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

You never know how conflicts will happen, but there are four main possible scenarios in Asia: Korea, Japan, sea control, and Taiwan. US actively attacks North Korea and PLA supports NK(or very unlikely, US intervenes when NK attacks SK), US intervenes in China-Japan conflict, accidental blue water engagement between PLAN and USN resulted in escalation, and US intervenes in China-Taiwan conflict. Most people have the last one in mind.

Greater flexibility of cruise missiles mean they were used in many different missions. This also means that if necessary, US could choose to narrow the concentration and therefore allowing stronger attacks on certain missions. Narrowing the missions does result in some targets missed, but that's where the different strategy aim come into play.

A fake example: SU-30 could carry four R-73 near wingtip, two R-77, and two KAB-500 bombs. For attack mission against a radar, SU-30 could shoot down six aircrafts by AAM at most. Now, if we change the mission to air superior only, it could carry six R-77 and four R-73. In that configuration SU-30 cannot attack radar, but the shifted tactical focus allow up to ten air-to-air kills. Obviously if we are talking about J-7 or F-5, the same doesn't apply because those fighters have very limited load. The superior capability of SU-30 allows such flexibility. US cruise missile planning is no different. The technology improvement has resulted in greater operational flexibility. One missile could still only be used on one target, that hasn't changed. But different focus allows different operational planning.

Most people talk about the differences between F-22 or JSF and the counterparts like Rafale or Flanker. However, there is another not-so-obvious revolution in C4ISR and operational planning art. US had experimented with the F-15 and Link-16. By using more than 12000 training sorties, in which both sides have F-15 but only one side has Link-16, the result has shown that Link-16 led to 2.5 times improvement in kill ratio. The engagement varies from 2-2 or 8-16, but other than Link 16, the F-15 capabilities are the same.

Link-16 is a very well-known datalink, but that is only a small part of the overall US improvement. This kind of technology doesn't make US invincible, since there are always strategical miscalculations. But don't forget that US is a Superpower that is constantly improving its military might. In any war gaming or hypothetical scenarios, platform comparison is not a substitute for complete analysis.

This is the reason I dismiss J-7. Certainly there are some uses for J-7. Their mere presences in combination with SAMs constitute a minimum deterrence and local point air defense. But looking from an operational context, J-7s will not be a decisive factor in potential China-US conflict. There are too many ways to neutralize them, your insistence of using J-7s as cannon folder won't matter. For example, what if US EW aircrafts jam J-7s? How would J-7s even find the enemies without contacts to AWACS or ground station, if opposing aircrafts choose not to engage?

You also underestimate the problem of air traffic control. Even US had to worry about deconflict the routes and schedules in OIF, when it clearly had air supremacy. Getting aircrafts to the air and let them rely on visual is fine, if you are only making a airbase transit or doing an air show. Once air combat starts, aircrafts will fly everywhere. If you do not have adequate control mechanism, too many inferior aircrafts will not make things better.

Of course past record of F-15 doesn't mean it'll stay the same for sure. But if you insist on dismissing simulation, and emphasize past record doesn't mean anything, what are you left with? Unless you believe nothing could ever be estimated, this won't get you anywhere. There are always many variables. But by common sense, we could see that US proven combat record with detail analysis and simulation clearly means US would have strong advantages.

To summarize:
Yes, as a region power PLA is far superior than Iraq, Yugoslavia and others.
Yes, US is not impossible to beat.
Yes, PLA is making rapid improvements and modernizations.
However, it would be very difficult for China to defeat US within 10 years (likely even longer).

No R-77 and AMRAAM during Cope India. Both sides held back. US did not use AESA F-15, and India did not use MKI. But overall, it wasn't a direct platform simulation, with the rules of engagement and scenario limitations. That wasn't the goal of the exercise. US and India was trying to build trust with basic military exercise.

