China has demarcated an "air-defence identification zone" over an area of the East China Sea, covering islands that are also claimed by Japan.
China's defence ministry said aircraft entering the zone must obey its rules or face "emergency defensive measures".
The islands, known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China, are a source of rising tension between the countries.
Japan lodged a strong protest over what it said was an "escalation".
Since President Xi Jinping took power a year ago, he has overseen a more muscular effort to assert Chinese control over disputed territories in East and South China seas.
His nationalist approach, backed-up by large increases in spending on the armed forces, is welcomed by many in China. But it has led to increasing tension with almost all of China's neighbours. Many, like Japan, have defence agreements with the United States, which has long sought to preserve the balance of power in Asia.
The fear is that one small incident, for example between Chinese and Japanese vessels or aircraft, could escalate rapidly into a far wider and more serious crisis.
"Setting up such airspace unilaterally escalates the situations surrounding Senkaku islands and has danger of leading to an unexpected situation," Japan's foreign ministry said in a statement.
Taiwan, which also claims the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands, expressed regret at the move and promised that the military would take measure to protect national security.
In its statement, the Chinese defence ministry said aircraft must report a flight plan, "maintain two-way radio communications", and "respond in a timely and accurate manner" to identification inquiries.
"China's armed forces will adopt defensive emergency measures to respond to aircraft that do not co-operate in the identification or refuse to follow the instructions," said the statement.
It said the zone came into effect from 10:00 local time (02:00GMT) on Saturday.
State news agency Xinhua showed a map on its website covering a wide area of the East China Sea, including regions very close to South Korea and Japan.
Responding to questions about the zone on an official state website, a defence ministry spokesman, Yang Yujun, said China set up the area "with the aim of safeguarding state sovereignty, territorial land and air security, and maintaining flight order".
"It is not directed against any specific country or target," he said, adding that China "has always respected the freedom of over-flight in accordance with international law".
map of east china sea and declared air defence zone
"Normal flights by international airliners in the East China Sea air-defence identification zone will not be affected in any way."
The islands have been a source of tension between China and Japan for decades.
In 2012, the Japanese government bought three of the islands from their Japanese owner, sparking mass protests in Chinese cities.
Since then, Chinese ships have repeatedly sailed in and out of what Japan says are its territorial waters.
In September this year, Japan said it would shoot down unmanned aircraft in Japanese airspace after an unmanned Chinese drone flew close to the disputed islands.
China said that any attempt by Japan to shoot down Chinese aircraft would constitute "an act of war".
Last month Japan's defence minister, Itsunori Onodera, said China's behaviour over the disputed East China Sea islands was jeopardising peace.
BBC World Service East Asia editor Charles Scanlon says the confrontation over the small chain of uninhabited islands is made more intractable by conflicting claims for potentially rich energy resources on the sea bed.
But the issue has now become a nationalist touchstone in both countries, making it hard for either side to be seen to back down, he says.
So.....in a potential escalation, whereby Japan sends in an aircraft to blow up a Chinese drone in what has now effectively been declared Chinese airspace, what happens next? Do any of you think the Chinese would take the next step of going to a war footing with Japan? Do the US get involved? If the US get involved, does that drag in everyone in NATO into a squabble over a handful of uninhabited islands on the other side of the world?
I'm inclined to think it's a 'no' the the latter one, but the rest seems plausible enough from where I'm sitting. Certainly, nations have gone to war over more stupid reasons.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: China has our purse strings so I don't see us doing a lot. Maybe this gets referred to the UN
But if we get in a war with China and win then we don't have to repay anything we owed them because the entities we owed the money to won't exist anymore...
I expect to see more hemming and hawwing. China gets an Aircraft carrier, so what. They upgrade bomber capabilities and can launch nuclear missiles to the US, oh well. Their drastically increasing military expenditures, nothing to worry about. They're expanding their ADZ to provoke conflict with our allies, it's all something to joke about.
djones520 wrote: I expect to see more hemming and hawwing. China gets an Aircraft carrier, so what. They upgrade bomber capabilities and can launch nuclear missiles to the US, oh well. Their drastically increasing military expenditures, nothing to worry about.?
I know that when your only perceived tool is a hammer; every problem looks like a nail - invading-country-wise - but have some perspective. Russia has had nuclear missiles pointed at this country for over 50 years, and they weren't economically dependant upon us.
djones520 wrote: I expect to see more hemming and hawwing. China gets an Aircraft carrier, so what. They upgrade bomber capabilities and can launch nuclear missiles to the US, oh well. Their drastically increasing military expenditures, nothing to worry about.?
I know that when your only perceived tool is a hammer; every problem looks like a nail - invading-country-wise - but have some perspective. Russia has had nuclear missiles pointed at this country for over 50 years, and they weren't economically dependant upon us.
