China need 10 carries to control 1st island chain?????
have you notice that china has airforce and rocket force that are able to project fully over that range?????
Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator
- Thread starter RedSky
- Start date
- Status
have you notice that china has airforce and rocket force that are able to project fully over that range?????
It doesn't stop the US Navy or US bombers from mounting incursions to Taiwan on the 1st Island Chain, as they can decide when to amass enough aircraft and/or ships to push through.
Remember they can also launch hypersonic missiles from 3000km away and a stealth bomber has an operating radius of 5000km.
The current Chinese Air Force and Rocket Forces would really struggle to project power at these distances.
ok, I get it, China has no CATOBAR carriers in the water by early 2022, but 10 by 2035? same time as you believe J-XY/XZ could reach the number of 1000? that's 10 in 13 years, 1.3 years per carrier, and not including training and everything, I know you are hyper on Chinese ship building industry, but this is just ridiculars... it's not even wishful thinking, this is day dream...
no you didn't, state something does not make the argument valid unless you prove it or make proper derivation
non sense
of course size matter, remember people keep critisis F-35 been fat? why USAF found so hard to add anything on F-22? why J-20 has side weapon bay and FC-31 doesn't? for the 5th gen figher, with internal weapon bay, size carry more weight than previous generations.
J-20 has space to add one more pilot, but given the size of FC-31, I doubted it. so at this stage FC-31 based jet, J-XY or XZ whatever, is lack of ability of commading UAV efficiently, and these is no way to add this ability unless it increase size
so your solution for this is that since CAC is using WS-15 and SAC is using WS-19, so for the sake of jobs, SAC need to build 1000 jets???
... China is not in1960s, please learn at least a little bit about China in 21st century please...
like I mentioned before, there will be definately competation for 6th gen fighters, the chance for SAC winning is not slim, why you keep assume the 6th gen is going to come from CAS like it has already won the contract?
oh, btw, I repeated what I said before, sorry to say, this is called respect.
to simply answer you question, China is producing flanker and J-10 and J-20 with WS-10, so your arguement again make no sense.
also, since you like to ask question, I have one for you as well.
why China need to equip something weaker or potentially weaker than the existing J-20?
- maintain SAC production?
hi, flanker has more potential to produce as the work house, and heavy weapon carrier, so SAC can produce 5th gen fighter and flanker to maintain its production line, while CAC can only produce J-20 and move J-10 to Guizhou
- cheaper?
your logic is China want to spents tones of money to build 10 new CATOBARs in the next 10 years, I don't think China will care the small gap between these two
- better capacity?
no way, J-20 has larger airframe, as a 5th gen fighter, it has larger potential of impovement.
so what else?
why?? just because someone make a rumor doesnot means it make sense, and does not means we need to take this assumption like it is something. seriously, who made that rumor? what's his credibility? why no other souce in China, like Yankeesama, Shilao, Xiyazhou mentioned about this?
Also, there is a long distance between China develop J-XY/XZ and produce 1000 unit of these variants in the future. if the rumor contain this part, ask yourself who is this person to know the secertive information of production number of a non exist jet? Xi Jinping? what's his base to make this up?
no matter how many time you repeat your argument, if you don't answer people's question directly, that's just wishful thinking
also thinking people will get the same conclusion without proper derivation makes people question about your critical thinking and logic skill
Last edited:
The ability to deter entry is not the same thing as the ability to maintain area control. Eventually China would like to maintain area control, not simply deter entry. Deterring entry helps you increase your chance of winning when someone tries to contain you. Area control prevents them from even trying.
haha, so US hasn't found Chinese missile difficult to deal with? what about those anti A2/AD stretegy US cocking up these years?
if US long range capacity is reliable why it keep saying chinese hypersonic missile is ahead of US in 5-10 years? what's the purpose of rapid raptor? why USM dump all the M1 and porpose some silly quick island missle depoyment non sense?
also enlighten me? what hypersonic missiles from 3000km US have??? does US even has a hypersonic missle at the moment? I mean about 5 mach and above.
Last edited:
seriously? China need to surpass USN and have 10 CATOBAR carriers just to maintain control of 1st island chain?
Soviet in the 70s without a single carrier was able to deter US in the deep ocean, now china need additional 10 CATOBAR carriers just to secure its neighbourhood? seriously? I thought you want to make a reasonable argument but not a joke.
just ask yourself, when China has 10 CATOBAR carriers, why would 1st island chain country willing to risk everything just to achieve some stupid persecutory delusion... they are also human with normal intelligent you know...
Last edited:
well, he stated that in order to have 1000 J-XY/XZ by 2035, China will built 10 CATOBAR carriers... I just don't know where to start...
Well, yes. If you have 10 carriers they’re not all going to be active duty. 2-3 will be under maintenance in the rotation, and another 2-3 will be left closer to China’s periphery. That leaves 4-6 to cover the island chains. The area in the 1st to 2nd island chain is pretty vast, and China literally does not have many places that far out where it can project meaningful and durable naval and air power. 4-6 carriers maintaining an active presence out around the island chains probably gives China a 300-500 strong naval air fleet to contest against active deployment and projection from US and allied bases, which might just be sufficient enough to head off any containment efforts out to the second island chain. Unless China takes territory around those island chains and establishes bases of their own carriers are all they really have.
The Soviets never needed to worry about having a large carrier force because the Soviets were not exposed to vulnerabilities by sea to begin with. Most of the Soviets geographic vulnerabilities were land based facing their western front. China’s chief geostrategic vulnerability on the other hand is via sea. If you look at US strategy docs covering China scenarios pretty much all of them involve heavy, decisive, almost exclusive utilization of air and sea power converging upon China’s maritime geography or its coast. China and the Soviet Union do not share geostrategic vulnerabilities, so naturally they will have different needs and considerations in their force composition.
It’s not that I’m not trying to have a serious discussion, but maybe that you’re trying to understand China’s force requirements by analogy rather than by via the particulars of China’s geostrategic circumstance. The right question to ask here isn’t “what is reasonable for China based on what other great powers did”, but “what is reasonable for China given what its particular strategic vulnerabilities and needs are.”
Last edited:
you do know china is on the 'MAINLAND' of east asia, and has far more bases and airfields than all the US and its east asia alliens combined.... also most of these countries by theirselves don't have the ability/weapon to reach china, but china does has a large arsanal to get them
really? I don't think so, you do remember China is a major nuclear power right? what makes you think if the time when China need to deploy carriers to attack these countries or US militaries in these countries, US won't strike back with nuclear? US was even threating to go nukes to China on potential loss of a carrier.
and when US started a nuclear war, what makes you think china will chicken?
let me put this way, the scenario that China use carrier within 1st island chain does not even exist, even campion on Taiwan, China is most likely to place its carrier fleet on the EAST side of Taiwan and north to philipine, technically outside the 1st island chain
Last edited:
- Status