As oppose to an hypothetical simulation, here's what really happened in the last great air conflict of the Vietnam War. This list has been updated.:coffee:


There were a great many aircraft losses during the Vietnam War. Hundreds of U.S. fixed-wing aircraft were lost to ground fire in South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, and to an integrated air defense system in North Vietnam, consisting of antiaircraft artillery (AAA), surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), and fighter interceptors (MiG)s. The great majority of U.S. combat losses in all areas of Southeast Asia were to AAA . The Royal Australian Air Force also flew combat and airlift missions in South Vietnam, as did the Republic of Vietnam.
Additionally, accidental losses (such as in the case of the SR-71s listed) extracted an additional toll by themselves and are not differentiated in the following list below. Please note that much of the list appears to be unsubstantiated by any given source in this wiki article.

Contents
1 United States aircraft
1.1 United States Air Force
1.2 United States Navy
1.3 United States Marine Corps
2 Australian aircraft
3 Republic of Vietnam aircraft
4 North Vietnamese aircraft
4.1 Fixed-wing losses (air to air combat only)
5 People's Republic of China aircraft
5.1 Fixed-wing losses (air to air combat only)
6 Sources


United States aircraft

United States Air Force
A-1 Skyraider-- --191 total, 150 in combat
A-7 Corsair II-- (6)
A-26 Invader-- (22)
A-37 Dragonfly-- (22)
AC-47 Spooky-- --19 total, 17 in combat
AC-119 Shadow/Stinger-- --6 total, 2 in combat
AC-130 Spectre-- --6 total, all combat
B-52 Stratofortress-- --30 total, 18 in combat
B-57 Canberra-- --56 total, 38 in combat
B-66 Destroyer-- (27)
C-7 Caribou-- (20)
C-47 Skytrain-- (21)
C-123 Provider-- --53 total, 21 in combat
C-130 Hercules-- --55 total, 34 in combat
C-141 Starlifter-- (2)
EB-66 Destroyer (14)
EC-121 Bat Cat-- (2)
F-4 Phantom II-- --445 total, 382 in combat
F-5 Freedom Fighter-- (9)
F-100 Super Sabre-- --243 total, 198 in combat
F-102 Delta Dagger-- (14)
F-104 Starfighter-- (14)
F-105 Thunderchief-- --397 total, 334 in combat
F-111 "Aardvark"-- --10 total, 6 in combat
HU-16 Albatross-- (2)
KB-50 Superfortress-- (1)
KC-135 Stratotanker-- (3)
O-1 Bird Dog-- --172 total, 122 in combat
O-2 Skymaster-- --104 total, 82 in combat
OV-10 Bronco-- --63 total, 47 in combat
QU-22-- (9)
RF-4 Phantom-- --83 total, 76 in combat
RF-101 Voodoo-- --39 total, 33 in combat
SR-71 Blackbird-- --2, 0 combat
T-28 Trojan-- (23)
U-2 "Dragon Lady"-- (1)
U-3 Blue Canoe-- (1)
U-6 Beaver-- (1)
U-10 Courier-- (1)
Source: Air Force Magazine, Vol.87, No. 9, September 2004, P.58, "The Vietnam War Almanac," with attribution to USAF Operations Report, Nov. 30, 1973


United States Navy
A-1 Skyraider --65 total, 48 in combat
A-3 Skywarrior --7 total, 2 in combat
A-4 Skyhawk --282 total, 195 in combat
A-5 Vigilante (7) --0 in combat
A-6 Intruder --62 total, 51 in combat
A-7 Corsair --100 total, 55 in combat
C-1 Trader --4 total, 0 in combat
C-2 Greyhound --1 total, 0 in combat
C-47 Skytrain (1)
E-1 Tracer --3 total, 0 in combat
E-2 Hawkeye --2 total, 0 in combat
EA-1 Skyraider --4 total, 1 in combat
EC-121 Warning Star (1?)
F-4 Phantom --138 total, 75 in combat
F-8 Crusader --118 total, 57 in combat
OV-10 Bronco (7)
P-2 Neptune (4)
P-3 Orion (2)
RA-5 Vigilante --26 total, 18 in combat
RF-8 Crusader --29 total, 19 in combat
S-2 Tracker --4 total, 2 in combat
Source: hand tabulation of individual loss entries by date and aircraft carrier, June 7, 1964-August 15, 1973, carrier air wings only, recorded in Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club, René J. Francillon (1988)


