East China Sea Air Defense ID Zone

[Jeff Head]

I'm not as optimistic as you, sir. Though China is very rich now, their GDP is still very low compared to those developed countries. In earlier discussion, the operational cost of a carrier is about 1 million US dollar a day, that is 365 million a year. If 5 carriers, it would be somewhere near 2 billion a year. Even though China has that money, they should save it for other purposes.

This may be true. Time will tell. I believe the PLAN could use, and will want up to five carriers as it continues to grow and expand. If they do, then we are looking at the second pair (bringing it to five) not occurring until the mid-20s to early 30s. A ways out yet.

Clearly, if that growth and expansion slows, so will the need.

However, I'm afraid China is success in creating their new ADIZ because I read the news that Japan said that it absolutely deny the new ADIZ but will allow its airline companies to choose to submit flight plan to Chinese authorities for flight safety purposes.

No need to be afraid or apologize from my perspective.

I have freely stated that the Chinese ADIZ is an accomplished fact.

If used as ADIZ are used everywhere else (ie. to monitor and defend approaches to their sovereign airspace against aggressive flight profiles of other aircraft), there is nothing the other powers can really say or do about it.

 

[FarkTypeSoldier]

I agree 100%, and also look forward to seeing what they come up with.

If they continue on and develop a 3-5 operational carrier force, I expect at some point, the PLAN will have two strike/fighter aircraft. They will have an AEW platform at some point that is fixed wing. They will probably have a dedicated EW aircraft (probably a two-seat J-15 derivative), and they will have ASW and SAR helicopters.

Time will tell, but it will be interesting and exciting to see them develop all of that.

These are exciting times. I never expect myself to be engross with Chinese military news everyday. Everyday have been exciting and sometimes on cloud nine!

I fully expect to see the J-31 fully developed for Combat Air Patrol, while the J-15s will do fine, if they ever face the F-35, they will have a very difficult go of it, and that is why the rush for the J-20 and the surprise first flight of the J-31 shortly after it was driven through town on the back of a flatbed under a tarp. Even if the F-35 is not up to Raptor standards, it will be a lot more fun to fly than somebody elses 4 gens, or even 4 gen+, it will make a believer out its skeptics in a hurry, that is one area of "need" for the PLANAF and PLAAF

I think the current J-15A (if model goes on) does not go well with J-31, which is a stealth fighter.

A stealthier version of J-15 might go with the J-31 on a carrier with catapult + ski-jump.

 

[kwaigonegin]

I'm not as optimistic as you, sir. Though China is very rich now, their GDP is still very low compared to those developed countries. In earlier discussion, the operational cost of a carrier is about 1 million US dollar a day, that is 365 million a year. If 5 carriers, it would be somewhere near 2 billion a year. Even though China has that money, they should save it for other purposes.

Actually China's GDP is second only to the US and I think most everyone agrees that sometime in the next decade will likely surpass the US. Their defence budget is also signfiicantly less that the US and while their GDP grows that budget will obviosuly grow with it and that is just assuming current parity which may not even happen. Even a single percentage increase would equate to roughly $100 billion or more which is plenty enough to maintain a couple of carriers going forward.

Perhaps what you meant to say is PPP of purchasing power of parity per capita which in case you are right. Due to her immense population she is ranks pretty low however at the end of the day it's how much money you have in the bank that matters. Keep in mind also that that ranking will surely improve over the next 2 or 3 decades because as her GDP increases, China's population has flatline as well and may even dip slightly due to decades of the one child policy.

 

[vesicles]

I'm not as optimistic as you, sir. Though China is very rich now, their GDP is still very low compared to those developed countries.

Hmmm... I wonder how you came to that conclusion. China is #2 in the the world in GDP. So that means China's GDP is the second highest in the world, and more than all but one of the developed nations. So where did you come up with the "still very low compared to those developed countries" statement?

GDP per capita, however, is another matter. Because of the large population base in China, China's GDP per capita is lower. However, when talking about national defense and defense budget, it is the total GDP that matters.

 

[SteelBird]

Hmmm... I wonder how you came to that conclusion. China is #2 in the the world in GDP. So that means China's GDP is the second highest in the world, and more than all but one of the developed nations. So where did you come up with the "still very low compared to those developed countries" statement?

GDP per capita, however, is another matter. Because of the large population base in China, China's GDP per capita is lower. However, when talking about national defense and defense budget, it is the total GDP that matters.

Yes, I meant GDP per capita. What I mean is that thought China has world #2 total GDP, it still have many poor citizens who live in very under-developed areas. As China's policy is not military first like NK, it should and would reserve some money to help its people.

 

[xiabonan]

Yes, I meant GDP per capita. What I mean is that thought China has world #2 total GDP, it still have many poor citizens who live in very under-developed areas. As China's policy is not military first like NK, it should and would reserve some money to help its people.

It doesn't conflict you see. China's military budget is at a percentage that's lower than the world's average and nowhere to close to America's 4+%. Even if China just raises its military budget to the international average level that would means billions of dollars. Furthermore, a strong and capable military is what it takes to ensure a safe external environment to keep the economy growing. Plus, your reasoning can be applied to almost every country in the world. America also have millions of poor people and many are unemployed and relying on food stamps. Why not the American government cut down some military spending to help her citizens?

 

[FarkTypeSoldier]

Good morning (ladies) & gentlemen...

Today's military analyst programme introduces the JH-7A:

[video=youtube;DzZPO_YQ9v4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzZPO_YQ9v4[/video]

My fav host is away making a series on Russian Navy's weapon (including my fav Sovs) and today's host is a lady.

Topic is about about "200 units (number might be ambigious) of JH-7A have been deployed along Eastern coast of China". With a combat radius of around 1500km per plane, its air-projection covers till 1st island chain. The JH-7A can mount up to 4x YJ-82K ASM for some very serious anti-ship missions. Regarding the aviation avonics, the deputy chief designer of JH-7's avonics says the JH-7A is above par of the Su-30. The JH-7A is now the most exportable fighter (FBC-1 & FBC-1A) but China might be heavily voiced by western powers for its highly offensive capabilities.

The guest is Maj Gen (Ret). Xu Guangyu.

Mr Xu shares that:

1) Although the JH-7A is designated as "Jian Hong" which is "Fighter Bomber" which can be used as an interceptor for defense and bomber during offensive mission, its primary role is for bombing missions;

2) It is reported that in Shandong peninsula, there is a regiment of 24x JH-7A which is near to Japan & S Korea;

3) Only two countries are still favouring fighter-bombers, Russia & China as these two countries have the same strategic environment which is large land masses and defense in-depth;

4) China is still a defensive country and it is surrounded by borders (sea, air & land) of other countries, in times of invasion or conflict, it has to have the capabilities to launch a counter-strike and the JH-7A is one of the weapons;

5) In fighter-bombers, one pilot is in charged of flying the JH-7A and the other is the weapons officer in charged of releasing the weapons, both have to have coordinations in order to accomplish a mission;

6) In terms of max distance, combat radius & payload, the JH-7A does not lose out to Su-30 & Su-24;

7) A lighter fuselage of the JH-7A means a higher payload in the region of 10 tons (although only known reports shows that only 9 tons of payload) than JH-7;

Programme later introduces about Sino-Russia "Peace Mission 2013" anti-terrorism excerise. Chinese air force sent 5x JH-7A and the Russian side with 4x Su-24. During this exercise, the JH-7As travelled about 6000km to the exercise area, refuelling at Xinjiang and then at Russia. Regarding wny China sent JH-7A, Mr Xu comments:

8) As one of China's main fighters, it was a good chance to train the pilots and test the airframes for problems;

9) Live ammunitions were used during the exercise;

10) A very unfamiliar range in a Chelyabinsk, Russia was a test of pilots' courage and weapons' precision;

11) After the live ammo exercise, all JH-7A had to fly back to Xinjiang which was a close to combat realistic exercise;

Programme then cuts into a diagram showing the various locations of the exercise, the aircrafts had to take off at Shenyang MR, flown to Xinjiang's Urumuqi and then to Chelyabinsk.

12) In flying missions out of own's country, pilots had to rely on GPS positioning to know their exact locations which was a test of the pilots' knowledge and training;

With regards to recent Japnese reports that they had detected JH-7A's presence with live ammunitions, the guests shares that in radar detection, it is only a small dot on the radar screen. During peacetime, the gathering of all opponents' fighters/ships data are vital and then upload the data gathered for the radars and radar operators to analyse possible fighters /ships detected during hostile periods. Despite Japan's claims of such incident, Chinese MoD reports that ther were no such scrambling of JH-7A. This may show that Japan radar operator might be over reactive or inexperienced.

Programme then introduced the possible being of JH-7A going onboard the indigenious CV as an attack aircraft. A report in Amercia reports that almost certainly, the JH-7A could be further developed into a navalised version. Navalised JH-7A could be done by installing a larger thrust powerplant for taking off and a tail hook for landing along with indigenious laser-guided precision weapons.

On the naval JH-7A, Xu says:

13) There is a high possiblity;

14) The combat radius of JH-7A should be fully exploited by PLAN by giving the JH-7A a "floating airbase" for maximising effective combat radius;

15) The JH-7A (weight 30 ton) definately has the capability on a calapult launched CV;

Mr Xu concludes by giving us an insight on how combat radius is calculated. Maximium effective combat radius of an aircraft is usually divided by 3 parts from its total ferry range: Say the JH-7A is 4500km in total ferry range, divide it by 3 is 1500km each part. The first 1500km is a distance to mission area, 1500km to execute mission over a designated airspace and the last 1500km to return to base.

 

[Blackstone]

Good morning (ladies) & gentlemen...

Today's military analyst programme introduces the JH-7A:...

Good work, FTS. Thank You and keep it up.

 

[FarkTypeSoldier]

Good work, FTS. Thank You and keep it up.

Thanks Blackstone... These are good sharings on ECS issues and I thought you guys ought to be kept up to date.

 

[FarkTypeSoldier]

Why not the American government cut down some military spending to help her citizens?

Standing on Amercians' POV (at least to those generals in Pentagon and those senators), it is vital to for US to maintain military spendings to project its militray prowess thoughout the world in order to keep their interests intact.

Military cuttings are in place now by retreating from Afghanistan and Iraq. Sequestration is also in place now.