true... i'm not going to make any decisions until at least we see some more figures and perhaps some demonstrations.

All we can do for now is speculate

So, F-22 outclasses the J-10 as we speak, but wait, the significance of the J-10 is really that the chinese have made more technological progress in the last 10 years than in the previous 50 years. What's important with this rate of progress , is the question , where are the chinese in 15 years ????


I think closer than you would like (even considering the fact that the usa makes good progress herselve), considering the mere length of this thread I am not the only one who feels the dragon breath coming....



[edit on 7-1-2005 by Countermeasures]

Originally posted by Lucretius
it's not an F-16... it MAY incorporate F-16 technology as China aquired Isreals Lavi tech after they cancelled the project.

however it is not a Lavi nor an F-16... it simply uses ideas from those designs

Lucretius, I was using something called SARCASM. That plane is basically a modern F16. Hey, its a nice plane, but in no way an "air superiority" fighter.

Don't discount the J-10 yet!!...It maybe a good fighter....looks okay...though we need to see it fly in airshows/wargames...

And as for the dragon breath...

Crouching tiger= india
hidden dragon= china
USA= George Bush???

Originally posted by skippytjc

Originally posted by Lucretius
it's not an F-16... it MAY incorporate F-16 technology as China aquired Isreals Lavi tech after they cancelled the project.

however it is not a Lavi nor an F-16... it simply uses ideas from those designs

Lucretius, I was using something called SARCASM. That plane is basically a modern F16. Hey, its a nice plane, but in no way an "air superiority" fighter.

I could say something but wont...

anyhow, yes it's a multirole based fighter... China has su-30's which can take care of air supperiority

Are you sure about that??..The chinese Su-30MKKs are more of a maritime antiship thing..IMHO the Su-27 are the true chinese multi-role fighters..

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Are you sure about that??..The chinese Su-30MKKs are more of a maritime antiship thing..IMHO the Su-27 are the true chinese multi-role fighters..

Well, the current Flanker batches they have aren’t up to par with potential enemies. They need better weapons and ECM capabilities. I guess if you have an AWACS, refuelers, an acceptable radar, a BVR missile, and a competent pilot you can deal some damage but they don’t have anything specifically for CAP or interception...

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Are you sure about that??..The chinese Su-30MKKs are more of a maritime antiship thing..IMHO the Su-27 are the true chinese multi-role fighters..

the Sukhoi's have no anti-ship capability... it's the reason that China suspended the license and their orders until russia could do something about it

ARe you sure???!!!
I'm quite certain that the MKK was specifically designed for an anit-ship role..fitted with the sunburn and all..

I'm sorry... I meant the SU-27

Damn what is wrong with me today

J-10s are not meant to fight the F-22. Duh, does Taiwan have F-22s? I doubt it since America's only got them a few weeks back. J-10 is a huge improvement over anything else China made in the last 50 years. We basically skipped a generation but the generation thats been there for the last 40 years. J-10 is a spring board to learn, practice and experiment with ideas as CHina makes the next generation plane. I like the J-10C idea but it is quite classified as I can't find much info on it. Its a twin engine, stealth version with a internal weapons bay I believe (not too sure as I can't remember the weapons bay part but prove me wrong).

Then J-10 is supposed to be an counter to what...?? MiG-29 and F-16 I suppose??

Then J-10 is supposed to be an counter to what...?? MiG-29 and F-16 I suppose??

The J-10 isn’t really meant to counter anything, it’s a multirole fighter. It is in the same class as certain Mig-29 and certain blocks of F-16s so it has the ability to fight them in A2A combat without being completely outclassed.

And hey, doesn’t it make more sense to you to use a hardcore heavy fighter for air defense and aggression like the Su-27 and Su-30s? They would have a better chance in that field.

Greetings,

I feel some people are missing the point in my opinion, Chinas aim with the J10. To me it appears that the chinese are building a weapons platform, nothing more.