United States Marine Corps
A-4 Skyhawk 81
A-6 Intruder 25
C-117 Skytrain 2
EA-6 Prowler 2
EF-10 Skynight 5
F-4 Phantom 98
F-8 Crusader 21
KC-130 Hercules 4
O-1 Bird Dog 7
OV-10 Bronco 10
RF-4 Phantom 4
RF-8 Crusader 1
TA-4 Skyhawk 10
TF-9 Cougar 1


Australian aircraft


Republic of Vietnam aircraft


North Vietnamese aircraft

Fixed-wing losses (air to air combat only)
An-2 4 claimed
MiG-17 Fresco 100 (110 claimed)
MiG-19 Farmer 10 claimed
MiG-21 Fishbed 86 (90 claimed)


People's Republic of China aircraft

Fixed-wing losses (air to air combat only)
MiG-17 Fresco 3 claimed

Sources
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War"
Category: Vietnam War aircraft

cabbageman, the j-7 is an INTERCEPTOR. That means it does NOT take until a groud gadar has detected a bogie. It does NOT engage the nemy until the enmy has come into it's own radar range. Their are plenty of UAV's to use as cannon fodder rather thna live pilots.

I do not believe vietnam stats are very relevant here. Not only was it a time where US enjoyed smaller technological advantage over its enemies but the war itself was of a very different nature. USAF and USN had for a great deal of their missions to provide close combat support, flying relatively low. Vietnam landscape provided for multitude of ways to hide AA guns. Even today, within their respective ranges, AAA is still by far the deadliest adversary a plane has.

Not only would US never risk invading chinese land so it'd need to fly such missions versus chinese, but todays technology and doctrine is different. Low altitude combat support seems to be a thing of the past for the US.

To cabbageman: i think we agree that US can theoretically be beaten but also, realistically, china is still far too weak to go head to head in an air war. Capability gap is getting smaller, yes, but not even 10 years will be enough, it could literally take decades upon decades (or more) for true parity - a timescale so large that anything is possible .

So no ARH missiles in cope india? I assume f15s were using sparrows, then. Also, it comes as surprise to me than indians werent using MKIs there. I wonder what the results would be if they were...

Nothing to add to link16 bit, everything you said is known and true. Would like to point out, however, that unlike iraqis, chines do use datalinks and are continuously working on improving them. Just like US. Just like any sane country who can afford to would. It's a very normal and everyday and to-be-expected deal.

Also, about j7s. i never said they would be decisive. far from it. i said every little bit matters. they would be that 'little bit'. But they would help, even if by a small margin. I guess it'd be a very smart move on chinese behalf to refurbish the j7s and equip them with a good datalink, but so far that doesn't seem to be the case. Even without datalinks, even without any guidance, with jammed radar, j7s relying on visual targeting can still help, even if just a little bit. you may decide to label that as negligable amount of help but i dont think theres such a thing as negligable help in a war.

Mixing j7s with other, more capable types, would help too. While RCS is hard to lower, its very much easier to increase it to a desired level. Imagine a 20 same blips on your radar, coming to intercept you. Would you assume they're all flankers, or all j7s? or at which ratio is the mix? If you assume they're flankers youd have to provide for better defenses, no? Meaning less available airplans in another sector.