Yeah, and we spent 50 years in a Cold War with Russia. China deserves more attention then "their nothing to worry about" that they seem to get all of the time. They most likely aren't recreating the rise of the 3rd Reich, but they've increased their military spending by roughly 800% over the last 13 years, and they've grown much more beligerent in the region. They've been rapidly modernizing their military for a reason, they expect the need to use it.
djones520 wrote: They most likely aren't recreating the rise of the 3rd Reich, but they've increased their military spending by roughly 800% over the last 13 years..
And yet the United States still spends four times that amount.
djones520 wrote: They most likely aren't recreating the rise of the 3rd Reich, but they've increased their military spending by roughly 800% over the last 13 years..
And yet the United States still spends four times that amount.
generalgrog wrote: What the heck is so important about these islands anyway?
This sounds more like sabre rattling than anything else.
GG
Fishing and mineral rights mostly, plus territorial sovereignty. We wouldn't to happy if China just decided to start camping out on some of our uninhabited Pacific Islands, and claimed them as their own.
generalgrog wrote: What the heck is so important about these islands anyway?
This sounds more like sabre rattling than anything else.
GG
Fishing and mineral rights mostly, plus territorial sovereignty. We wouldn't to happy if China just decided to start camping out on some of our uninhabited Pacific Islands, and claimed them as their own.
Oh I'm not saying that they should just be given away, but it has to be taken into consideration if the are worth fighting for.
djones520 wrote: They most likely aren't recreating the rise of the 3rd Reich, but they've increased their military spending by roughly 800% over the last 13 years..
And yet the United States still spends four times that amount.
Your point?
That the Sinophobia routine is a bit rich coming from the country that spends four times as much in pure monetary terms and twice as much as a percentage of GDP.
djones520 wrote: They most likely aren't recreating the rise of the 3rd Reich, but they've increased their military spending by roughly 800% over the last 13 years..
And yet the United States still spends four times that amount.
Your point?
That the Sinophobia routine is a bit rich coming from the country that spends four times as much in pure monetary terms and twice as much as a percentage of GDP.
Still doesn't answer his question...
You do know that the Navy keeps the shipping lanes "open" dontcha? (disclaimer, I don't know if it's an active objective or it's simply that we have the capability to show up if anyone tries this gak).
Dreadclaw69 wrote: China has our purse strings so I don't see us doing a lot. Maybe this gets referred to the UN
Au contraire. The USA owes China a colossal fortune of dollars, not to mention the trade imbalance and technology transfers.
Nothing could be better than a short war allowing all those debts to be annexed and repudiated.
Not that a clever diplomat would say such a thing out loud.
Actually we owe more to Japan then China as I recall. Which is kinda bs considering the costs of basically handling the majority of their defense expenditures for them.
We really need to send Japan, Israel, most of Europe and Saudi Arabia a bill. That'd clean up our debt issues over night. France gets billed triple for Vietnam.
List of countries that would support Japan versus China:
USA
Canada
UK Poland
France
Belgium
Holland
Italy
Germany
Sweden
Norway
Denmark
Thailand
Singapore
Taiwan
Australia
New Zealand
The Philippines
South Korea
List of countries that would support China versus Japan:
Russia might jump in for China, but if Vlad's smart he'd use it as an excuse to strengthen his Eastern borders (which the Chinese have been eyeing since at least the 60s, lots of resources in Siberia)
generalgrog wrote: What the heck is so important about these islands anyway?
This sounds more like sabre rattling than anything else.
GG
What is vitally import to Japan is the Chunxiao gas fields.. For some reason as of late Japan wants to be less dependent on Nuclear power.....
Their answer was the Chunxiao gas fields. Which happens, by some strange coincidence to be where the "New" improved boundary is supposed to be...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: List of countries that would support Japan versus China:
USA
Canada
UK Poland
France
Belgium
Holland
Italy
Germany
Sweden
Norway
Denmark
Thailand
Singapore
Taiwan
Australia
New Zealand
The Philippines
South Korea
List of countries that would support China versus Japan:
North Korea
List of countries with a massive top of the line military that have been expanding and not shrinking and wanting to expand.
Kilkrazy wrote: List of countries that would support Japan versus China:
USA
Canada
UK Poland
France
Belgium
Holland
Italy
Germany
Sweden
Norway
Denmark
Thailand
Singapore
Taiwan
Australia
New Zealand
The Philippines
South Korea
List of countries that would support China versus Japan:
Kilkrazy wrote: List of countries that would support Japan versus China:
USA
Canada
UK Poland
France
Belgium
Holland
Italy
Germany
Sweden
Norway
Denmark
Thailand
Singapore
Taiwan
Australia
New Zealand
The Philippines
South Korea
List of countries that would support China versus Japan:
North Korea
Unfortunately, 'support' is a very loose term. It can mean anything from 'sending politely worded diplomatic messages of encouragement', to 'sending warships'. And frankly, I do not see us (the UK) doing anything to harm our trade with China over a couple of uninhabited rocks in the China Sea. It quite simply isn't our problem.