What do I mean by this? Its rather simple when you think about it, I aggree with some of the posts that relate to US fighter aircraft would be rather effective in reducing the numbers of chinese aircraft through AC, but to me there is a common problem with many of the people living in the western world.

China could quite easily overwhelm any US Air Arm that would be assigned to the region. If you think about it, it is rather easy, but the problem is that we in the west do not think about how or what the enemy [China] is willing to lose to win. Human life in the east is cheap, one human life lost merely means less juan to be spent on feeding or housing that person.

China still uses 1950s era battle tactics to a large degree, they have the natural resources to produce a small cheap weapons platform and more than enough of the population to use as pilots. The J10 only has to survive to launch its weapons, thats all in my opinion that platform was designed for, the SU 27 is the teeth in the PLAs attack force, the J10 is the pawns, cheap, fast, large numbers.

The Chinese have gone with the middle ground, a fair amount of fair fighters with a few high performance types, compaired to loads of crap fighters or a limited number of high tech types. The weapon systems carried is the key, AA 10 + AA12s will be hard to beat. I know this will be flamed to a small part, but as any one with a open mind can agree with you can only dodge so many missiles at once.

Its all about numbers in China.

Before some one shouts up with BVR, folks I really have to break it to you, in any combat in the South China Sea, it will be in their backyard, they can load up the H6 bombers with jammers, reducing radar range, go guning for the AWACS [That is some thing soviets planned on using their "Blue Teams" aka agressor squadrons to 'pretend' to be Nato aircraft and attack the AWACs or merely just to swamp it with large numbers], it isn't hard to reduce radar range, hell launching thousands of ballons with tin foil on them would screw with any fighters radar system.

[edit on 19-1-2005 by gooseuk]

[edit on 19-1-2005 by gooseuk]

I tend to agree with gooseuk. The situation is not some kind of idealized, limited time confrontation on a test range. The battle will be over something in a geographic context with all the other factors and forces needing to be taken into consideration. The specific air-air kill ratios are a footnote to the outcome of the overall confrontation.
The Chinese approach could be more effective in a given situation and a fight with them will be in their yard.

China could quite easily overwhelm any US Air Arm that would be assigned to the region. If you think about it, it is rather easy,

Who exactly are you trying to fool? No, really?

but the problem is that we in the west do not think about how or what the enemy [China] is willing to lose to win. Human life in the east is cheap, one human life lost merely means less juan to be spent on feeding or housing that person.

Eh, we fought two wars with their influence... I think you are the last to figure out that life has a small price in that part of the world as does with many 3rd world countries.

China still uses 1950s era battle tactics to a large degree, they have the natural resources to produce a small cheap weapons platform and more than enough of the population to use as pilots. The J10 only has to survive to launch its weapons, thats all in my opinion that platform was designed for, the SU 27 is the teeth in the PLAs attack force, the J10 is the pawns, cheap, fast, large numbers.

They don’t really have any natural resources... They are already being back-ordered on tons of shipments of raw and processed resources to meet demand.
I do have to agree with you about the J-10s place and the Flankers place, however, the Flankers need better electronics to pose a grave threat.

The Chinese have gone with the middle ground, a fair amount of fair fighters with a few high performance types, compaired to loads of crap fighters or a limited number of high tech types.

They may be going in that direction but a quick glance at their air combat aircraft charts proves that a large majority of their force is still low class.

but as any one with a open mind can agree with you can only dodge so many missiles at once.

Agreed!!! But one doesn’t have to dodge what can’t see him and he cant shoot if he is dodging an invisibly launched missile himself

Before some one shouts up with BVR, folks I really have to break it to you, in any combat in the South China Sea, it will be in their backyard, they can load up the H6 bombers with jammers, reducing radar range, go guning for the AWACS [That is some thing soviets planned on using their "Blue Teams" aka agressor squadrons to 'pretend' to be Nato aircraft and attack the AWACs or merely just to swamp it with large numbers], it isn't hard to reduce radar range, hell launching thousands of ballons with tin foil on them would screw with any fighters radar system.