Of course one has to guess or estimate. i agree. Simulations can help. I phrased my opinion wrongly before... i certainly give more weight to a rand study than to a figure pulld out of a hat in a forum discussion, even if I was the person to pull that figure out of that hat. But one must compare apples with appls and oranges with oranges. Fact remains that f15s record was in a context that would not be repeated versus china. Variables are too different there. Please note when i say record would be different i dont mean US would lose. It still has the upper hand. it's just that US would lose more planes than in the wars up until now.

the Indians use su-30k. I guess you can do a search on what su-30k is, but it probably doesn't have the well known avionics suite of mki. However, mki was used in this most recent Cope India. At least this time, it lost at least once to an F-16 in WVR. Anyhow, I believe the American missiles had a range limit put on them. So even if they were using AIM-7, it wasn't allowed to be used at full spec. In general, it's not a good example to use. I don't really see the point of bringing it up everytime. It got through to the American senate. They got the go ahead for more F-22s.

Vietnam failures have taught US many lessons. There were heavy losses because:
1. During Vietnam, pilots weren't trained hard in air to air combat, because most the political and military leadership believed that weapons of mass destruction would take care of everything. Aircrafts were just WMD delivery platform, nothing more.
2. Over reliance on non-mature technology. BVR weapons simply weren’t reliable nor advanced enough, and the lack of trainings resulted in pilots to use them incorrectly and often fired out of range. US was using aircrafts to do random bombings, but the Electronic Warfare technologies weren't superior either. Night operations were horrible.
3. Deficient strategy. The fear of Soviet intervention meant US was holding back. The gradualism also meant that USAF had to live with restrictive Rule of Engagement (it could not attack when SAM bases weren't ready, and absurdly attacked only after they come operational). The civilian leadership had no clear strategy at all, and falsely applied conventional conflict on guerrilla war. US military wanted to attack Vietnam military but civilian concentrated on Viet Cong.

After Vietnam, USAF took cues from Navy and began to have Topgun style training. DACT/Aggressor trainings , Red Flag, Doctrine changes, combined with the technological advances, all transformed US airpower.

After J-7s take off, is J-7 going to catch the supercruise stealthy F-22, under heavy jamming? J-7 modified UAV are even easier to jam.

J-7's mixed formation would limit SU-30's missions, since they do not have the same endurance. One more J-7 means one more friendly IFF problem for Flankers to worry about, while the J-7's contribution overall is questionable. J-7s have no BVR weapons, the short range offboresight weapons are nice but certainly inferior to AIM-9X. The pilots aren't the best in skills, since good pilots end up in J-11, J-10 or SU-30. Mixed formation is always doable, but I doubt the value of it. Modern air combat is no long the WWII mass engagement style. "Mass" is still important, but that word has been redefined.

J-7s are still somewhat useful against ROCAF, but not against USAF. PLAAF should get rid of them. If they need quantity, buy more FC-1 and J-10. If they need cheap air defense, upgrade the SAMs.

* Formations are really useless and asking to get killed. Let us hope that the PLAAF do not spend too much time training their pilots on it. It's only good for impressing old geezers in the party.

* The difference of AIM-9X or another weapon with wide off boresight is a matter of degrees,which does not usually translate to absolute superiority. Besides, not all US fighters have fitted with this, and practically zero with JASDF and ROCAF fighters. To complete the upgrade would take years.

* Personally I believe BVR is a quite bit overrated. BVRAAMs may have improved a lot in technology, but so does aircraft agility, ECM, countermeasures, and RCS reductions.

* As for the quality of J-7 pilots, we don't expect them to be all like the commander in the FTTC who manages to nail Su-27s with his J-7E, or back in the eighties, that CAC test pilot who on an F-7M, managed an equal record against one of the PAF pilots on the F-16A, which convinced Pakistan to buy F-7Ms. But J-11 and J-10 groups are now being converted from J-7 groups, not from J-8II groups like before. Many good pilots are in J-7s.