Even if the US loses their gak and goes in all guns blazing, we conveniently have the precedent of the Falklands to stay out of the fight. And I can't see many of the above nations doing much either.
Kilkrazy wrote: List of countries that would support Japan versus China:
USA
Canada
UK Poland
France
Belgium
Holland
Italy
Germany
Sweden
Norway
Denmark
Thailand
Singapore
Taiwan
Australia
New Zealand
The Philippines
South Korea
List of countries that would support China versus Japan:
North Korea
Just curious, how did you come up with that list of who helps Japan? Not all of those have defense treaties with Japan as far as I know. Some of those I would seriously doubt can afford to contribute anything meaningful (due to domestic politics, fiscal considerations, or actual military capability).
Kilkrazy wrote: List of countries that would support Japan versus China:
USA
Canada
UK Poland
France
Belgium
Holland
Italy
Germany
Sweden
Norway
Denmark
Thailand
Singapore
Taiwan
Australia
New Zealand
The Philippines
South Korea
List of countries that would support China versus Japan:
North Korea
Just curious, how did you come up with that list of who helps Japan? Not all of those have defense treaties with Japan as far as I know. Some of those I would seriously doubt can afford to contribute anything meaningful (due to domestic politics, fiscal considerations, or actual military capability).
ASEAN and the USA have defence treaties with Japan. NATO has a defence treaty with the USA, bringing in most of Europe.
ASEAN includes most of the Asian nations except India. In a conflict between China, their most prominent rival, and everyone else, who would they be most likely to support?
NATO has a defence treaty with the USA, bringing in most of Europe.
NATO only has an obligation if the US is attacked. If Japan goes to war with China, and the US goes to war alongside it because of its own treaty obligations, we're not bound to do anything we don't want to do.
And thanks to the Falklands, we have a precedent for sitting out a conflict we don't want, even if the the US does try and invoke it. The US long since failed to meet their obligations on that score.
In other words, we also have an excuse to get involved if we want to.
I hate to say it, but why on earth would we WANT to get involved? I mean, taking on a world power at the other end of the world, over a couple of uninhabited rocks? I can't imagine anything that could run more opposite to UK interests. I don't think even Blair would have been crazy enough to run with that one.
NeedleOfInquiry wrote: I do notice that India was not listed as one of the countries that would be on China's side.
That would be a mistake in my opinion.
They signed a defense agreement this year on their borders and they do a significant amount of trade now.
They have recently been conducting joint naval drills.
India and China have been eyeing each other and engaged in a small scale game of cat and mouse for a few decades now. India also opposes Chinese territorial expansion in the South China Sea, as it interferes with certain contracts the Indian Government has made with varying other Asian governments.
Saying India would support the Chinese because of joint naval drills is like saying the Russians would support them (as they've also done them).
Depends if shipping in South China Sea starts getting nailed by "accident" by CHina and UK decides to send warships in to protect their interest (Their shipping) If the container, petrol ships flying UK flags do not avoid South China Sea if bullets start flying.
Jihadin wrote: Depends if shipping in South China Sea starts getting nailed by "accident" by CHina and UK decides to send warships in to protect their interest (Their shipping) If the container, petrol ships flying UK flags do not avoid South China Sea if bullets start flying.
I cannot conceive of a single good reason, politically or militarily, for China to send warships to attack the commercial shipping of a power with greater maritime strength than it, that is not engaged in hostilities against it. Even more so when the aforementioned shipping would be quite a ways away from the actual combat zone (around the Senkaku islands).
No, but if one postulates that the Chinese military might do something, one usually needs a reason for believing that other than 'those silly Chinese people don't know anything about war, and could do all kinds of crazy stupid things!'.
Jihadin wrote: We're a little advance to be doing ship to ship firing. Looking missiles either from ships aircraft and/or mainland. Example be "Silkworm".
I'm not arguing particularly over they'll do it. I'll repeat with a slight edit for you:-
I cannot conceive of a single good reason, politically or militarily, for China to attack the commercial shipping of a power with greater maritime strength than it, that is not engaged in hostilities against it. Even more so when the aforementioned shipping would be quite a ways away from the actual combat zone (around the Senkaku islands)
Jihadin wrote: So anti ship missiles are 110% positive that it can hit the right target?
So hang on a minute. Your argument that Britain might enter into a war against China, is because the Chinese might be firing missiles at shipping a very long way away from the combat zone, and might accidentally miss and hit a British ship?
Man, that is some of the longest stretching for a reason to go to war that I have ever heard.
djones520 wrote: They most likely aren't recreating the rise of the 3rd Reich, but they've increased their military spending by roughly 800% over the last 13 years..
And yet the United States still spends four times that amount.
And won't stop anytime soon, because we're not stupid enough to try and reach parity for a fair fight.
The amount spent is never an accurate accounting of the capabilities of the forces. How much does a US trooper get paid? In his retirement? How much are his medical costs from service to death? How much to the Chinese pay for those types of costs? That is just one example of why direct $$ to $$ spent doesn't really tell the story.
