US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Maikeru

Major
Registered Member
Just some questioning on this former USAF personnel's statement:

"...The Chinese, on the other hand, are fielding 120 J-20s every year, and another 170 fourth plus generation fighters every year, while we are fielding, as an Air Force, less than 60 total..."

I wonder where he got that figure for China's 4.5th-gen fighters?

Though, I won't question much on the J-20/A/S' production figures. Plus, there's also the J-35/A that is getting more added into the PLAAF and PLANAF fighter fleets in the coming years.
Pretty sure that's wrong. I'd guess about 70 Flanker variants of all types (J15/D/16/D) per annum these days, J-10C production only continuing for export. So maybe he just accidentally put another 1 in front of 70. J-35/A production I'd imagine is pretty low rate right now but will expand massively from 2026.
 

CMP

Captain
Registered Member
Let' just hope F-47 maintains the what looks like now US MIC tradition (?), at least the F-35 one, massive problems, cost overruns, constant delays etc.
I would bet money that shit won't change. The only way they can even start to change it is by immediately putting thousands or even tens of thousands of people in prison for 20 years to life on corruption charges.
 

SlothmanAllen

Senior Member
Registered Member

CaribouTruth

Junior Member
Registered Member
Pretty sure that's wrong. I'd guess about 70 Flanker variants of all types (J15/D/16/D) per annum these days, J-10C production only continuing for export. So maybe he just accidentally put another 1 in front of 70. J-35/A production I'd imagine is pretty low rate right now but will expand massively from 2026.
The report has a breakdown of those numbers, they're assuming 100 Flanker variants.
There's some very interesting numbers in the full report, detailed overview of the current situation of the USAF. It is definitely biased in some regards, mostly because its an "air power" org looking at the Air Force so their recommendations are definitely USAF first instead of a holistic approach.

I definitely recommend everyone to at least take a look at the report, you may question some assumptions and hypothesis the paper puts forward but its definitely a good place to start rather than dull speculation. I'll attach some interesting tidbits in hopes people will take a look at the report. ;)

1764235516778.png



Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Attachments

  • 1764235986166.png
    1764235986166.png
    113.3 KB · Views: 30
  • 1764235996836.png
    1764235996836.png
    116.5 KB · Views: 28
  • 1764236004473.png
    1764236004473.png
    227.9 KB · Views: 28

Dante80

Junior Member
Registered Member
A quick reminder, the Golden Dome project is NOT designed NOR capable to counter a near peer/peer nuclear force like Russia or China.

For a quick example, if you - for example - need ~2000 interceptors globally to counter a launch of two ICBMs from the same spot, the numbers you would need to counter a SLBM salvo or a solitary silo range is too ridiculous to even mention.

This is a jobs program, and if it results in anything tangible in the future it is going to be a vehicle for countering N. Korea or Iran, and a way of dealing with rogue launches and/or proportionate response nuclear war scenarios.
 
Last edited:

SlothmanAllen

Senior Member
Registered Member
A quick reminder, the Golden Dome project is NOT designed NOR capable to counter a near peer/peer nuclear force like Russia or China.

For a quick example, if you - for example - need ~2000 interceptors globally to counter a launch of two ICBMs from the same spot, the numbers you would need to counter a SLBM salvo or a solitary silo range is too ridiculous to even mention.

This is a jobs program, and if it results in anything tangible in the future it is going to be a vehicle for countering N. Korea or Iran, and a way of dealing with rogue launches and/or proportionate response nuclear war scenarios.
So basically just a space version of Ground Based Midcourse Defense (GBD)?
 
Top