Seems like nothing much over there too
US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
It feels kinda foolish to let others build military ships for you when you have the technology. First of all, you are giving up money for your companies, you are giving up shipyard capacity also, finally, you are making yourself vulnerable in times of crisis if your so called ally changes its mind about giving you ships.
I think US buying ships from others will mark as the end of US naval power. Yes, they might raise numbers a bit in the short term, but they will suffer big time long term.
Because there isn't really much to discuss about the model. We don't even know if that model is actually representative of the final design of the F-47, or just one of the many proposed variants/iterations for the F-47 during its R&D phase.
Only 40 to 50 J20 per year?!?! I thought to consensus was around 100 per year.
If the number is too high then Indocom becomes completely pointless. The ideal threat level they want China to be is threatening but non-dominant so they get maximum funding.
While the article mentioned about the F-47, why is there no mention of the J-36 and J-XDS?
Moreover, 40-50 J-20s + assuming similar production rates for the J-16/D + assuming similar combined production rates for the J-15T/D and J-35/A does not make China "producing fighters at a rate of 1.2 to 1 over the United States", especially when the US is still producing ~150 F-35A/B/Cs per year alone. The math simply doesn't add up.
I guess we know what to make of that article (and/or what Paparo mentioned during the Senate hearing).
They might be counting J-16 in the mix.
The math still doesn't make sense. 45x J-20s + 45x J-16/Ds + 45x J-15T/Ds & J-35/As = 135x fighters.
That's not 1.2 times that of the F-35's ~150 units annual production rate.