Jian's vs F-22/F-35??

Roger604 said:

I seriously doubt cruise missiles are a threat. F-22's and F-35's are a threat, yes. But not cruise missiles. The HQ-17 and CIWS are very effective at defending key military assets from cruise missile attacks. See the Sinodefence page on Tor-M1. You can't protect everything you're right, but there's no point for US to use cruise missiles to attack a village.

Click to expand...

Well, China thinks they are. Why is China trying to invest in LACM’s themselves if they didn’t think they would be useful? If you’re facing 500-600 low-observable cruise missiles, that’s quite a bit to defend against. And Tomahawks fly real low and are hard to see from a head-on aspect. Tomahawks are not easy to detect for defense. I’m not assuming all would get through. I think you’re assuming 100% success rate of defensive systems. China’s got a very credible air defense structure, but it’s not perfect. I do believe enough of the missiles would get through to degrade the air defenses enough to begin precision strikes via more cruise missiles and aircraft on key assets. If the U.S. military has alot of something, it's definitely cruise missiles. I'm willing to bet you may see more than 3,000 of them in total used on a country like China. Even if only 33% success, you would have destroyed 1,000 targets. And I'm being generous.

Roger604 said:

Even if Chinese early warning capabilities aren't as advanced as the US, they're good enough. Look at all the different types of AWACS and other AEW planes China produces indigenously. Without a doubt it can provide 24-hour cover. Not to mention satellite reconnaisance and UAV's!

Click to expand...

That’s true. I agree. But then again my point is that the defenders movements can be manipulated despite any AWACS control they may field. How much? I don’t know. I don’t know how China intends to deploy it’s AWACS against this type of scenario. I just know it can be done.

How many AWACS aircraft does PLAAF have? I'm guessing whatever they use will be high-value asset targets slated for quick elimination. I don't know how many the U.S. could put in the region, I just know they can operate from long distances and they could put quite a few in place.

Roger604 said:

The AESA is almost ready to be fielded, as far as I understand. As far as experience / training goes... yes the US has an advantage but if the Chinese forces are as adept at learning the equipment as the engineers are at making them, they are not far behind the US.

Click to expand...

The training is a biggie. But also the experience. And from what I know, PLAAF/PLAN pilots have virtually no combat experience whatsoever. A whole bunch of American pilots have decent amounts of combat experience, plus many have training from Fighter Weapons School. I served mostly in the 1990's, and there were some Chinese generals visiting a lot of U.S. military facilities in those days. Let’s just say my Base Commander was told by one of these guys that they don’t have in China what we had on that base for training. They were pretty wide-eyed. And Chinese AESA is still only rumored. So it can't even be factored into this discussion. As of this writing, F-16, F-15, FA/18, F-22, all have AESA and an excellent selection of AAM's.

Roger604 said:

Well the US does not have a monopoly on electronic warfare, nor on technology in general, so an advantage is a matter of degree, not clearly decisive.

Click to expand...

True. But the U.S. does have a clear advantage in this area. China has made strides with the Y-8. But I’m not sure that it’s at the level of E-3 and E-2 which both can see from hundreds of miles from the battlespace. Plus J-STARS which can detect movements on the ground. We have a saying here.."You’re only as good in combat as your information". And the USN has the EA-6B platform as a supporting EW asset. Clear advantages do become decisive ones once the balance tips.

Roger604 said:

Besides, I think China would be willing to trade off 6 old Jian's for an F-22. Even an F-22 strike force flying into China would be heading into a nightmare of AWACS, long-wave radar, advanced SAM's, J-10's, J-11's and older Jian's for good measure.

Click to expand...

I don’t think any older Jian would bag an F-22. First they’d have to find it, then they’d have to close in on it. F-22 has a high Mach speed, and the pilots who fly them have reported that F-15's have extreme difficulties in finding them at Nellis. If an F-15 has such difficulties, I'm thinking a J-6/J-7/J-8 ain't gonna cut it. If they got an F-22, they’d have to be really lucky and the F-22 pilot would have to be asleep. Not to mention his support network.

And yes, flying into this environment would be ferocious. J-10's, J-11's, S-300's all would make life rough for any attacker. The U.S. would see losses. But I’m pretty confident it can be done successfully. Since Chinese military forces haven’t seen any type of modern warfare, they would see many difficulties and surprises. U.S. military planners, and personnel have seen actual combat, and have learned to get it’s munitions on target. China would be a tougher nut to crack, but if the U.S. National Command authority wanted specific targets destroyed, it would get done.

Well wait, technically the US hadn't really seen combat either until Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom, before that it was Vietnam and both the Chinese and the Anericans had experiance there, and once the Chinese saw what the US could do they reorganized everything from the top down and bottom up.

Experiance doesn't automatically == victory, just an advanatge being the difference of soldier A) knowing to duck by instinct and soldier B) who doesn't.

which is a big, big difference.