They're just "starting", but they're aiming big. They'll be a major naval power by the end of the decade if they continue this trend. Largest and most capable in the Pacific, after ourselves.
CptJake wrote: The amount spent is never an accurate accounting of the capabilities of the forces. How much does a US trooper get paid? In his retirement? How much are his medical costs from service to death? How much to the Chinese pay for those types of costs? That is just one example of why direct $$ to $$ spent doesn't really tell the story.
Bingo. We spend just as much on personnel costs as China's defense budget. The numbers they pay their troops are kept close at hand, but I read a story that they are offering their troops a $900 a year bonus to attend college. This demonstrates two things. 1, that they aren't paying their troops a lot in comparison to us, and 2 that the money they are paying them goes relatively far, if $900 a year is supposed to cover education costs. A point I've always liked to make when comparing how much the Chinese spend on their budget compaired to ours, is that their money tends to go further due to the value of things. Their MBT, which is supposed to be equivalent to our M1-A1 (which probably isn't equivalent, but still formidable), costs 1/3rd what the M1 costs. The Chinese, to use a pun, certainly do get more bang for their buck.
They're just "starting", but they're aiming big. They'll be a major naval power by the end of the decade if they continue this trend. Largest and most capable in the Pacific, after ourselves.
Eh. I'd disagree, somewhat. Naval power is naval air power, these days, and you can't just gin up a naval aviation program in a couple years. Until there's nothing in the air but unmanned aircraft, they're going to be way behind.
What's the old saying? The most powerful navy in the world is the United States Navy. The second most powerful navy in the world is a United States Navy carrier group. Everything else comes third or worse.
djones520 wrote: They most likely aren't recreating the rise of the 3rd Reich, but they've increased their military spending by roughly 800% over the last 13 years..
And yet the United States still spends four times that amount.
And won't stop anytime soon, because we're not stupid enough to try and reach parity for a fair fight.
Yeah because a larger military would save the US of the Chinese nukes if it comes to war... oh wait it doesn't.
US military main function is dickwaving, it could easily crush any other military in the world with only a fraction with its power, but nukes make war with any other nuclear capable country a stupid idea.
Which is why we've invested in the ability to shoot nukes down.
Not to mention a massive amount of our own nukes.
Nukes really are the best deterrent to their own use. Even if a real war started, nobody wants to pull that trigger. Only people who'd be stupid enough to actually set a nuke off would be terrorists.
Yeah China isn't going to use them for something as petty as a proxy war or a skirmish, but if the US goes crazy and tries to invade mainland China, then China is going to say "back off or I will start the Apocalypse"
Which isn't going to happen, China isn't going to attack Japan while Japan is under the US protection, and Japan isn't going to attack China because it would lose the US support.
Tyran wrote: Which isn't going to happen, China isn't going to attack Japan while Japan is under the US protection, and Japan isn't going to attack China because it would lose the US support.
Well, thank Odin that's settled, let's all go home.
Grey Templar wrote: Which is why we've invested in the ability to shoot nukes down.
Not to mention a massive amount of our own nukes.
Nukes really are the best deterrent to their own use. Even if a real war started, nobody wants to pull that trigger. Only people who'd be stupid enough to actually set a nuke off would be terrorists.
There's a small country in the same area under discussion that would like to remind you of it's existence.
Xinhua said the latest rules came into force on Saturday and China's air force conducted its first patrol over the zone. The patrol included early warning aircraft and fighters, it said.
Japan, for its part, scrambled fighter jets on Saturday afternoon against two Chinese reconnaissance planes over the East China Sea, the Japanese Defence Ministry said.
U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said on Saturday that the U.S. military would not change how it conducts operations in the East China Sea after what he called a "destabilizing" attempt by China to alter the status quo in the region.
"This announcement by the People's Republic of China will not in any way change how the United States conducts military operations in the region."
Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has described China's move to create a new "air defence identification zone" over disputed waters as "dangerous".
China's action had "no validity whatsoever on Japan", Mr Abe added.
On Sunday, Yang Yujun, a spokesman for China's Ministry of National Defence, said Japan's reaction was "absolutely groundless and unacceptable". "We strongly require the Japanese side to stop all moves that undermine China's territorial sovereignty as well as irresponsible remarks that misguide international opinions and create regional tensions," Mr Yang said. He also demanded that the US "earnestly respect China's national security [and] stop making irresponsible remarks for China's setup of the East China Sea Air Defence Identification Zone"
In other words, both the US and Japan have told China to get bent, in more diplomatically worded language. And I'm not surprised. Just look at the actual area China seems to be trying to impose air control on! It's three quarters of the way to Japan!
China has demarcated an "air-defence identification zone" over an area of the East China Sea, covering islands that are also claimed by Japan.
China's defence ministry said aircraft entering the zone must obey its rules or face "emergency defensive measures".
