JSR… I didn’t know there was a connection between having onyx AShMs and the ability of a country to upgrade scuds.
But okay, let’s say some of vietnam’s scuds are upgraded.
Vietnam will also be introducing Sub launched cruise missiles. Billistic missiles are the simplest upgrade considering every thing else they are upgrading.
With what, their mighty 60-96 scud TELs that may or may not have extended range and some form of guidance? Or their so vastly potent air force strike power that includes 24 MKVs and 150 Su-22s?
Oil refinery is big target. if Vietnam managed to hit Oil refinery with billistic missile in border conflict. it will create considerable transport and economic disruption. The cost of sustaining a war will multiply.
Agreement! Progress! 😀
But yes, precision guided IRBMs like DF-21C and long range LACMs like CJ-10 can be fired from very far away (1500km to 2500km away, but it would be a waste to use DF-21C in this situation, unless it’s for very deep and important targets)shorter range SRBMs like 600km DF-15 and 500km DF-11A will need to move a little bit to hit locations deeper into vietnam’s territory though.
Your assuming China has unlimited quantity of missiles that it can just use almost against anyone and not maintain any buffer stock. This simply not case. China has big budget but i believe most of it is wasted on too many non operational projects.
Logistics is always a challenge during conflicts. But let’s make an estimate for how many “wartime” assets PLA will have to redeploy in a hypothetical invasion of vietnam on top of what they already have in field?
For instance, there are some five combat aircraft divisions PLAAF/NAF have in theatre near vietnam, (each fighter division is some 72-84 aircraft depending on the type, and I’m not familiar with the orbat, unfortunately, so I can’t say how many have the reach to strike into vietnam, how many are BVR or PGM capable, etc. But point is you have a total of 360-420 aircraft in theater that do not need to rely on the extra logistics of redeployment)
So you can sustain war with 300 to 400 aircraft. when you increase sorties these planes will need alot of maintainance. so that not many will be available.
For the lulz, this is the distribution of VPAF regiments, with about four immediately available in theater, and half of them being purely Mig-21s.
MIG-21 is effective when it is under GCI.
You’re still avoiding my question, is there any policy for militaries on earth where soldiers are paid more for deployed service as opposed to peacetime service? I’m honestly curious. And if there is, the question is whether PLA can afford it.
It is not policy or some criteria but you have to look how huge is Veterans affair & health budget in US after Irak war. and you want to fight much higher intensity war with much more soliders and not even considering these costs.
Again, this is irrelevant depending on how committed china is to a vietnam invasion.
China’s economy will suffer in a taiwan contingency too, but are willing to sacrifice a good deal if they declare independence. If (for some obscure reason) they decide that they’re willing to sacrifice a similar amount to attack vietnam (again, like, why?)
But humouring this scenario has eaten enough of my time, good day to all.
Taiwan on paper has alot of weopons but it is now where as commited to defending itself. see its Sub procurement and shrinking budgets. Taiwanese populations simply cannot afford large scale military and higher standard of living further prevent any sacrifice.
JSRThe HAL built FGFA variant was to enter production around 2022. A customized PAKFA (as is now on the cards) on the other hand will be available at roughly the same time as for the Russian Air Force.
The point is India hasnt shown any intention of buying PAK-FA before 2022. first India has to deal with MMRCA.
Please present evidence of China wanting to buy the PAKFA in bulk (the J-20/31 promises are not relevant).
It is not about wanting to buy but rather forced to buy PAKFA. you have to look around Chinese aerospace industry failings. start with helicopters & trainers.
Yes indeed. As a matter of fact, Russia has ordered 30 Su-30SM since January 2013, while India has ordered zero aircraft in the same period. Clearly, the era of acquiring aircraft from Russia has come to an end for IAF. Honestly, your arguments get more juvenile everyday.
Again it is about overall value to UAC. I gave you 5 years worth of trend lines. i am not even including minor things like Yak-130 or signed IL-476 orders for Ruaf. India simply dont bring that much value that it want to bargain for PAK-FA tech access.
Simple fact is that, between one-third and half of all PAKFAs produced were to be for the Indian military. Even at the lower end, the order is large enough not be dwarfed by Russian domestic orders.
