Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

No worries but thanks SouthernPhan... shep will never offer an insightful counter point so I don't even bother.

As for delvo, that was some fair analysis but I think you're extremely generous on your optimism for the next-gen bomber being plentiful, fast-tracked to mature readiness and cheap.

F-16.net Sponsor

geogen wrote:

No worries but thanks SouthernPhan... shep will never offer an insightful counter point so I don't even bother.

Uhh, yeah, just does one 'counterpoint' the utterly ridiculous? If you're going to post absurd rubbish than don't be suprised when people laugh at your posts. It's quite simple really.

Shep, there's plenty of rational discussion and debate on various discussion boards on the net regarding doctrine and alternatives to F-35 in general if you wish to add something. Just because it's not happening in frequency on this thread at the moment indicates only that your sort of predictable personal jabs are meaningless and contribute nothing to the thread.

And as a follow up to delvo's post, one could argue that it shouldn't necessarily be a goal of a next-gen recapitalized force structure to deploy anywhere in the world and defeat any potential hostile foe in an all-out conventional war with air power unilaterally, 1 vs 1.

What should be the primary goal though imho, and which is relevant to the thread's topic, is to ensure that a substantial and convincing retaliatory strike could be promptly reciprocated anywhere in the world against any potential future hostile foe (for this example, let's say the Republic of Southern Phantomstan) who struck severe damage to US's or allies assets in international waters or airspace, in a surprise attack. Prompt though, imho, doesn't necessarily have to mean that it needs to be within 2 hours of a first strike against friendlies per se... but arguably the capacity to retaliate conventionally within 24 hours before a diplomatic effort can lock in a convincing defeat and abdication for friendlies and convincing victory for the aggressor, should be the up to date capability.

And it's that capacity which is arguably the more critical requirement for sufficient deterrence against any calculating future foe who might feel there was a reasonable chance to get away with a major blow.

So in short, one could argue that within the short to medium term, the USAF/USN needs to increase modernized stopgaps to fill capability shortfalls to ensure such a convincing capacity as outlined above. But that doesn't necessarily require the F-35 as part of such an equation to effectively convincingly deter a potential adversary. That is the issue for debate. For example, for the PUC price of an FY14 F-35A + 2 JDAMS, an Air Force could order an F-15SG/SA class variant and probably at least 6 JASSM-ER!

That is the heart of the thread's discussion with respect to AEI's assessments and conclusions as postulated in their study.

geogen wrote:

Look, you don't need to publicly name names and call out specific nation states in order to justify that in an unfortunately uncertain world, the USAF still needs to continue modernizing and enhancing the deterrence capacity and capabilities of it's Tactical and strike force structure. Again, the public rhetoric and statements can actually cause more problems and negative consequences than one thinks. If eg PLA announced in a public statement that it is shifting it's strategic focus to Hawaii and Western US, can one imagine the alarm bells going off in Congress beyond that which normal and responsible strategic defense planning is required of Congress and DoD? You simply don't have to make such declarative posture statement in public releases while simultaneously justifying your recapitalization and modernization strategy. That's all.

This isn't rational debate, its paranoid fantasy nonsense.

I thought this was on planes (stealth aircraft)?
Anyhow, Korean war in essence was the physical confrontation of the Cold War (Russia + North Korea vs US + South Korea).
Chinese uses MiG-29 Fulcrums, but probably only in interceptor role, as it has severe range limitations.
They also have J-20's but the capabilities are extremely exaggerated, according to anyone who has seen the plane's performance.
I don't see how stealth have much to do with a war with China though...
Just send in some wild weasels (air defence suppression) and bomb the heck out of the country. Revive the A-10 Warthog/Lightning and you'll dominate any land battle.

Last edited by grinner68 on May 02, 2012 - 11:05 PM; edited 1 time in total

China has about 70 SU-27's and around 130 of the Chinese copy the J-11's as well as about 90 SU-30MKK and MK2's.

I don't see a MiG-29 in their inventory.

flighthawk128 wrote:

I thought this was on planes (stealth aircraft)?
Anyhow, Korean war in essence was the physical confrontation of the Cold War (Russia + North Korea vs US + South Korea).
Chinese uses MiG-29 Fulcrums, but probably only in interceptor role, as it has severe range limitations.
They also have J-20's but the capabilities are extremely exaggerated, according to anyone who has seen the plane's performance.
I don't see how stealth have much to do with a war with China though...
Just send in some wild weasels (air defence suppression) and bomb the heck out of the country. Revive the A-10 Warthog/Lightning and you'll dominate any land battle.

What.

China does not have Fulcrums. The J-20 has not reached squadron service. On top of that, you don't see how stealth have much to do with a war with China???? SEAD, man. It's the key to waging an effective air war, and stealth makes destroying air defenses approximately an order of magnitude safer. The Raptor can get in close safely and bomb IADS command nodes to hell with GBU-39s. The real question is, do we have enough of them to fend off a Zerg Rush of PLAAF J-7s and other Cold War relics??