The islands, known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China, are a source of rising tension between the countries.
Japan lodged a strong protest over what it said was an "escalation".
Since President Xi Jinping took power a year ago, he has overseen a more muscular effort to assert Chinese control over disputed territories in East and South China seas.
His nationalist approach, backed-up by large increases in spending on the armed forces, is welcomed by many in China. But it has led to increasing tension with almost all of China's neighbours. Many, like Japan, have defence agreements with the United States, which has long sought to preserve the balance of power in Asia.
The fear is that one small incident, for example between Chinese and Japanese vessels or aircraft, could escalate rapidly into a far wider and more serious crisis.
"Setting up such airspace unilaterally escalates the situations surrounding Senkaku islands and has danger of leading to an unexpected situation," Japan's foreign ministry said in a statement.
Taiwan, which also claims the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands, expressed regret at the move and promised that the military would take measure to protect national security.
In its statement, the Chinese defence ministry said aircraft must report a flight plan, "maintain two-way radio communications", and "respond in a timely and accurate manner" to identification inquiries.
"China's armed forces will adopt defensive emergency measures to respond to aircraft that do not co-operate in the identification or refuse to follow the instructions," said the statement.
It said the zone came into effect from 10:00 local time (02:00GMT) on Saturday.
State news agency Xinhua showed a map on its website covering a wide area of the East China Sea, including regions very close to South Korea and Japan.
Responding to questions about the zone on an official state website, a defence ministry spokesman, Yang Yujun, said China set up the area "with the aim of safeguarding state sovereignty, territorial land and air security, and maintaining flight order".
"It is not directed against any specific country or target," he said, adding that China "has always respected the freedom of over-flight in accordance with international law".
map of east china sea and declared air defence zone "Normal flights by international airliners in the East China Sea air-defence identification zone will not be affected in any way."
The islands have been a source of tension between China and Japan for decades.
In 2012, the Japanese government bought three of the islands from their Japanese owner, sparking mass protests in Chinese cities.
Since then, Chinese ships have repeatedly sailed in and out of what Japan says are its territorial waters.
In September this year, Japan said it would shoot down unmanned aircraft in Japanese airspace after an unmanned Chinese drone flew close to the disputed islands.
China said that any attempt by Japan to shoot down Chinese aircraft would constitute "an act of war".
Last month Japan's defence minister, Itsunori Onodera, said China's behaviour over the disputed East China Sea islands was jeopardising peace.
BBC World Service East Asia editor Charles Scanlon says the confrontation over the small chain of uninhabited islands is made more intractable by conflicting claims for potentially rich energy resources on the sea bed.
But the issue has now become a nationalist touchstone in both countries, making it hard for either side to be seen to back down, he says.
So.....in a potential escalation, whereby Japan sends in an aircraft to blow up a Chinese drone in what has now effectively been declared Chinese airspace, what happens next? Do any of you think the Chinese would take the next step of going to a war footing with Japan? Do the US get involved? If the US get involved, does that drag in everyone in NATO into a squabble over a handful of uninhabited islands on the other side of the world?
I'm inclined to think it's a 'no' the the latter one, but the rest seems plausible enough from where I'm sitting. Certainly, nations have gone to war over more stupid reasons.
Time for Japan to break out the Robot Suit Gundams. Here's to one war in Asia we should stay out of (ok maybe sell them both stuff).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: List of countries that would support Japan versus China:
USA Canada UK Poland France Belgium Holland Italy Germany Sweden Norway Denmark Thailand Singapore Taiwan Australia New Zealand The Philippines South Korea
List of countries that would support China versus Japan:
North Korea
List of countries that might mistakenly get into a war with China over Japan? US maybe UK maybe.
Any conflict breaking out would quikly result in the end of South Korea as a state as NK invades. No, let Japan settle their own affairs. Its not our fight. Neither party is an ally to the US in reality. No matter who loses, we win.
List of countries that might mistakenly get into a war with China over Japan? US maybe UK maybe.
Any conflict breaking out would quikly result in the end of South Korea as a state as NK invades. No, let Japan settle their own affairs. Its not our fight. Neither party is an ally to the US in reality. No matter who loses, we win.
Just more nationalistic sabre rattling to keep the average Chinese citizen's mind off the craziness going on in their own country. China is a melting pot with many competing interests. These interests can be kept in line for the moment with propoganda and mutual self-interest. However, they do not have the "emergency vents" of a ballot box to keep these groups together forever.
In China's future is a lot of unrest due to labor issues, burgeoning national identities, demands for democratization, social inequality, and other culture issues. Think of the Austro-Hungarian Empire or even Guilded Age US history.
1. The US has the most powerful and capable military in the WORLD. Unfortunately, that military is spread out over the WORLD, and not entirely concentrated in one area like the Chinese military. Yes, we have a larger, more capable Navy than the Chinese, unfortunately that Navy is spread out across the entire world, and unlike the Chinese we won't be able to concentrate the entire Navy in theeater because we have obligations elsewhere. The Chinese are on track to become the second most powerful Navy in the world by the end of this decade as someone else pointed out. Unless there is a doctrine change somewhere, they are also on track to become the most powerful Navy in the Pacific.
