Sukhoi passes into obselence as the 50th Raptor is delivered.

Americans are always caught up in a hollywood fantasy where the bad guys can't shoot and the good guys never gets hurt. In real life, people die on both sides. America will retreat if they take more than 10,000 naval and air force losses. One or two CVBG sunk would do it too. China can take more casualties and keep fighting.

so by your logic there is no way you can stop a cruise missile!!!!!!!!!

I asure you that is not the case

this is china not Iraq or serbia they americans dont own they sky !!!!!

also provide evidance that the chinese is inferior at electronic warfare

or that there is some magic weapon that will render all sam useless

bd popeye said:

What's with the coffe cup in all your post?

I saw a show on TV about the F-22 and in fact the way the engine is constructed and with its ablity to supercruise it does have a reduced exhaust(plume) signature. Read into this link what you will.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Turbofan engine has a lower IR signature than turbojet engine. I would venture that commercial turbofans on passenger airlines(747, Airbus, etc) have an even lower IR signature than military turbofans because of the higher bypass ratio. The turbofans been around for 30 years, it's nothing new. The reduced IR signature would not help much because the IRST is an extremely sensitive device.

Looking at your link, the F-22 engine on the test stand spews out a huge blue flame - to me that looks like a large jet plume.

B-2 bomber maybe "invisible" to radar, but with 4 jet engines running, that leaves a lot of jet plumes. IRST should have no problem detecting and tracking it.

Hazelnut flavored coffee is good ... :coffee:

Actually, Sea Dog you bring up an interesting point. How many tomahawks did America use in operation Iraqi freedom? I remember it was reported that America was running out of it.

I believer China has 4 S-300PMU batallions, 12 S-300PMU1 batallions and 8 S-300PMU2 battallions.

Interesting stuff from a while back:

Since 1992, China has successively acquired the “2S6M”, the “Tor-M1”, the “S-300PMU1”, and the “S-300V” air-defense missile systems. Numerous testing and operational exercises proved that the overall capabilities of China’s new generation surface-to-air missile systems have reached, and sometimes even surpassed the world’s advanced level systems. Among the air-defense missile systems, the 2S6M (Tunguska) has yet to find a western match. The performance of the S-300V is also judged to be better than the Patriot missile PAC-2+ that Taiwan acquired. Thus, it is considered to be a reliable all altitude air and missile defense system. In addition, China and Russia are cooperating on the development and production of a new generation of Hong-Qi (HQ) series air-defense missile systems to include the HQ-15, a Chinese version of the S-300PMU1, as well as the HQ-16, HQ-17, and HQ-18 systems. The HQ-16 is a completely new air-defense missile system jointly researched and developed by China and Russia. It is a medium to low-altitude, medium-range surface-to-air missile (SAM) with an effective combat altitude from 100 to 20,000 meters and a reaction speed of six to eight seconds. A HQ-16 missile battery can strike eight air targets simultaneously. The single-shot hit probability of the HQ-16 is 90 percent. The HQ-16 uses the most advanced vertical launch technology and phased array radar. China will combine HQ-16 and HQ-17, a Chinese version of the Tor-M1 crawler-type anti-aircraft missile system, to replace the “middle-aged” HQ-61A. Currently, this missile project is in its advanced research and development (R&D) stage. If it progresses smoothly, it is estimated that it will be deployed in 2005.

When the Chinese Central Military Commission (CMC) Deputy Chairman Liu Huaqing visited Russia from 26 August to 4 September 1997, Liu not only saw a highly classified proto-type new fighter, but also discussed technical details with Russian defense industries on establishing the S-300V production line in China. If the discussion of the technology transfer proceeds smoothly, the first set of the Chinese version of S-300V probably will be out in 2001, with the designator of HQ-18. This marks the first time that China will have an anti-ballistic missile production capability. The HQ-18, together with the HQ-15, HQ-16, and HQ-17 will form a comprehensive air defense system to cover all altitudes.