It is the production rate and time line. I am going to bet on that PAKFA order for Ruaf will be several times larger and quicker induction.
India induction are way into the future that will have no bearing on negotiations for next 10 years. see example of creating 20 Ton drone from PAK-FA project. that is the priority.
The Indian interest in the aircraft is as much for the technical access (which isn’t assured), R&D exposure and work-share, as it is for its combat potential. If its a simple case of buying off-the-shelf, the F-35 becomes a very an eligible alternative.
how so F-35 is eligible alternative with its shorter range and lower performance. It is not a high altitude Mach 2+ fighter.
JSRErr, yes, it usually costs less to buy an off the shelf weapons system than develop your own industry to develop your own.
But hey, if you have any rumours that VPA have managed to give their scuds anything close to precision guidance and a range increase, hit me with some sources.
when so many other countries that dont have Bation like coastal defence system have upgraded there Scuds and you make assumption Vietnamese are not doing it.
http://defense-studies.blogspot.com/2009/04/vietnam-stocking-up-scuds.html
I don’t know, what’s the larger geopolitical situation at hand? Are other countries abstaining from choosing sides? If so, then fuel shouldn’t be a big problem, unless VPN suddenly reveal they have a fleet of super quiet SSKs that can strike every oil tanker china has, but even then, there are land based sources from central asia.
I am saying US has Kuwait to provide reliable supply of fuel for invasion. you just cant do invasion on empty tanks. suppose Vietnam hits sole oil refinery near to borders. how many thousands trucks of fuel needed for transporting fuel and its likely disruption on overall economy and transport. China is big overpopulated country.
Yes, but assuming there is a build up to the conflict between vietnam, it will take just a few days to reposition the TELs to put vietnamese bases in range.
And IRBMs and LACMs have such great range, even if they were stationed right in fujian province opposite taiwan, they could still hit vietnamese bases close to the border.
ok so you want to fire missiles from so far away.
I don’t disagree, but it’s a hell of a lot better than VPAF. Then again, I doubt PLA will be dropping in paratroopers anyway. Certainly we don’t know how well PLA’s transport fleet can support the logistics of however sizable an operation this is.
Fortunately, vietnam is right on the border and accessible by ground if PLA chooses to invade (for whatever nonsensical reason), and they don’t need a fleet of Y-20s and Il-76s to transport cargo halfway across the world.
you still dont get. You still need transport planes to assemble supplies from central locations to border quickly. China simply not rich that stores supplies on all its borders.
…And wartime. Or do US soldiers get paid more if they do a tour of afghanistan?
if you involve volunteer force in long term wars. your likely lose them if they dont have long term incentives that are in addition to peace time.
I’ll leave you to your conclusion here, all I can say is that a war will always have adverse effects on an economy, I don’t know how badly it will effect china or vietnam, and we don’t know how much china or vietnam is willing to suffer economically either.
China is more used to consumption than Vietnam. It is likely to suffer more. Due to high consumption China is extremely risk averse.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/503987/20130905/china-syria-russia-g20-petersburg-zhu-guangyao.htm
US Strikes on Syria Risk Dangerous Oil Price Hike, Warns China
JSRYou’re talking about evidence?
What evidence do you have that the first PAK FA deliveries to India will happen only in 2022? What evidence do you have that the level of customization requested will hurt Sukhoi’s profitability? What evidence do you have about the Chinese abandoning their domestic programs and ordering a substantial number of the PAK FAs? What evidence do you have about Russia using exports to China as a bargaining chip in negotiations with India? What evidence do you have about a Russian domestic order so large that it completely eclipses the aircraft’s potential exports?
There is consistent reports of India getting first PAK-FA around 2022. There is no mention of getting any planes earlier than that period. I diont say China abondoning its programes. simply the programes will not work as promise
Since 2009. Russia has ordered 48 Su-35, 140 Su-34, 60 Su-30SM, 24 MIG-29K, 30 Su-27SM/Su-30M + alot of upgrades.
This just fighter component not including upgrades to bombers and creating Tu-214R & A-100.