2. The argument that we are Chinas largest trading partner and their economy is dependent on ours, etc. as a reason why there won't be a war is invalid. History is full of examples of nations that engaged in war with one another despite the economic incentive not to, this is especially clear in World War 1 (in the case of the US and Germany who were major trading partners, didn't stop the Germans from torpedoing american shipping bound for other ports), and World War 2 (Germany and the Soviets were likewise huge trading partners, we all know how that went down).
chaos0xomega wrote: The Chinese are on track to become the second most powerful Navy in the world by the end of this decade as someone else pointed out.
That isn't saying much. Again, you can't just create competent naval aviation in a year, or even in a decade. You can't create effective naval aviation using refurbished Russian carriers, because those sucked even when they were first built.
chaos0xomega wrote: The Chinese are on track to become the second most powerful Navy in the world by the end of this decade as someone else pointed out.
That isn't saying much. Again, you can't just create competent naval aviation in a year, or even in a decade. You can't create effective naval aviation using refurbished Russian carriers, because those sucked even when they were first built.
As long as they are content to play in the box they have currently drawn, they have no need for naval air. Land based works just fine. Unless they are trying to project power much further out they are good with what they have.
chaos0xomega wrote: The Chinese are on track to become the second most powerful Navy in the world by the end of this decade as someone else pointed out.
That isn't saying much. Again, you can't just create competent naval aviation in a year, or even in a decade. You can't create effective naval aviation using refurbished Russian carriers, because those sucked even when they were first built.
As long as they are content to play in the box they have currently drawn, they have no need for naval air. Land based works just fine. Unless they are trying to project power much further out they are good with what they have.
The Chinese are also exponentially improving their military assets and their operations. The longer they have the better they will become.
chaos0xomega wrote: The Chinese are on track to become the second most powerful Navy in the world by the end of this decade as someone else pointed out.
That isn't saying much. Again, you can't just create competent naval aviation in a year, or even in a decade. You can't create effective naval aviation using refurbished Russian carriers, because those sucked even when they were first built.
As long as they are content to play in the box they have currently drawn, they have no need for naval air. Land based works just fine. Unless they are trying to project power much further out they are good with what they have.
What CptJake said. Thats the problem with so many military "thinkers" today. They thing that to be an effective match against us you have to have equivalent capability, and that is definitely not the case. China has realized it doesn't need to be a global military power to be a global economic and political power, it has all the resources it will need basically sitting in its back yard, and as such only needs to assert regional dominance to be an effective counterpoint to the US (or anyone else) in the economic and political spectrums. China doesn't need American style power projection to defeat the US in a shooting war, because if it does go to war with us, they will fight us on their terms, which means we will go to them, and when that occurs they are in a better position to fight us than we are them. Their only real near field competition are India and Russia, who they are attempting to build better relations while simultaneously equipping themselves with technology and doctrine to defeat those very same threats as well.
And as for Russian carriers sucking, again, the problem with American military thinkers. Russian (more precisely Soviet) naval aviation was not and never was intended to be used in the same manner as American naval aviation. Those carriers, and the capabilities they brought to the field, were more than adequate for their intended roles.
2. The argument that we are Chinas largest trading partner and their economy is dependent on ours, etc. as a reason why there won't be a war is invalid. History is full of examples of nations that engaged in war with one another despite the economic incentive not to, this is especially clear in World War 1 (in the case of the US and Germany who were major trading partners, didn't stop the Germans from torpedoing american shipping bound for other ports), and World War 2 (Germany and the Soviets were likewise huge trading partners, we all know how that went down).
Um...
While China holds a gak ton of the US' debt... I think CHINA would loath for the US to get involved. They want us to keep up with the payments after all.
2. The argument that we are Chinas largest trading partner and their economy is dependent on ours, etc. as a reason why there won't be a war is invalid. History is full of examples of nations that engaged in war with one another despite the economic incentive not to, this is especially clear in World War 1 (in the case of the US and Germany who were major trading partners, didn't stop the Germans from torpedoing american shipping bound for other ports), and World War 2 (Germany and the Soviets were likewise huge trading partners, we all know how that went down).
Um...
While China holds a gak ton of the US' debt... I think CHINA would loath for the US to get involved. They want us to keep up with the payments after all.
We are, by treaty, obliged to aid Japan in a conflict over the Islands in question. Yet China is still provoking over them. What does that say?
2. The argument that we are Chinas largest trading partner and their economy is dependent on ours, etc. as a reason why there won't be a war is invalid. History is full of examples of nations that engaged in war with one another despite the economic incentive not to, this is especially clear in World War 1 (in the case of the US and Germany who were major trading partners, didn't stop the Germans from torpedoing american shipping bound for other ports), and World War 2 (Germany and the Soviets were likewise huge trading partners, we all know how that went down).