Currently, the missile forces of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) ground force’s air defense force and the PLA Air Force (PLAAF) anti-aircraft force are equipped with 9 types of SAM, among which are the low to ultra low-altitude, near-range SAMs, which consist of shoulder launched Hong-Ying (HY or HN) 5/5A/5B, Qian-Wei-1 (QW-1) (an improved Stinger), Di-Kong (DK) (a modified PL-9), Russian-made 2S6M Tunguska, and the field air-defense system 9M311 (SA-19). The medium to low-altitude short-range SAMs include the HQ-61A, HQ-7 (an improved French Crotale, export designator is Fei-Meng 80 or FM-80), and the imported Russian 9A331 (SA-15) Tor. The high-altitude long-range SAMs include the HQ-2/2J/2B and the S-300PMU (SA-10B), which were purchased from Russia in 1992, and have already become part of China’s capability. The S-300V (SA-12), which has been shown frequently in military exercises in recent years, is more advanced and has a comprehensive anti-ballistic missile defense capability, and was introduced to China in 1995.

Since this is getting interesting, I've started a SAM thread http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?p=19736#post19736

@tphuang - You're right about America's TLAM inventory running low. But it was the in-theatre inventory....not total national inventory. Right now, the USN has approximately 2,200 Block II and III's. There are about 900 stored or bunkered TLAM-N (without warhead) and TASMS variants that can be put to use in a certain amount of time (reconfigured to land-attack version), and USN will add 2500 - 3,300 Next Generation Tomahawks over a 5 year time span beginning Quarter 1 2006. We're not exactly running out yet. And you'll get no argument from me regarding the quality of Chinese SAM defenses. I personally believe these SAM systems may just shoot down a non-calculated fraction of these incoming missiles. But what I'm saying is that the USN will calculate how many they would need based on those SAM battalions numbers (intelligence assessments)and dispersal and add probably 10%. I don't know the exact number myself, but those in the know do. And this figure will coincide with the contingency plan in place to deal with the situation at hand. And don' forget that these atacks are easily followed up with more of an onslaught if needed. B-2's would be a tremendous asset to use in this regard. Based upon the numbers of battalions you quote, I can't see needing more than 20-25% of total national inventory. This also acounts for other in theatre assets as well. Yes, WW3 would be very costly to both sides. Let's try to avoid it, shall we?

@Roger604 - You grossly underestimate American resolve. Don't compare hostilities with China with the guerrilla war we currently are fielding against Iraqi terrorists. These two conflicts are fought differently, partly because China has a professional military, and Iraqi insurgents are not. In a conflict with China, it would be national suicide to worry too much about collateral damage and such. I think China knows this, and this is why I don't think China would launch the attack against Guam as presented here. Just doesn't make sense to do it. Even American liberals were calling for blood on 9-11. Listen and learn.

@darth sidious - My logic never has shown me to believe a cruise missile cannot be stopped. Even an American one. Where did you read into that?!?!? China so far has not built the kind of electronic warfare means that the USA has. That's just a fact. Can Chinese land-attack missiles (Russian variants all)provide a credible electronic warfare penetration mission? If so, why doesn't anyone on Earth provide evidence. How about anything comparable as an EA-6B? Sorry, the burden of proof is on you. America has pretty much demonstrated some of these capabilities across the board.

@coolieno - The Infra-red signature is basically nil. It has heat, but it is really low. This has been said time and again. If the IRST is really ultr-sensitive to this point, then I'll give you this point. But these PLAAF fighters would have a large search volume to look for a very few aircraft with virtually no Infra-red signature. Statistical analysis would favor the B-2 strike by large margins. And yes Hazelnut coffee is good, but I prefer a little mocha in mine.:coffee:

Sea Dog: Yes, China has nothing to gain from attacking Guam unless it were attacked first.


So even if we admit that F-22 swings things in favor of US for now. How should things change after J-XX is inducted (presumably in 7-8 years if things go smooth)? Would J-XX play a role primarily to fight for the skies above to the seas and facilitate attacks on surface targets?

