DIA on China's new fighter

Where have we heard that before?

Brings back a lot of memories of past arguments in this group. I
won't want to revisit them except for these last words.

1. There was once a History Channel series on the best fighters...
(WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam era and post Vietnam.) Every pilot who
ever flew a combat plane invariably praised his plane model as the
best. There were no lemons. I think it was two Tornado pilots who
said modern warfare is pretty much what I had wrote in my original
post. All the years of training and experience doesn't give much of
an advantage in aerial combat. The rookie who is first in a good
position to press the fire button has as good a chance to score as a
twenty year pilot. The other comment was, in a modern mission, once
you have dumped your bombs as per mission you get the hell out fast.
Its suicidal to hang around and search for targets of opportunity.

2. The Russians in WWII had adequate planes that were tough, cheap
and easy to build. Their pilots had to fight straight out of a very
elementary course in flying school. The Russians relied on numbers to
overwhelm the mighty German war machine and they took out even their
most experienced German fighter pilots. Bombers were shot out of the
sky. The Russian losses were enormous. But they had the manpower and
production capacity to replace their losses. The Germans couldn't and
lost the war. In mass battles numbers win every time over skill,
technical superiority, tactical superiority, etc. (provided we are
not pitching bows and arrows against a maxim.)

This is also a good place to remind all that the Germans lost over 85
per cent of their manpower and materiel in Russia. By the times the
Allies invaded France the Germans were essentially defeated. It is
remarkable the Germans managed to keep fighting on for almost another
year.

The unsaid assumption on discussions of fifth generation US aircraft
is that China is the only possible opponent. For any other enemy
third generation aircraft will be more than adequate.

China has too big a land mass and her war production facilities mostly
out of reach of conventional attack from outside China's borders. You
cannot knock out a city of one million with any number of conventional
strikes and there are more than 200 cities with more than a million
population in China. Terror bomb attacks won't work. China has the
materiel in surface based antiaircraft and anti shipping missiles to
defend herself. Her air force's tactic (my recommendation) will be to
harass any attacking planes but keep out of range, then close in when
the attackers are forced to return to base as they run low on fuel.
No one has learned how to defeat the law of gravity yet. This way
numbers count more than technical or skillset superiority. The US ace
may shoot down one or two Chinese defenders. PLAF number three and
four will get him anyway. Combat in any form means higher fuel
consumption. That's a mighty big ocean below even if no one shot him
down.

On Nov 20, 2:45*pm, PaPa Peng wrote:
Where have we heard that before?

Brings back a lot of memories of past arguments in this group. *I
won't want to revisit them except for these last words.

1. *There was once a History Channel series on the best fighters...
(WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam era and post Vietnam.) *Every pilot who
ever flew a combat plane invariably praised his plane model as the
best. *There were no lemons. *I think it was two Tornado pilots who
said modern warfare is pretty much what I had wrote in my original
post. *All the years of training and experience doesn't give much of
an advantage in aerial combat. *The rookie who is first in a good
position to press the fire button has as good a chance to score as a
twenty year pilot. *The other comment was, in a modern mission, once
you have dumped your bombs as per mission you get the hell out fast.
Its suicidal to hang around and search for targets of opportunity.

Referencing History Channel isn't exactly a glowing recommendation.

2. *The Russians in WWII had adequate planes that were tough, cheap
and easy to build. *Their pilots had to fight straight out of a very
elementary course in flying school. *The Russians relied on numbers to
overwhelm the mighty German war machine and they took out even their
most experienced German fighter pilots. *Bombers were shot out of the
sky. The Russian losses were enormous. *But they had the manpower and
production capacity to replace their losses. *The Germans couldn't and
lost the war. * In mass battles numbers win every time over skill,
technical superiority, tactical superiority, etc. *(provided we are
not pitching bows and arrows against a maxim.)

And did not the Germans almost defeat them? Germany's mistake was
taking on too many enemies at once. In the early parts of the Eastern
War, inferior (numbers) German forces repeatedly routed the Russians.