Um...
While China holds a gak ton of the US' debt... I think CHINA would loath for the US to get involved. They want us to keep up with the payments after all.
We are, by treaty, obliged to aid Japan in a conflict over the Islands in question. Yet China is still provoking over them. What does that say?
2. The argument that we are Chinas largest trading partner and their economy is dependent on ours, etc. as a reason why there won't be a war is invalid. History is full of examples of nations that engaged in war with one another despite the economic incentive not to, this is especially clear in World War 1 (in the case of the US and Germany who were major trading partners, didn't stop the Germans from torpedoing american shipping bound for other ports), and World War 2 (Germany and the Soviets were likewise huge trading partners, we all know how that went down).
Um...
While China holds a gak ton of the US' debt... I think CHINA would loath for the US to get involved. They want us to keep up with the payments after all.
Again, history shows that that isn't enough to prevent a war from breaking out. World War 1 and World War 2 in particular both show us that economic interdependence is not a barrier to war. In fact, thats actually a theory that has been debated in scholarly circles for the better part of a century, and experience has shown that the side trumpeting globalization as a means to global peace is sadly misguided.
Also, the "gakload" of American debt that China holds is only 8% of the gross, and hardly a major % of Chinas total holdings in foreign debt, and the US only accounts for 17% of Chinas exports, and that number is dropping, so the idea that we are so economically tied to one another that war would destroy our respective economies is actually a myth perpetrated by people that don't know the reality of the situation.
Build a Navy in a year ..Nope China has been at it for Naval aviation for the past 30 years with the past 10 in earnest .
Recall prior to WWII the USA had no real naval aviation ..but in 3 years we went from battleships to having effective Naval Aviation.
China has only sailed one refurbed Russian ship ..but they have purchased some 6 other carriers over the past few decades ..and have at least 6 hulls underconstruction the past 10 years and a Naval Air training facility for the past 2 decades
China also has 4 dozen Conventional attack subs ..3 Dozen Corvettes..8 dozen Missle patrol Boats.. 8 dozen submarine chasers..and a gross of PT boats an unknown number of mini subs..more than enough to make their presence known within the area they need to keep others out of ..not to mention more than enough landing craft to put 100,000 troops a day onto Taiwan and Japan ..just becuase they dont have the long range power projection does not mean they arnt capable of projecting power in their corner far enough out to make it really expensive for any nation to bring enough to bear to deal with it
What CptJake said. Thats the problem with so many military "thinkers" today. They thing that to be an effective match against us you have to have equivalent capability, and that is definitely not the case. China has realized it doesn't need to be a global military power to be a global economic and political power, it has all the resources it will need basically sitting in its back yard, and as such only needs to assert regional dominance to be an effective counterpoint to the US (or anyone else) in the economic and political spectrums.
Regionally, that's true. If you believe China's ambition is to remain a regional power, well, we probably don't have much more to talk about.
And as for Russian carriers sucking, again, the problem with American military thinkers. Russian (more precisely Soviet) naval aviation was not and never was intended to be used in the same manner as American naval aviation. Those carriers, and the capabilities they brought to the field, were more than adequate for their intended roles.
Alright, so fill me in; what's the intended role of a carrier that can't get aircraft carrying full combat loads off of it while having seriously deficient sortie rates?
I'm sure China will eventually want to be a true global power, moreso out of hubris than necessity, but the fact of the matter is that it doesn't realistically need to be anything more than an effective regional power to meet the same ends. China can get the vast majority of what it wants solely by being the neighborhood bully, the remainder of what it wants it can get by being the counterpoint to the US (which has done a good enough job of fething gak up for enough people to make certain nations turn against us, see also a huge chunk of latin america).
Regarding those Russian carriers, the low sortie rate had little to do with the carriers design and everything to do with the poor training of the crews. Those carriers however, were primarily for ASW, close air support for Soviet Marines was secondary, and defensive air/strike was tertiary. The primary offensive capability for Soviet Naval Aviation was from what we would call "Maritime" bombers, that is land-based aviation assets.
morfydd wrote: Build a Navy in a year ..Nope China has been at it for Naval aviation for the past 30 years with the past 10 in earnest .
Recall prior to WWII the USA had no real naval aviation ..but in 3 years we went from battleships to having effective Naval Aviation.
We started before World War II.
We also lost a hell of a lot of planes to the difficulties of carrier ops during that war, and carrier aviation's only gotten more difficult.
Keep in mind that when we were going about it, there really wasn't much past experience to work from... China has several decades of other peoples experience to draw from on the matter, means that their time to develop the same thing is much shorter and less bloody if their smart about it. If you don't believe that the Chinese can somehow gain access to all that information regardless of security clearance, etc. then I know a Nigerian prince or two that would like to make a business deal with you.
chaos0xomega wrote: Regarding those Russian carriers, the low sortie rate had little to do with the carriers design and everything to do with the poor training of the crews.