Another thing you have to take into account is that most 4th generation fighters in the PLAAF are relatively new, and it takes time to train a pilot to use a plane to its maximum potential. With the exception of the 27SK, all other advanced fighters are probably still using their first generation of pilots, and there is a possibility that the people's airwar doctrine has not fully shifted to take more advanced platforms into account.

Also, while there is the Blue Flag aggressor unit in FTTC that acts very much like its counterpart in US DACT programs, there isn't much military exchange between PLAAF and other services. The US-Indian exercises brought much experience to both sides, and it would serve the PLAAF well to follow that model. Of course, various constraints, either political or military in nature, prevents that from happening.

As of this writing, F-16, F-15, FA/18, F-22, all have AESA and an excellent selection of AAM's.

Click to expand...

There is an AESA radar available for all these types, but the vast majority of USAF and USN are not yet equipped with AESA radars. To my knowledge, one squadron of F-15s in Alaska is equipped with the APG-63(v3). Superhornets produced to date still have to be refitted with the APG-77, while those yet to be produced will get it from the beginning. The only F-16 variant I know of with AESA are the block 60's, which USAF doesn't have and isn't planning on getting. Maybe USAF F-16s will be retrofitted with AESA, but I doubt it. UAE will be the proud owner of the only F-16s with AESA. Of course all F-22s do and will have AESA, and when in production, all F-35s will have one as well.

Sea Dog said:

Well, China thinks they are. Why is China trying to invest in LACM’s themselves if they didn’t think they would be useful? If you’re facing 500-600 low-observable cruise missiles, that’s quite a bit to defend against. And Tomahawks fly real low and are hard to see from a head-on aspect. Tomahawks are not easy to detect for defense. I’m not assuming all would get through. I think you’re assuming 100% success rate of defensive systems. China’s got a very credible air defense structure, but it’s not perfect. I do believe enough of the missiles would get through to degrade the air defenses enough to begin precision strikes via more cruise missiles and aircraft on key assets. If the U.S. military has alot of something, it's definitely cruise missiles. I'm willing to bet you may see more than 3,000 of them in total used on a country like China. Even if only 33% success, you would have destroyed 1,000 targets. And I'm being generous.

Click to expand...

You're saying 33% of these Missiles would get through...

ok

1. How many of these missiles would actually explode ?

2. How many would explode with enough impact to cause substantial damage

3. How accurate is the intelligence used for targetting ?

As you can see there's lots of variables

But also how much expience did they actually get? The Iraqi's hardly put up a fight for the air in either case and was mostly a push button experience. Some tank drivers said the Iraqi's weren't anywhere near as good as the training they had back in their training center.

Ender Wiggin said:

But also how much expience did they actually get? The Iraqi's hardly put up a fight for the air in either case and was mostly a push button experience. Some tank drivers said the Iraqi's weren't anywhere near as good as the training they had back in their training center.

Click to expand...

Combat experience means to actually do what you are trained to do while being shot at. (in laymen's terms) USAF have actually shot down dozens of aircraft, did SAM suppression while being locked and fired at, drop bombs on target while under fire, and have used their C4SIR under combat conditions.

Do the PLA forces have anything comparable?

Instead of asking how the US forces will fare against a more motivated and trained military of the PLA compared to the Serbians and Iraqis, ask how will the PLA forces fare against a highly trained and combat experienced US forces supported by the technology a generation ahead of the PLA?

All of you here should definitely settle on the timeframe here. One can't use double standards - that china has training and equipment of 2006 while USA has planes and weapons in quantites that will be available circa 2015. Nor vice versa, of course. You can crucify me for this - but i will guess that the overall tech gap and capability will only grow smaller as time passes. Sure, limited leaps will be featured, like the introduction of f22 (just like the introduction of j10 and by this im NOT comparing those two leaps), but overall - during a 5 or 10 year period, that gap will be getting smaller and smaller.

Right now, in 2006 - situation is this. USA has a squadron or, at most, two of Raptors that can be sent to fight. (please note that this doesn't say anything about chinese top fighters and their numbers. Yes, j10 is also introduced in small numbers, my guess from 2-3 squadrons) Yes, more are being introduced of both and probably be the end of this year two more squadrons will become operational. Cruise missiles combined, USAF and USN inventory number in little under 3000 pieces. So far there's no information that new USAF cruise missiles are being produced but block IV tomahawk is under production at a rate of up to 40 pieces a month.

One thing about cruise missile strategy. When one compares numbers - it is clear that US would need far more cruise missiles to achieve the same relative impact on china that it did on iraq in 2003. We are talking about a double digit factor increase, purely looking at the number of targets in china versus number of targets in iraq. That does not even take into consideration the fact china has far more capable early warning and interception network, surely taking additional toll on those cruise missiles. In my opinion, 3000 cruise missiles wouldn't make half the effect on china that it did on iraq, comparatively speaking of course. 5000+ cruise missiles wouldn't be enough either, and that's the number USA is striving to get and maintain, which is planned to be achieved in 2010, assuming spending and purchasing ratio stays the same.