If they can get enough get enough birds in the air, it will not matter how good the F-22's are.
The fear would be that enough will get through to to kill the AWAC's and the tankers.

You have to find the AWACs and Tankers first.

And have the range to actually get to said AWACs and Tankers.

China DOES have Fulcrums. If it doesn't list in wherever the heck you guys saw it, than its screwed up!
Russia's economy was tripped up, so they sold off a ton of Blackjack and Backfire bombers along with a bunch of fighter jets.
China snapped up some of the jets, while other countries (Ukraine obtained a few Blackjack bombers) took the rest of the force.
And the J-20 only has a few more months before it DOES reach squadron service; they have one squadron equipped with the stuff already, even though its crap.
And besides, who ever said that it would just be F-22's?
Canada and Australia would pitch in with CF/AF 18's + new F-35's, Britain + Germany would have Eurofighters, France has Rafale.
Russia would want to stay neutral, so no need to worry about it.
It would probably jsut be China + North Korea, and the thing to worry about is their nuclear + ICBM capability, so the primary mission is to knock those out; hence the wild weasel + ground pounders + bombers.

I seem to remember China having 1 Fulcrum for evaluation purposes, but as to the PLAAF having Fulcrums, I invite you to furnish one shred of evidence to support that claim...

I don't think the J-20 is anywhere near production. Have they even finished prototyping the engine that is supposed to go into it?
Did you mean some other J-XX, flighthawk?

Quote:

China DOES have Fulcrums. If it doesn't list in wherever the heck you guys saw it, than its screwed up!
Russia's economy was tripped up, so they sold off a ton of Blackjack and Backfire bombers along with a bunch of fighter jets.
China snapped up some of the jets, while other countries (Ukraine obtained a few Blackjack bombers) took the rest of the force.

OMG...
Listen up. China has zippo Fulcrum in their operational service, and they never intended to buy any from Russia.
If they had one or two of them, i cannot say. Never read about it, never seen anything to suggest it.
Source pls.

And what is this nonsens about Tu-22 and Tu-160!! China never bought any Tu-160 or Tu-22. Where are you getting this from??
The Tu-22 "Blinder A" was only produced in 17 units. Back in the 70s..
Or perhaps you mean the Tu-22M, which is a entirely different beast.
Ukraine scrapped their Tu-22M and Tu-160. All of them.

China Bomber fleet consist of JH-7, thats it.

flighthawk128 wrote:

China DOES have Fulcrums. If it doesn't list in wherever the heck you guys saw it, than its screwed up!
Russia's economy was tripped up, so they sold off a ton of Blackjack and Backfire bombers along with a bunch of fighter jets.
China snapped up some of the jets, while other countries (Ukraine obtained a few Blackjack bombers) took the rest of the force.
And the J-20 only has a few more months before it DOES reach squadron service; they have one squadron equipped with the stuff already, even though its crap.
And besides, who ever said that it would just be F-22's?
Canada and Australia would pitch in with CF/AF 18's + new F-35's, Britain + Germany would have Eurofighters, France has Rafale.
Russia would want to stay neutral, so no need to worry about it.
It would probably jsut be China + North Korea, and the thing to worry about is their nuclear + ICBM capability, so the primary mission is to knock those out; hence the wild weasel + ground pounders + bombers.

Frankly, I don't trust many of our so-called 'allies' in this case. Japan and Australia certainly- but Europe is doomed socially and financially.

haavarla wrote:

Quote:

China DOES have Fulcrums. If it doesn't list in wherever the heck you guys saw it, than its screwed up!
Russia's economy was tripped up, so they sold off a ton of Blackjack and Backfire bombers along with a bunch of fighter jets.
China snapped up some of the jets, while other countries (Ukraine obtained a few Blackjack bombers) took the rest of the force.

OMG...
Listen up. China has zippo Fulcrum in their operational service, and they never intended to buy any from Russia.
If they had one or two of them, i cannot say. Never read about it, never seen anything to suggest it.
Source pls.

And what is this nonsense about Tu-22 and Tu-160!! China never bought any Tu-160 or Tu-22. Where are you getting this from??
The Tu-22 "Blinder A" was only produced in 17 units. Back in the 70s..
Or perhaps you mean the Tu-22M, which is a entirely different beast.
Ukraine scrapped their Tu-22M and Tu-160. All of them.

China Bomber fleet consist of JH-7, thats it.

And the H-6, but the Badger is a far cry from a Blackjack or Blinder. I'm really not sure where this guy is getting his information from, because it reads like something you would see/hear in an Ace Combat game.

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Studies show AF lacks stealth aircraft to fight China