda and/or un-reliable un-tested less-capable systems, as those mere commie/orientals can’t possibly be technically capable to do these things.
Oh yes you got it! Its because of race.
Kapedanithey pretty much have the same mirror program USAF/DARPA as far as toys-in-work goes. that goes all the wayfrom predator drones to X-51.
If we are to assume that a car with 4 wheels is the same as any car with 4 wheels, then yes they have the same “mirror” programs. Ignoring actual capabilities and technology, and relying on mock-ups, grainy pictures and “looks”.
It would be ridiculous to assume China is comparable to USAF or DARPA. But of course we don’t have to assume. Show me one such program.
Rand’s study presume US and its allies would have technological lead in whatever air conflict that will may come, and their adversary would not be anywhere close. I am not sure that presumption would hold true any longer in 2030-2050 time frame if not earlier
No one can even imagine what the USAF would look like in 2030, and yet you can imagine what the PLAAF will look like. Not a very convincing argument. 2030 is 20 years away, and F-22 will be a 40 year old design; about as relevant as a Mig-23 today.
It’s not desperate, it takes out key elements at a very early stage of the fight.
Key elements of what? A handful of AWACS and a handful of tankers? Launching a ballistic missile in the vicinity of mainland China, to target something which can be dealt with very comfortably with conventional means, while possibly starting WW3? (how would the Chinese respond to an apparent ballistic missile attack?)
Sounds like some nutty idea out of the 1950s.
in some specific platform areas it is not true even today.
Such as?? 🙂
KapedaniEgypt and the Saudis in particular should man up and take the lead on this.
Saudi has already declared a Fatwa that protests are un-Islamic and against the Sharia. The last place on earth that will help the rebels is Saudi.
Let them deal with it themselves…like Egypt dealt with Yemen through chemical gas attacks, or Assad dealt with his people in Hama. It will “legitimize” the struggle, and allow academicians to sleep better at night knowing that no “westerner” influence was there. Its the “wests” fault anyway, so why are we blaming Q?
KapedaniThe West did what it does best, hem and haw until the situation has degenerated to the point that debate is academic. The rebels are finished.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. There’s no satisfying people who have an ideological axe to grind.
If the “west” had intervened, it would have “delegitimized” the rebels (even though the rebels were asking for assistance). Well, ok. They can run away to Egypt now and keep their “legitimacy”. I hope they enjoy it. If the west doesn’t intervene, its the west’s fault.
I’m glad we didn’t intervene. There is nothing the US can ever do in the ME that will ever satisfy them, or America’s critics around the world. You can’t deal with brick walls.
I wonder who will be the first world “leader” to go visit Qaddafi and congratulate him. Any bets?
KapedaniBallistic deliverly of AAM via MRBM or IRBM, targeting force multiplier platforms (AEW, tankers) would be worth the money.
Thats an even more crazy idea. How would these missiles be targeted? And equally importantly, what threat exists out there that would warrant such a desperate measure? AEW/tankers? Who has a fleet of such aircraft that make the US lose any sleep?
An air force much of which didn’t come up to fight, & a significant part of which ran away. Not a poor enemy?
Well thats the point, isn’t it. An air force which on paper had 500 fighters, on paper was highly experienced and combat hardened…In reality, it wasn’t.
And here we are talking about another paper air force which supposedly is so overwhelming, desperate measures like missile trucks and ballistic missile delivery systems have to be thought of. Why?
KapedaniIt doesn’t really make any sense. Its a half-baked idea. If the problem is “5-th generation aircraft” (and an RCS reduced Flanker, 5-th generation does not make), than the B-1R concept adds no value. If the hypothetical problem is a numerically superior enemy, thats just practically impossible. There’s no one out there that comes close to the USAF or USN, just in terms of numbers of aircraft they can deploy. The Chinese don’t scratch the surface. The USN alone has more F-18s in service than the entirety of the PLAAF fighter force (and there are far greater limitations to the PLAAF deploying that many planes in theater, than there are for the USN to deploy its carriers)
But of course, numbers aren’t really all that important. Its sorties which they can deploy, and the places they can deploy their planes…that matter (even if we consider that ALL PLAAF fighters are credible threats, which is far from the truth). What kind of sortie rates do you think PLAAF can maintain given its limitations; geographical, logistics, training etc? How many do you think USAF/USN can fly?
If the distance is the problem, US has bases in Okinawa already, which are closer to Taiwan than the mainstay of the PLAAF.
The US has not fought such “poor” enemies as you make it out to be. Forget Kosovo. In the First Gulf War, the US faced an air force with nearly 500 fighters, and had a 44:1 exchange rate.
And most importantly, what sort of “enemy” pilots continue “chasing” F-22s or F-35s, which they can’t see, after a couple dozen of their buddies around them have just dropped from the sky, from unknown directions, unknown number of enemies and unknown enemy strength? They’re running home as fast as they can, they’re not pressing the fight anymore.
KapedaniAfterall the guys who come up with this idea probably thought this one throu..
Thats not necessarily likely. The idea seems half baked, against an imaginary scenario.
KapedaniTo say that Penghu is “isolated islands” while it is only 50 km in middle of taiwan straight
Wow. You got me. An island 50km away, isn’t isolated.
btw when I meant Penghu it will be the whole thing.
Thats very interesting. What other gem did this PLA PR plan have to offer?? :rolleyes:
F22 don’t got the range. F22 don’t have the deep belly.
Compared to what? :rolleyes: F-22’s combat radius, subsonic, with no tanks, is over 1,000km.
there are systems that can shoot down the SDB as well, but that’s another story
As opposed to other weapon systems which can’t be shot down? On paper…lots of things are possible.
However what USAF do need is a new strike aicraft three time larger than the F-35.
Yes I know you said that, but it still doesn’t explain why.
but really a B-1 as a strike fighter
Again this is where you make it complicated. You keep calling it a “strike” fighter. What does “strike” have to do with it? This is an air-air conversion, for air-air purposes. You instead are talking about something unrelated.
So the F-22 is a striker aircraft now Sinse when?
Since it could carry bombs. Besides, F-22 isn’t the only stealth platform at the USAF’s disposal (which I hinted at, by also including JSF and UCAVs in the question of…what else is better at “strike” then them??)
Quite optimal to have a tanker fleet on your six during such missions you describe above
Yeah, so?
KapedaniYep, a strike aircraft.
How does that help anybody in aerial combat?
How about an aircraft beeing able to carry an armament inventory that actually do the term ‘strike aircraft’ justice..
What other aircraft in the world (except B-2) has the strike capabilities of an F-22 (or JSF, or UCAV) armed with JDAMs or SDBs? If you can lob a bunch of SDBs from 100miles away without being seen…what more is needed? The concept of a “strike aircraft” is fundamentally changing (and has changed).
KapedaniAnother typical generalization is that people take F-4 Phantom II, then take a Russian MiG-21 and say – hey, look how those Soviet-operated birds are primitive..
So now, let’s take Su-15TM, compare it to F-5A and claim how primitive and less complex the American designs were.. Fair enough?
No no you don’t get off that easily. F-4 and MiG-21 are contemporaries. The rest of what you’re talking about…aren’t. As a comparison for looking at the technological base of the two industries…at a point in time…this comparison certainly is valid.
Sign In