I am glad that Sea Dog has offered his number on the rate of exchange between US and chinese fighters. 1:6 to 1:8, so lets go with mid range assumption of 1:7. Also, i shall not use that rate of exchange for the obsolescent j6 and not upgraded j7 and j8 planes. (lets please keep in mind though that a plane can carry only so many missiles, USAF and USN average right now would be 4 (6) bvr missiles and 4 (2) wvr missiles). Thats some 100-150 US fighters being lost in air combat in exchange for eliminating all the 3rd and 4th gen fighters PLA has. (100-150 is used due to difficulty of telling just how many j8 and j7 have been upgraded to latest standards)

What exchange rate do you give for an old j7 or j8 versus a f18c/d? (f18c/d still being the predominant fighter on US carriers as each carrier fields at least two squadrons of them. Even when all the f18e/f are produced, they will average half the combat aircraft on an average carrier) Let us also not forget that since chinese planes will mostly be on short range missions - they will have the luxury of much more afterburner usage, unlike their US counterparts which will have used a good deal of their fuel just getting there. That means lots of planes in the air, from various airbases in short amount of time. It is virtually guaranteed US forces would never enjoy 1:1 engagements. j6 might be crap but if it happens that, after a huge air combat, a single surviving f18 shoots all its missiles and theres another couple of j6 left alive - those j6 will win.

I dont advise trying to attack US carriers. Mostly because there's little to be gained and lots to lose. To succesfully attack a carrier one'd have to go through most of its air wing anyway. And once you destroy the planes - the carrier has little point in staying in the war. Sure, it could new planes but it's still more worthwhile not to attack the ships themselves. Let their planes come to you.

But the single biggest problem US faces is its relative lack and postion and size of airfields that can be used in such a war. Basically, only kadena base on okinawa is within range of any chinese soil so f15 squadrons can be used at 100% efficiency, without a need for external fuel tanks, nor need to be refuelled - so they can maintain a decent sorie rate. That range is also a curse, at the same time, since kadena, as the one and only forward positioned US airbase is absolutely sure to be a target. Will it be attacked - i don't know, that depends on confidence of chinese commaders that the gains from destroyed kadena will be bigger than losses needed to pull such a feat off. Short range conventional warhead ballistic missile strikes (and cruise missile too, i guess, albeit less effective when we take into account the speed and flight profile - easier to intercept ) are sure to be utilizied, with or without any air attack to follow.

All other bases are very far away, not to mention that there's a limited number and one can field only so many planes at one. So instead of sustaining a 2-3 sortie rate (per fighter-bomber, per day) All non kadena based planes will feature a lower 1-2 sortie rate. I shiver to think what miniscule sortie rate Guam f15s would have, for example. Aircraft carriers would be plentiful, for sure. I doubt US would start such a war without bringing at least 6 carrier groups, possibly up to 8. But once again, sustained sortie rate that USN can offer is low, lower than USAF's, and history (both gulf wars, serbia, afghanistan) has showed that rate to be between 1.1 and 1.2 sorties per day per plane. On the other side - china is defending. Ranges that chinese planes have to cover are smaller. And whereas more than 50% of US fighters in the theatre ( if i have to give an exact number - id say 65%) would have to be carrier borne, all chinese fighters would enjoy the bigger sustained sortie rates of real airbases.

Totoro, you hit the nail in the head!
Amateurs talk tactics while preofessionals talk logisitics...

Anyway, lets not steer this into a US attacks China thread...

The J-10 is nowhere near the capabilities of the F-22 and F-35.
Heck, until I see some concrete figures, I would put it below the F-15 E level or F-16 Block 52.

We still do not know, for a certain fact, its range, turn rate, roll rate, radar and avionics capabilities, payload, etc.

IDonT said:

Totoro, you hit the nail in the head!
Amateurs talk tactics while preofessionals talk logisitics...

Anyway, lets not steer this into a US attacks China thread...

The J-10 is nowhere near the capabilities of the F-22 and F-35.
Heck, until I see some concrete figures, I would put it below the F-15 E level or F-16 Block 52.

We still do not know, for a certain fact, its range, turn rate, roll rate, radar and avionics capabilities, payload, etc.

Click to expand...

I agree, great post by Totoro.

You should compare F-15C to J-10, since E is doing more strike roles. I think he was not comparing J-10 to 22/35, but rather just saying that both are the best each side has right now.

As for the kill ratio, if the kill ratio is 1:1 or even 2:1, that would be considered unacceptable by the Americans in my opinion.

Another thing you guys failed to remember is that China actually has the most number of BVR capable fighters outside of US, includes approximately:
100 J-10
26 su-27ubk
100 su-30mkk/2
120 J-11
150 J-8F/H

That's about 500 BVR capable fighters directed by AWACS and GC, it would give anyone a problem.

Anyhow, whoever said tomahawk isn't a problem has no idea what he is talking about. But please, stick on the topic of Jians vs F-22/F-35.