Roger604 said:

Sea Dog: Yes, China has nothing to gain from attacking Guam unless it were attacked first.


So even if we admit that F-22 swings things in favor of US for now. How should things change after J-XX is inducted (presumably in 7-8 years if things go smooth)? Would J-XX play a role primarily to fight for the skies above to the seas and facilitate attacks on surface targets?

Click to expand...

Yes, sir. And the good news is, I can't even think of one scenario where the USA would launch any military strike against China for purposes of aggression....for no apparent reason. The USA has absolutely no intention to launch any military first strike on China in any way.

The J-XX is a program that should be watched with interest. I've been wondering about the same thing regarding J-XX development and whether or not there would be some duality of air-air and air-ground capabilities. I'm certainly going to keep my eye on this program for sure.

AFAIK, F-22 does have some air-ground capabilities, but it's strength lies in air-air evolutions.

China wouldn't strike first at US either. Even if it does launch an attack on guam (which is doubtful) it would have to be preceeeded by US attack on some chinese asset. Since i also agree US would probably not attack first either, only possiblity i see is war on taiwan that would make US say 'okay, thats like declaring war on us.' then us attacks.

Like sea dog said, USN tries to maintain a supply of about 3000 tomahawks. (there are, of course, also additional USAAF cruise missiles) Knowing how big china is, how many targets it has, it's doubtful US would do a mass strike in first 48 hours. What it could do is limited strikes, on very select targets, sending several hundred tomahaws that it has at hand in the theatre. Thing is, china is way too big, too many HQs, airfields, harbors, etc for US to use cruise missiles on even half of them. There just aren't enough physically available to do a saturated strike. And one would need to do a saturated strike as china's air defence shield IS best one that US would have faced to that date. One can't compare Iraq or Serbia which were both using 70s and 80s tech with today's China's capabilities.

Iraq and serbia did not have detection capabilities the way china does today. Unfortunently no one has exact data. We get only promotional materials about, for example, f22s capabilities, and likewise, about system capable of detecting (not targeting, mind you) stealthy planes. To make the long story short, US would not be sending flights of b2s into china without losses. Some of them would be detected and sent fighters into their approximate vicinity, located and destroyed. Luckily for US, it currnely has, in their words, 12 raptors ready to deploy anywhere in the world. That number is sure to grow in a matter of months. But what that really means is just far more PLAAF planes needed to bring down one b2, as they have to first fight through the raptors.

If i was in charge of china and i eagerly wanted to fight US, i'd do it either now before us gets too many raptors, or wait for US to engage into yet another war with some country, be it Iran or whoever else. Let them spend 1000-2000 cruise missiles there, tie their forces, etc. Sure, US would redirect the forces but i'd give me additional weeks of time, on top of couple of weeks needed to amass a strike on china required in the first place. So a month, enough time to invade and set up defences on taiwan.

sea do,g everyhintg you say depends on evidence, exept the u.s's. you always condider chineseequipment inferior simply due to a lack of information., yet the moment the u.s reveals something about a future project, you take it to be true. china does not have to show off its lacm technologies for your sake. china is perfectly fine keeping secrets. the whole reason is to have their enemies under estimate them. and it worked on you.

MIGleader said:

sea do,g everyhintg you say depends on evidence, exept the u.s's. you always condider chineseequipment inferior simply due to a lack of information., yet the moment the u.s reveals something about a future project, you take it to be true. china does not have to show off its lacm technologies for your sake. china is perfectly fine keeping secrets. the whole reason is to have their enemies under estimate them. and it worked on you.

Click to expand...

goood post mig

sea dog chinese equipment in your eyes is always inferior you said that the chinese have no defence aginst cruise missile what so ever maybe you should read sino defence more often

its alway the Russians or the french doing the work for china and its always has to be inferior to american equipment

but when it comes to us they will always be superior simply beacause they are american