Since 2009. India has only ordered 42 MKI, 29 MIG-29K. + some upgrades. MTA is using X-seciton of IL-476.
You see the trend. India budget orders are getting smaller and smaller as we towards second half of this decade. so the value of India to Russia aerospace industry is decreasing.
Evidence about buying PAK FA in lieu of J-20/J-35 please.
J-20/J-31 buying does not prevent China from getting PAK-FA as there is highly likely chance that China programes are less than optimal due to various reasons. Chinese aerospace industry is so weak that even Westerners are bailing out on projects like C919/ARJ-21.
They could have had these negotiations in 2020 if your bright ideas held any appeal. The US doesn’t need foreign input into the F-35 anymore than Russia does. Accepting Indian participation is not to make it ‘better or cheaper’ but as a quid pro quo for substantial production orders. That’s an obvious fact that even you should be able to comprehend.
US may need input from British/Norway/Italy/Germany firms as they are very developed in certain area. None of the list of countries have any rights on F-35 exports or full access to technology.
This is simply not the case with India. India active participation does not bring anything to the table. when India orders are so far into the future. once India start ordering planes they may customize the planes at that time.
JSRPolitical and economic factors have little to do with maintaining strong operations and information security protocols.
you dont have any evidence of Algeria operational security being less than India/Turkey. so why you are assuming it is less? when that government has taken very strong stands. so i think they take there security seriously.
We weren’t discussing Japan or South Korea. In any case, neither has a front-line role in tackling the Iran issue.
i said China issue is similar to Iran. where Russia threatening to supply more advance weopons further its bargaining position.
Don’t invent things. The 18 aircraft delivered to Malaysia were numerous enough to be customized to their requirements, but the 18 units per year delivered to the IAF (to increase as IAPO deliveries begin) are oh-so-slow that it casts a shadow over a completely different program.
that was 2003 now it is 2013. Highly unlikely those kind of deals will be cheap even for yesterday technology. since it will not cheap so customers will tend to avoid it.
Mean much or mean less doesn’t matter as long as the Chinese are committed to it.
Chinese are commited to alot of things. End up buying refurbished IL-76 and ordering obsolete engines in hundreds for obsolete airframes. (airframes are designed around engine weight).
As for the rest, the Russian govt clearly doesn’t share these muddled ideas yours. There’s a market in India for at least 144 aircraft today (which may rise to 300 units and beyond). It may not be around in 2022. It takes a particular brand of thinking (reference to you) to be dismissive of the export market, where even the US with 2400+ domestic orders for the F-35, takes exports very seriously.
They shared these ideas thats why you have these long negotiations on R&D phase. that 144 aircraft market is post 2022. so there is nothing to share so ahead of time. US cannot be that much dismissive of export partners as i believe some export partners bring critical R&D at lower cost. so far there is nothing to suggest that Indian R&D will make PAK-FA better or cheaper.
JSRTurkey’s been a member of the NATO for over 60 years. And the IAF has fought in two full scale conflicts and actively trains for war against two modern adversaries. So yes, it would not be surprising to find out that they’re more concerned about operational security than Algeria.
Turkey is NATO member but it is erratic in its decisions (see blocking of US ground divisions at last moment in 2003). Turkey is also highy exposed to foreign energy and currency pressures. It simply cant be trusted with F-35 production chain when even airforce pilots are abondoning it.
Algeria stalwart ally of Russia in Arab world. It simply say no to Libya/Syria. It ignored every one else and swiftly attacked BP-Strait oil gas field that has been attacked. It is country with independent policy. It has procured S-300PMU-2, T-90 & 636 kilo subs and negotiating for choppers. I am not sure why it cannot be trusted when all it is procuring a end product. no claims on R&D.
A sale to China is significant to India only if the IAF operates the PAKFA. Not otherwise. (Also FYI India isn’t a part of the coalition against Iran).
The point i am making is sell to China not related to India but more to Japan/SK. It may be Russia policy to threaten these countries by holding Joint exercises with China in Pacific. Japan is now ready for energy deals with Russia.
Yes lets take a look at the Su-30 orders –
Russia – 75
PR China – 100
India – 270
Others – 125
Yo do realize that i said induction rate. India induction rates are so slow that it may not be profitable for customizable PAK-FA for IAF. considering the less advanced Su-30 history.