* The most effective way to use J-7s is to use them with a force multiplier like datalinks and AWACS/GCI. The problem of using fighter radar and any form of radar guided missile (SARH or ARH) is that an active radar declares your presence to everyone in the area. Mind you, modern RWRs can distinguish frequency, and therefore type of threat, the state of the threat, whether he is far, close, or locking on you or illuminating you, and what heading is he in. You don't need to turn on your search radar, keeping yourself passive and letting others like AWACS or GCI pass the target information to you.

If combined with datalinking, a good RWR, RCS reductions, ECM, low level flying or terrain masking, small fighters like J-7s can sneak up and surprise an opponent.

* The presence of J-7s alone in the radar might be enough to force enemy missions to be "mission killed", simply by forcing the enemy to drop their tanks and ground ordinance to free them to engage the J-7s.

* I don't think the J-7s can work with the Su-27s and Su-30s and will only tie down the Sues. But the J-7s can work with the J-8IIs who, while having BVR capability and a good radar, lacks the agility to be an effective close in opponent. J-7s do not need to formate with J-8IIs or J-11s---the J-7s can simply engage as a second wave after the J-8IIs make their initial attacks. By then the J-8IIs would be breaking away, the targets trying to outmaneuver the missiles, leaving them more vulnerable to a mixup.

Generally though I don't believe the J-7 has any place in today's modern air combat. We are just trying to provide the best options because the resource is already there and you might as well make the best use of it. It is a good and cheap peacetime aircraft for training pilots in ACM and keeping their flight hours up. But it is not a good modern wartime fighter.

China and the PLAAF in general is much better off replacing everything they can with J-11s and J-10s. Even the FC-1 is a much better alternative. Foir that matter, next to the J-7, the J-8II should be in the chopping block next. Lack of agility makes you more vulnerable to missile threats, and the plane has considerable RCS, though not as much as an Su-27.

Of course replacing old fighters is a must. Even 100 j10 for 500 j7 is a great deal. But when we're talking bout simply 500 j7s or no j7s, their mere presence in the battlefield, the deterrance they offer, however small it is compared to modern planes, outweights the cost of their maintenance. While china can afford them and while they can fly - it's good to keep them. When they get too old to go on flying without major and costly maintenance work - then you get rid of them. A fair number of those j7s and j8s are still relatively young with decent airframes. I do not see china getting rid of those planes before, say, 2015. And, actually, i see j8s going first, rather than latest versions of j7s - as they're cheaper to maintain and offer greater value for money if equipped with datalinks.

cabbageman said:

After J-7s take off, is J-7 going to catch the supercruise stealthy F-22, under heavy jamming? J-7 modified UAV are even easier to jam.

J-7's mixed formation would limit SU-30's missions, since they do not have the same endurance. One more J-7 means one more friendly IFF problem for Flankers to worry about, while the J-7's contribution overall is questionable. J-7s have no BVR weapons, the short range offboresight weapons are nice but certainly inferior to AIM-9X. The pilots aren't the best in skills, since good pilots end up in J-11, J-10 or SU-30. Mixed formation is always doable, but I doubt the value of it. Modern air combat is no long the WWII mass engagement style. "Mass" is still important, but that word has been redefined.

J-7s are still somewhat useful against ROCAF, but not against USAF. PLAAF should get rid of them. If they need quantity, buy more FC-1 and J-10. If they need cheap air defense, upgrade the SAMs.

Click to expand...

When did I ever say the j-7 was going to be used to intercept f-22s? Most j-7 regiments are regulated to more inward units of the Plaaf. and would you mind telling me how the u.s is going to fly an f-22 to china?

J-7g pilots are actually considered more elite thna you might think. I have feeling you really have no idea what role the j-7 really serves in the plaaf, nor what numbers its used in. Your implying the j07 serves as force multiplier for mass numbers, but its really not that. The Plaaf only operates some 250 j-7E/gs. SAMs are useful but once you fire it, its gone. The manuverabily of the j-7 makes it good for dogfight.