This is also a good place to remind all that the Germans lost over 85
per cent of their manpower and materiel in Russia. *By the times the
Allies invaded France the Germans were essentially defeated. *It is
remarkable the Germans managed to keep fighting on for almost another
year.

Yeah, yeah, the Russians pretty much won WW2 single handed. Never
mind all that lend-lease.

The unsaid assumption on discussions of fifth generation US aircraft
is that China is the only possible opponent. *For any other enemy
third generation aircraft will be more than adequate.

Where was it unsaid? (kidding). I don't think China is the only
opponent. The Russians aren't exactly a democracy. Who knows how
Pakistan will end up and they have nukes. So do the North Koreans.
In a few years, the Japanese may even be seen as potential enemies.

China has too big a land mass and her war production facilities mostly
out of reach of conventional attack from outside China's borders. *You
cannot knock out a city of one million with any number of conventional
strikes and there are more than 200 cities with more than a million
population in China. *Terror bomb attacks won't work. China has the
materiel in surface based antiaircraft and anti shipping missiles to
defend herself. *Her air force's tactic (my recommendation) will be to
harass any attacking planes but keep out of range, then close in *when
the attackers are forced to return to base as they run low on fuel.
No one has learned how to defeat the law of gravity yet. This way
numbers count more than technical or skillset superiority. *The US ace
may shoot down one or two Chinese defenders. *PLAF number three and
four will get him anyway. *Combat in any form means higher fuel
consumption. *That's a mighty big ocean below even if no one shot him
down.

China too big? That's a poor argument. Most of China's industry and
population live within 200 miles of the coastline. China is extremely
vulnerable in it's shipping lanes. All that oil needs to pass by
India, you know? Do you really think the Chinese plan is to draw US
pilots so far out that they run out of fuel? You think a lot like
that guy who used to run Iraq....ummm Saddam something?

Dean

Roger Conroy wrote:
"PaPa Peng" wrote in message
...
The officer said that significantly reducing the new aircraft's radar
cross-section will require more than stealth outer coatings. New
integrated design and shaping as well as coatings are needed, the
officer was quoted as saying in the magazine's Nov. 13 article on the
new Chinese jet.
Dogfighting has no place in modern aerial combat.

Where we've heard that before?



Last time?

Just before the Falkland's nonsense...

--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.

William Black wrote:
Roger Conroy wrote:
"PaPa Peng" wrote in message
...
The officer said that significantly reducing the new aircraft's radar
cross-section will require more than stealth outer coatings. New
integrated design and shaping as well as coatings are needed, the
officer was quoted as saying in the magazine's Nov. 13 article on the
new Chinese jet.
Dogfighting has no place in modern aerial combat.

Where we've heard that before?


Last time?

Just before the Falkland's nonsense...


Problem is, except in the rare all out war (two in the history of the
race), you need to close to visual to confirm targets, and then...

Dan

In message , William Black
writes
Last time?

Just before the Falkland's nonsense...

Where there wasn't any dogfighting... (well, unless trying and failing
to shoot down a prop-driven trainer with a Sea Harrier counts)

--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

Paul J. Adam

On Nov 19, 7:07*pm, PaPa Peng wrote:
Therefore what critical advantages do stealth and high maneuverablity
confer to 5th generation aircraft to justify the cost, long
development times and technical complexity.

The JSF does not try to out-maneuver Chinese 4.5ish Gen fighters like
the J-xx of the 2020s.

Instead the F-35 sees the Chinese target first from any direction and
uses HOBS to send the Chinese pilot off to meet Lt. Cdr. Wang Wei.

-HJC

hcobb wrote:
On Nov 19, 7:07*pm, PaPa Peng wrote:
Therefore what critical advantages do stealth and high maneuverablity
confer to 5th generation aircraft to justify the cost, long
development times and technical complexity.

The JSF does not try to out-maneuver Chinese 4.5ish Gen fighters like
the J-xx of the 2020s.

Instead the F-35 sees the Chinese target first from any direction and
uses HOBS to send the Chinese pilot off to meet Lt. Cdr. Wang Wei.