China has at least two stealth fighter programs in the pipeline and isn’t going to order significant numbers of the PAKFA. Algeria, Malaysia and Vietnam have expressed no pressing need for an expensive fifth generation aircraft. With India out of the picture, the PAKFA order book is bound to be hit hard.
China stealth programes does not mean much. Ruaf budget is so big that there wont be any export production capacity for PAK-FA until 2025. India trying to buy PAK-FA technologies upfront. when its production version will some where comes along 2022. so why Russia will be in hurry for R&D sell 10 years ahead of time. when it can finsih R&D by itself and sell the planes in 2022.
JSRThe problem with you is your assuming too much.
Vietnam can afford Yakhont coastal defence system but it cannot afford improving guidance of its Scud missiles when it created fuel for it and so many countries have increased its range?
when US invaded Iraq it has readied Oil refinery supplies from Kuwait. What is the status of fuel supply for such invasion in China-Vietnam border.
Your assuming China can put same number of SRBM/LACM in all its 4 corners of land. when majority is against Taiwan. China has extremely weak airmobility. not sustainable for 21st century gadget intensive warfare.
soldiers are paid for peace time. highly unlikely for long term incursions. certianly on this scale.
you dont need to go to coastal cities to make hot money flee. Just diversion of government funding for such adventure is enough to create slow growth and credit default crises all the way to muncipilities.
JSRFor as long as those terrorists dont deploy tank divisions, Mi-35 is more flexible
I am not sure why Mi-35 is flexible. if your dealing with insurgents in flat desert environment. You need chopper with better flight performance, sensors and protection. as much more targets are individually picked up with gun/rockets.
JSRThe concern is probably with regard to possible exports of the aircraft to the PRC, which would jeopardize a PAKFA heavy IAF fleet facing the PLAAF. Or to countries which have weaker operational security protocols (Venezuela/Algeria?).
why Algeria has weaker operational security than Turkey (providing some parts to JSF) or India?.
there is also bargaining element ( like S300) by threatening to supply it to China/Iran. very favorable outcomes can be achieved. India is very small market for PAK-FA if you look at induction rate of Su-30.
JSRIt’ll definitely be hard to target artillery pieces given their smaller and more mobile nature, but SAMs during peacetime are usually sat in fixed locations, even shoot and scoot S-300s. How much of vietnam’s IADS is S-300, how much is SA-2?
They also have modernized Sa-3 which is very effective missile. offcoures China throws alot of quantity it can overcome it but Vietnam has large airforce with home advantage.
A few scuds with cold war era inertial guidance won’t quite do the damage of potentially hundreds of DF-11s, DF-15s with satellite and terminal guidance.
your assuming China can transfer all its inventory of missiles from Taiwan to Vietnam. The have 2000 scud missiles.
All depends on tactics, doesn’t it. If PLA doesn’t neutralize the vast majority of PVA air defences and simply barge on through they’re going to get badly mauled. OTOH if they can ID and target various IADS nodes and assets with ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, or stand off air launched weapons, all under the cover of their significant fleet of Y-8 ECM aircraft, with AEW&C and JH-7A EW cover, they’ll have a better chance.
your throwing this huge inventory of missile and ignoring that Vietnam can also launched lots of arterily and billistic missiles on China.
I wonder how many airbases could sustain operations at the vietnam border and beyond.
Would also be interesting to see how far PLAAF SEAD has come.
PLAAF is large airforce but highly doubt they can manage 200 aircraft in single theatre.
That depends on what China’s aims are, I suppose. They mobilized some 600,000 soldiers in 1979 and sent in some 400,000, and that was after the farce of the cultural revolution and great leap forward, etc. Now they have the economy to power a war if necessary. Problem is, China has no reason to invade vietnam and we have no idea what they’re willing to commit and sacrifice for a victory, as opposed to a taiwan contingency, where it will almost definitely be an all in.