I'd hate to break this to you but most of those aircraft, balloon stations, and AWACS would be taken out in a surprise attack by cruise missiles and stealth bombers. And if they do launch 1,000s of decoys they will degrade their ability to fight too.

The Chinese approach could be more effective in a given situation and a fight with them will be in their yard.

And near our FOB... Japan, Taiwan, South Korea.

Greetings

Who exactly are you trying to fool? No, really?

Ok, if the US was to deploy any Air Assets to the region, in my opinion, if there was a conflict the US would deploy their naval arm first [Carrier Battle Groups]. Now I guess you want me to explain how, If I was a leader in the PLA AF, its rather simple when you think about it. Follow this train of thought if you will.

Gunning for the carriers in a head on attack would be stupid to say the least, the chinese 'could' swamp the carrier group, but I doubt they would get past the outer SAM pickets. So if you can't affect the force directly, you affect the force indirectly. The fighters need fuel, need ordnance, toliet roll... some one needs to supply the fleet, at the moment I believe that the US do have a fleet oiler within their battle groups, instead of gunning for the carrier I would be gunning for that ship, my friends in the PLA Navy could task a kilo with that as the primary . If the oiler was sunk. The battle group will have a problem, while not an issue straight away, the tanks will run dry if they are running combat ops. That means that for me [PLA] to restrict the Carrier battle groups movement would be to keep gunning for those oilers, by doing this I would be forcing the USN to move to either a FOB or cut escorts out to protect the oilers.

It isn't hard to over welm a foreign airforce, if you know where to apply the pressure.

Eh, we fought two wars with their influence... I think you are the last to figure out that life has a small price in that part of the world as does with many 3rd world countries.

Eh, we fought two wars with their influence... I think you are the last to figure out that life has a small price in that part of the world as does with many 3rd world countries.

Some times you would think that, some people here have forgotten that lesson, its always good to 'remind' people every so often, if they appear to have forgotten.

They don’t really have any natural resources... They are already being back-ordered on tons of shipments of raw and processed resources to meet demand.

I agree that the flanker at present it lacking to western standards, but it shouldn't be underestimated.

They may be going in that direction but a quick glance at their air combat aircraft charts proves that a large majority of their force is still low class.

Yeap, they still have Mig 15s on the books, but like I said, all they have to do is carry their missiles as close to the enemy as possible and then launch, if they come back, great, if not, no big deal. They moving towards it, much like their navy, but I don't think it will take as long as some people assume.

And near our FOB... Japan, Taiwan, South Korea.

Based on the idea that this will be over the island of Taiwan, I can see a few things happen, firstly I don't see japan allowing the US to use their bases in attacks against Chinese forces, based on the fact that China is a rather large trading partner and Japan is currently at odds with Taiwan over some islands.

I don't see US forces having a chance of using any taiwan bases if the chinese did launch a surprise attack. the only options I can see is the use of South Korean air fields.

- Goose

Japan would almost certainly allow the U.S. to use Okinawa for any military action vs. either N. Korea or China. The Japanese are just as suspect of China, if not more, than the U.S. is currently. Just about 2 months ago or so, a Chinese sub was discovered trawling right around the heavily populated(both civ. and mil) Okinawa, and had to be escorted back to Chinese waters. They claim they "got a little lost." Yeah. As for being at any odds with Taiwan, Taiwanese tourists are a huge industry here on Okinawa, and are considered very valuable economic partners. Okinawa would, and probably always will be, the largest staging ground for any type of war or conflict in the Asia/Pacific region

I have to agree that Japan would most certainly jump on the attack train against china. They see them as a severe threat as current and certainly see them as a looming regional dominator... They will develop new trading partners as time goes on.

Nah..Japan wouldn't jump the gun on China unless they saw the US getting anywhere with such a conflict..And I agree with Gooseuk, the US would never win any campaign against China, the logistical problems are just too vast..
Same with say US vs. Russia/India/France/UK..
The US sure does have the upper hand but not enough to facilitate a decisive victory..