J-20 VERSUS F-35

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2189
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post25 Aug 2018, 15:11

tphuang wrote:If you really care to know how plaaf looks at things. Back in the 80s, the Soviet backfire bombers can fly over Beijing without escorts and bomb the capital city and fly back without ever worrying about J-7s being able to intercept it. F-35 is the greatest single threat they face right now, but that's not more severe than what they've had to face before.


While I can't speak for others, I don't believe that anyone here is dismissing the progress and advancements that the Chinese are having in military equipment, namely combat aircraft development (and electronics as well).
But one thing is to evolve and "close the gap" another completely different thing is to get parity let alone surpass.
Again technological advancement is not a "linear thing".

For the reasons that I posted previously (and more) I don't believe that China will get parity with the US (and even Europe in many regards) let alone surpass it, unless again if something drastically changes in China in its society/politics (which I don't believe will happen anytime soon).

And as such, China would always be at a great disadvantage in an open war with the US, something which I believe we all don't wish that will ever happen. And no, the J-20 won't (future tense) be a match for the F-35.
The J-20 will be improved much further and become much more effective and advanced that today? Yes indeed but guess what? So will the F-35.

IMO, the best that China can reach with all these advancements in military technology is to overtake Russia as the preferred military supplier to all those countries that cannot buy western military equipment (for a myriad of reasons, most of them political) which again, traditionally buy from Russia. Who knows if this isn't what China actually (and also) intends to?

BTW, while I don't always agree with you I do think that you make some good points.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 870
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post25 Aug 2018, 15:52

While the greatest threat to their carrier battle group is B1 + LRASM swarm. China and Russia are not proven to have enough success rate in intercepting sea skimming and stealthy targets.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8395
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post25 Aug 2018, 16:12

After 2022, the F-35 should have no problem carrying LRASM via UAI.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5436
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post25 Aug 2018, 18:08

blindpilot wrote:Um 270ish 1000+ mile (designed to limit German missiles range) Pershing II's with INS and active radar, maneuvering, dial a yield warheads?


It did not have a conventional warhead, and it doesn't exist now. Go back and read what I said. I didn't say it was impossible for the US. I said WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY NOW. And we don't.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5436
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post25 Aug 2018, 18:10

gta4 wrote:While the greatest threat to their carrier battle group is B1 + LRASM swarm.


An SSN with Mk48s would be far more deadly.

gta4 wrote:China and Russia are not proven to have enough success rate in intercepting sea skimming and stealthy targets.


Could you direct me to "research papers that passed peer review" that support your claim?
"There I was. . ."
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1781
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post25 Aug 2018, 18:20

...if the Marines don't get first dibs with their anti-ship himars/atacms.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5436
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post25 Aug 2018, 19:13

weasel1962 wrote:...if the Marines don't get first dibs with their anti-ship himars/atacms.


Only way that thing would have a prayer is if the other guy's navy was dumb enough to come within a couple hundred miles of the shore, let our air assets fly at will, and didn't take shots at the missiles as they were coming in.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8395
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post25 Aug 2018, 21:34

F-35B with LRASM from an LHA/D.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

usnvo

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 181
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 18:51

Unread post25 Aug 2018, 21:49

sferrin wrote: An SSN with Mk48s would be far more deadly.


Actually, since any Chinese Carrier Group is most likely to remain in port during any conflict, at least during the early phase precisely because of the submarine threat, the B1/LRASM (and ship attack Tomahawk) is still probably the biggest threat even if the SSN (or SSK for that matter) w/MK48 is the more deadly threat.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2200
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post25 Aug 2018, 21:56

usnvo wrote:
sferrin wrote: An SSN with Mk48s would be far more deadly.


Actually, since any Chinese Carrier Group is most likely to remain in port during any conflict, at least during the early phase precisely because of the submarine threat, the B1/LRASM (and ship attack Tomahawk) is still probably the biggest threat even if the SSN (or SSK for that matter) w/MK48 is the more deadly threat.


Unless I'm missing something... following your logic... the Chinese Carrier Groups would never leave port during any conflict, regardless the phase, as what capability do they truly have to decrease the USN SSN Mk48 threat? Cyber?