1979 is very different as there was some idealogy to moblize half million lower paid soldiers. now cost of half million soldiers for extended period of time is beyond China capacity. China economy is simply not suitable for war. just slowing growth can lead to alot of hot money fleeing. that can lead to credit collapse with too much bad loans. this thing alone is terrifying Chinese government.
Helicopters should be the last thing PLA should use, given their vulnerability to even cold war era MANPADS.
It will be a ground invasion. VPA could use guerilla tactics. With ATGMs, good planning, and home turf advantage, they could give PLA mechanized infantry a tough fight.
helicopters is key element of surprize attacks on wide area. they fly low under the radar.
JSRWhat don’t you get??? I don’t need to dig up the data on the efficiency of an Old School Bus to know than it’s more expensive to own and operate than a Brand New Smaller School Bus. Sorry, that your not happy that I won’t waste my time researching the obvious. All the while you rant some more………….
Old school bus and new one aerodynamics & weights have hardly changed. so putting new engines will give very identical performance and efficiency. by now Viki has months of trials. so data is already there to operate it.
I even think Russia will gladly take back the ship and return the money. this is very usefull for RuNavy
JSRbillistic/cruise missiles can certainly damaged fixed sites but it will be hard to hit mobile SAMs and artellery with that. Vietnam can also lob billistic missiles.
China airforce is still not that strong that can jam Vietnam airdefence network and without that China will lose too many aircraft.
Ground invasion is out of question. China simply cant sustain/afford a million soldiers that is needed for continous rotation.
Just look at the quantity of choppers is used in Irak/Afghan war. China simply dont have that quantity and capability.
It will end up in stalemate.
JSRThat’s just paraphrasing what I said in the last post, that all the weapons were in the same ballpark for turkey’s performance parameters. I’m not making a statement regarding the absolute performance between each of them
These missile system are never in same ballpark. Just look at there Helicopter competition and engine power behind each gunship. Are they in same ball park including the helicopter having name of Erdogan. It was very obvious why such decision was made to score a point.
http://www.advancingafreesociety.org/the-caravan/letter-from-istanbul-2/
JSRUnless you’re a programme manager, you can’t really claim what china can or cannot afford, I think.
I can definitely claim what China can afford. Look its area and population and than compare to US. than look at that huge market of US defence products.
There is a shortage of tankers (incidentally, which is why J-20 has a greater internal volume than F-22, so it can persist longer without tanker support) — and PLAAF is orienting for larger strike fighters as its doctrines shift from local air superiority and strike, to more regional and expeditionary missions.
where you get this information that J-20 has greater internal volue especially for fuel.
But point is, until the last few years, PLAAF has never needed to have fighters with very long ranges. you may as well fume at the sri lankan air force’s lack of supersonic strike fighters or RNZAF’s lack of any fighter aircraft at all!
We don’t know the exact range of PLAAF flankers, J-10s and JH-7As under various conditions, but I’d hazard a guess that they aren’t too different to F-15s, F-16s, or F-15E/Su-24 given their dimensions. And for the PLAAF’s past, present and immediate future, such capabilities are enough.
PLAAF has done trial and error for too long and still it will end up in failure. F-16/F-15 has larger ET/CFT now along with larger tanker support so they are more effective.
If you’re referring to Y-20 — is there any indication that it isn’t designed for those things?
It will almost definitely be converted into a tanker and an AEWC platform.
There’s nothing about its aerodynamics which look like will hinder payload or takeoff with the right engines.
And its landing gear looks not very different to the various other MLG of other planes designed for short, unpaved takeoffs and landings.
it is very clear it isnt designed for multifunctional purpose. you wont see fleet of tankers or AWACS based on Y-20. and this thing is too wide so operational cruising speed will be too low.
As for volume that you mentioned before — it’s not as big as C-17, but has a slightly larger cross section than Il-76 I believe.
I mean production volume. also too wide planes have much shorter range.
JSRyou cannot compare US industrial procedures to China. US has huge market for exportable fighters. that subsidizes development. see F-14 and Iran example. China is for itself. it has to standardize much more and produce fighters taking into consideration low volume. There is shortage of tankers. so Fighters need to have long legs and preferrable CFT and large ETs.
Transport plane has to be more multifunctional, higher speed and rugged in China case.
Sign In