-HJC

I am still not used to posting procedures.

Anyway two points I want to make.

1. The US wouldn't dream of threatening China by sailing of a carrier
group in the Taiwan Straits or in "International waters" close to
China at this stage of the game. The political fallout wouldn't be
worth whatever that show of force is supposed to achieve. The
political atmosphere will really have to be rotten before the US tries
rattling sabers on China. No chance of that happening any time
soon.

2. The US cannot threaten China with nuclear weapons. Say the worst
case scenario does happen and there is a nuclear exchange. Both
countries will be damaged severely. The consequence will be the world
will be really freaked out. The unintended consequence is that Russia
remains intact and has a huge nuclear arsenal. She can now call all
the shots and gets to dictate to the world. With Russia as the
world's hagemon there is no one who will be able to challenge her
leadership for a long long time.

As the strategic balance of power now stands China is secure against
being invaded or have to fight a war inside China against a foreign
force. All of China's neighbors are significantly weaker and do not
pose a threat. None will be foolish enough to allow the US to form a
military alliance with them to confront China. Russia is in strategic
balance with China. Russia's population is too small and she shares a
long land border with China. China has no cause to invade Russia as
Russian lands are thinly populated for a good reason. They are
unsuitable for agriculture., landlocked and too cold most of the year
to be economically viable.

China's competitive strategy will therefore remain what she is doing
today. This is to prosper through manufacturing and through trade.
This is what the US and the rest of the world has to compete against.
The US and the rest of the world may fear China's rise enough to gang
up against her. That's something China will have to deal with but it
won't be a shooting war. China will continue developing her defense
capabilities. This is to maintain a credible deterrence against an
outside power, aka the US since only the US harbours ambitions for
military dominance. The costs and effort to maintain defense is a lot
easier and cheaper on national resources. The US won't be able to
spur China into a ruinous arms race and bankrupt her.

"PaPa Peng" wrote in message
...
I am still not used to posting procedures.

Anyway two points I want to make.

1. The US wouldn't dream of threatening China by sailing of a carrier
group in the Taiwan Straits or in "International waters" close to
China at this stage of the game. The political fallout wouldn't be
worth whatever that show of force is supposed to achieve. The
political atmosphere will really have to be rotten before the US tries
rattling sabers on China. No chance of that happening any time
soon.

2. The US cannot threaten China with nuclear weapons. Say the worst
case scenario does happen and there is a nuclear exchange. Both
countries will be damaged severely. The consequence will be the world
will be really freaked out. The unintended consequence is that Russia
remains intact and has a huge nuclear arsenal. She can now call all
the shots and gets to dictate to the world. With Russia as the
world's hagemon there is no one who will be able to challenge her
leadership for a long long time.

As the strategic balance of power now stands China is secure against
being invaded or have to fight a war inside China against a foreign
force. All of China's neighbors are significantly weaker and do not
pose a threat. None will be foolish enough to allow the US to form a
military alliance with them to confront China. Russia is in strategic
balance with China. Russia's population is too small and she shares a
long land border with China. China has no cause to invade Russia as
Russian lands are thinly populated for a good reason. They are
unsuitable for agriculture., landlocked and too cold most of the year
to be economically viable.

China's competitive strategy will therefore remain what she is doing
today. This is to prosper through manufacturing and through trade.
This is what the US and the rest of the world has to compete against.
The US and the rest of the world may fear China's rise enough to gang
up against her. That's something China will have to deal with but it
won't be a shooting war. China will continue developing her defense
capabilities. This is to maintain a credible deterrence against an
outside power, aka the US since only the US harbours ambitions for
military dominance. The costs and effort to maintain defense is a lot
easier and cheaper on national resources. The US won't be able to
spur China into a ruinous arms race and bankrupt her.


China is a long way from militarily being able to threaten the U.S. a nuke
exchamnge would be bad for the U.S. annhiliation for china.
also the spirit of Tianemen Sq is lurking just below the surface, bodies
start coming home, only son bodies at that and its curtins for the Party.