And if the Chinese Carrier Groups are reduced to occupying port berths during any conflict... why bother expending the funds to build them? To float around the world's oceans flying the PRC flag and (attempting to) intimidating nations?
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 433
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post25 Aug 2018, 23:11

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
swiss wrote:
BTW. I'm a bit confused with the Generation of AESA Radars. As far as understand a APG-63(v)2 and APG-77 is 1 Generation. APG-63(v)3, APG-79, APG-80, APG-77v1 and RBE2 AESA are 2 Generation. And the APG-81 is a 3 Generation AESA?

It isn't that simple.

APG-63(v)2/3, APG-79, APG-80, and RBE2 are all MSA radars that were upgraded with an AESA antenna (oversimplified). They were not designed from the ground up as an AESA radar integrated into a fused sensor suite. APG-77/(v)1 and APG-81 were. As such even APG-77 will be more advanced as a whole system than APG-63(v)3, as it has improved back-end processing capability. SABR is (oversimplified) an APG-81 with modified software and a resized antenna to be used in any platform.


So a APG-77(v)1 is closer to the APG-81 thanks to the more advanced back-end. Would be also interesting what is the difference between a "2 Generation" and "3 Generation" AESA. Of cours the performance, and maybe to use the Radar as a Energy Weapon?

And i assume the APG-83 (SABR) is roughly on the same level as the APG-80. I know there was a intense discussion on F-16 wich one is better.

The RBE2 is a PESA when i remember correct.
Last edited by swiss on 26 Aug 2018, 05:53, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1781
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post26 Aug 2018, 01:44

sferrin wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:...if the Marines don't get first dibs with their anti-ship himars/atacms.


Only way that thing would have a prayer is if the other guy's navy was dumb enough to come within a couple hundred miles of the shore, let our air assets fly at will, and didn't take shots at the missiles as they were coming in.


Looking at the geography, its not as dumb as it seems. The islands along the okinawa chain pretty much close down the space that any PLAN vessel would have to travel from the north (where the cvs are based). If based at hainan, then they cant travel north.

All of the islands have airstrips that can fly in c130s to offload himars pretty quickly..

The atacms flies at mach 3 which reduces warning time to under 10 mins. The actual range is pretty decent.

Sure, missiles can get shot down but doesnt mean its not worth trying. Dont think the PLAN expect it either.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1401
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post26 Aug 2018, 07:25

sferrin wrote:
gta4 wrote:While the greatest threat to their carrier battle group is B1 + LRASM swarm.


An SSN with Mk48s would be far more deadly.


B1-B with LRASM is much faster, much more flexible as to where and when, will have better SA currency, unlikely to be counter-detected, much less likely to be counter-attacked than the SSN. I'd focus the SSN on killing subs and let the B1-Bs clean up the surface units, or at least thin them out (and the things that can hunt SSNs).
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1401
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post26 Aug 2018, 07:37

steve wrote:And if the Chinese Carrier Groups are reduced to occupying port berths during any conflict... why bother expending the funds to build them? To float around the world's oceans flying the PRC flag and (attempting to) intimidating nations?


Tricky to claim to be a globule souper power sans something a bit like a like a soup carrier. :drool:
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5436
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post26 Aug 2018, 13:45

element1loop wrote:
sferrin wrote:
gta4 wrote:While the greatest threat to their carrier battle group is B1 + LRASM swarm.


An SSN with Mk48s would be far more deadly.


B1-B with LRASM is much faster, much more flexible as to where and when, will have better SA currency, unlikely to be counter-detected, much less likely to be counter-attacked than the SSN. I'd focus the SSN on killing subs and let the B1-Bs clean up the surface units, or at least thin them out (and the things that can hunt SSNs).


Yes, and no. I would not be at all surprised if a Virginia weren't already "riding herd" on any Chinese CVBG in the event of tension/conflict. As for situational awareness, I doubt an SSN is going to have difficulty locating a carrier it's been shadowing for weeks. Now if we did like the Soviets did back in the day and planned a combined attack, waves of LRASMs would certainly stir things up and make it easier for SSNs to sneak in a get off a slew of Mk48 shots.
"There I was. . ."
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests