While the two carriers in SCS, another one watching the situation at East Philippones Sea
J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
- Status
Eastern side already got their hands full. Japan is getting additional more than 100 F35B .
Honest speaking, American full blow would impact very less on the Chinese military aviation industry...
Unlike IC, the Chinese aviation industry to funded under soviet assistance, and built by itself though all these years, even till today, it is still highly independent. If the US and China do split up in the future, civilian airplanes like C919 and CR929 would be impacted much more, but military jets like J-20 would almost not get any affected.
Also, the Chinese semiconductor industry isn't as bad as you think, base on the processes they got, a fair estimation, SMIC is roughly about 5-10 years behind the TSMC and Samsung. For commercial application, it's winner took all, so of course, SMIC takes a very small proportion of the market share. But in terms of military usage, every country, including the US on the F-35, is using 65nm above I think, which Chinese could manufacture many years ago, so wouldn't got impacted as well...
plawolf
Lieutenant General
The new guy with the throwaway user name has already been warned for posting FLG propaganda, and his behaviour thus far has been entirely consistent with a FLG troll seeking to spread misinformation and lies to weaken Chinese resolve.
Although why he is wasting his time here is anyone’s guess. Maybe our existence and objectivity is making it hard for them to spread their other lies in the western forums, where they would be downplaying Chinese capabilities and beating the war drums as hard as they can by making China seem like a pushover militarily to try and generate support for American direct military action China.
Although why he is wasting his time here is anyone’s guess. Maybe our existence and objectivity is making it hard for them to spread their other lies in the western forums, where they would be downplaying Chinese capabilities and beating the war drums as hard as they can by making China seem like a pushover militarily to try and generate support for American direct military action China.
Are you for real? People can judge for themselves without your agendas.
I am clearly said China is superior in building surface combatant but inferior in aviation.
In surface combatant capability if China is a 10 US would be 7.
In aviation is US is a 10, China would be 3.
Regarding to so called FLG proganganda.
The mod is too quick to lock it without understanding the issue before i can respond.
3 gorge dam downstream already fully flooded why are they still discharging full force to cause more flooding? Think about it. Use common sense. The only possible reason is dam cant handle current pressure. People in news can said this and that but physical evidences are there. Use your own judgement.
You're thinking too symmetrically.
The best place to disable a F-35 is when it is on the ground, where it spends most of its time.
At most, an F-35 could manage 3 sorties per day, or 9 hours in the air.
An F-35 costs about $100 million. For the same money, you could buy 80 JASSM-ER type stealth missiles for land-attack.
If you look at the geography of the Western Pacific, these missiles could be launched from trucks from the Chinese mainland and cover all the potential deployment locations for the F-35 within the First Island Chain.
So let's say Japan does buy another 100 F-35s, at a cost of $10 Billion.
China shouldn't try to match that with another 100 stealth fighters, which would be a silly move.
For example, it would be far better to spend just half of that money ($5 Billion) and buy 4000 missiles instead.
That would be enough missiles to conduct continuous attacks until all the Japanese F-35s are eliminated.
And this only looks at procurement costs.
In terms of lifetime operating costs, missiles on trucks are far cheaper to maintain than fighter jets.
---
China faces the same issue with missile attacks versus airbases.
But it's response is to:
1. Build super-hardened mountain airbases, if they are within range of missile attack.
2. Base many aircraft out of range of incoming missiles, deep in the interior. There are 200 airbases located in mainland China, at varying distances from the coastline.
---
The same logic applies to the large number of US stealth fighters being built.
China shouldn't be trying to match these in numbers.
The proper response is to ensure there are enough missiles to disable these planes on the ground, when deployed within the First Island Chain.
Last edited:
I look way beyond that and from the big picture.
Yes building more missiles, so what anybody can build missiles. Iran can build missiles too. Missiles manufacturing is not high end manufacturing. Nothing to be proud if a country can crank out alot of missiles at fast rate.
But big picture, in terms of China able to compete with US, technology, hightech manufacturing is the basis.
The manufacturing ability of cranking out high end planes is crucial measuring stick. If US is a 10 and China is around 7 then its still OK. Within parity. Currently i give China a 3, too much parity
If the world's armed forces had a way of knowing where every enemy's plane or any other target is, even most of the time, then there'd hardly be a need for planes. everyone would just spam missiles.
But actually knowing how many targets there are, actually identifying those targets, and knowing where they are at which point in time, and sustaining that knowledge almost all-around the clock is the single hardest thing to do in warfare.
And thus a huge arsenal of missiles would be useless. as they would not have targets designated.
At best, one could hope to continuously poke holes in the runways - probably 3-4 missiles per runway would be enough to guarantee it being non functional (some misses are unavoidable). For several hours, or at best half a day, until the runway is repaired.
Counting all the runways, taxiways that could be used as runways and various prepared highway stretches there are - there might be a need to keep 150 targets shut for several hours to half a day. That's, say, 500 missiles per one "wave" and 1500 missiles per day, providing no malfunctions and providing no missile interceptions. So 4 days to spend an arsenal of, say, 6000 missiles. And contain the enemy to just carrier borne planes and VTOL planes which could use even shorter runway pieces. At the same time, all other target types would require additional missiles.
But actually knowing how many targets there are, actually identifying those targets, and knowing where they are at which point in time, and sustaining that knowledge almost all-around the clock is the single hardest thing to do in warfare.
And thus a huge arsenal of missiles would be useless. as they would not have targets designated.
At best, one could hope to continuously poke holes in the runways - probably 3-4 missiles per runway would be enough to guarantee it being non functional (some misses are unavoidable). For several hours, or at best half a day, until the runway is repaired.
Counting all the runways, taxiways that could be used as runways and various prepared highway stretches there are - there might be a need to keep 150 targets shut for several hours to half a day. That's, say, 500 missiles per one "wave" and 1500 missiles per day, providing no malfunctions and providing no missile interceptions. So 4 days to spend an arsenal of, say, 6000 missiles. And contain the enemy to just carrier borne planes and VTOL planes which could use even shorter runway pieces. At the same time, all other target types would require additional missiles.
That's not going to make much of a difference.
Look at how the Chinese Air Force is wearing out the Japanese Air Force with constant scrambles.
This will apply whether these aircraft are F-15s or F-35s.
Plus the F-35s has twice the operating cost ($44K per hour) than the F-15.
And the Japanese Air Force using the F-35 would reveal its capabilities to the Chinese Air Force.
- Status