No, the design plays a massive role. Four cats capable of three simultaneous launches, with plenty of room for staging behind, is going to beat out full-deck launch operations that can only send one bird at a time and extremely limited room for staging.
Those carriers however, were primarily for ASW, close air support for Soviet Marines was secondary, and defensive air/strike was tertiary. The primary offensive capability for Soviet Naval Aviation was from what we would call "Maritime" bombers, that is land-based aviation assets.
I'd disagree most profoundly with that. The Kiev class were built specifically for recon and interception. I don't know that the Soviets ever even came up with a decent carrier-based ASW bird.
morfydd wrote: Build a Navy in a year ..Nope China has been at it for Naval aviation for the past 30 years with the past 10 in earnest .
Recall prior to WWII the USA had no real naval aviation ..but in 3 years we went from battleships to having effective Naval Aviation.
We started before World War II.
We also lost a hell of a lot of planes to the difficulties of carrier ops during that war, and carrier aviation's only gotten more difficult.
And China will have a steep learning curve but with the added aid of about a century worth of doctrine and tactics and strategy to implement. which they will adapt for their own ends.
chaos0xomega wrote: Keep in mind that when we were going about it, there really wasn't much past experience to work from... China has several decades of other peoples experience to draw from on the matter, means that their time to develop the same thing is much shorter and less bloody if their smart about it. If you don't believe that the Chinese can somehow gain access to all that information regardless of security clearance, etc. then I know a Nigerian prince or two that would like to make a business deal with you.
It has zero to do with information. I could give you all the information in the world on baseball, you still won't be able to play for the Yankees. I can tell you, from experience, that landing a jet on a pitching deck at night is not something that is easy to accomplish, and simply knowing the theory of it will not help you much. Having been rung out through a comprehensive, experience-based training program put together from decades of learning what works and what doesn't, on the other hand, will.
chaos0xomega wrote: Keep in mind that when we were going about it, there really wasn't much past experience to work from... China has several decades of other peoples experience to draw from on the matter, means that their time to develop the same thing is much shorter and less bloody if their smart about it. If you don't believe that the Chinese can somehow gain access to all that information regardless of security clearance, etc. then I know a Nigerian prince or two that would like to make a business deal with you.
It has zero to do with information. I could give you all the information in the world on baseball, you still won't be able to play for the Yankees. I can tell you, from experience, that landing a jet on a pitching deck at night is not something that is easy to accomplish, and simply knowing the theory of it will not help you much. Having been rung out through a comprehensive, experience-based training program put together from decades of learning what works and what doesn't, on the other hand, will.
Don't be dense. China could easily hire retired personnel with first-hand experience in such things to train their pilots. For all intents and purposes, they have as I understand it.
I'd disagree most profoundly with that. The Kiev class were built specifically for recon and interception. I don't know that the Soviets ever even came up with a decent carrier-based ASW bird.
I think they were helos rather than fixed wing, but funny you would bring up the Kiev, as its primary role was actually ASW, with intercept and fleet support as secondary. Also note its official designation was actually "Heavy Aviation Cruiser".
No, the design plays a massive role. Four cats capable of three simultaneous launches, with plenty of room for staging behind, is going to beat out full-deck launch operations that can only send one bird at a time and extremely limited room for staging.
chaos0xomega wrote: Don't be dense. China could easily hire retired personnel with first-hand experience in such things to train their pilots. For all intents and purposes, they have as I understand it.
I hope they didn't hire Russians.
And it's not just a matter of getting the right people. You need a lot of the right people, and a lot of institutional memory - not to mention the institutions in the first place - to do it up right. We have multiple RAGs, working all the way, always bringing up fresh aviators. We've got complicated rotations of dets for nugget carrier quals, and an awful lot of boats for them to land one, so they're not hamstrung by simply waiting months or years on end for a deck to be available.
It's a very complicated process, and only having one semi-operational carrier means they haven't even truly started it yet. I'd liken it to building a foreign intelligence service; sure, you can plop a building down somewhere, and even hire former spies, but it's still going to take a long, long time to build the institution itself up to useful levels, because it's not something you can teach in a six week correspondence course and then have everyone good to go.
I think they were helos rather than fixed wing, but funny you would bring up the Kiev, as its primary role was actually ASW, with intercept and fleet support as secondary. Also note its official designation was actually "Heavy Aviation Cruiser".
Nah, it was designed for the Yak-38, a strike fighter and a terrible, terrible VTOL. Everything they built for aviation was designated in that "cruiser" manner, by the way. The Soviets paid very, very little attention to their fleet air arms, hence the insistence on that 'hybrid' sort of ship for far longer than was practical. It's why their naval aircraft sucked so badly, it's why their boats sucked so badly.
You guys can chuckle at my "hand waiving" Chinas navy all you want, but the reality is, when it comes technology, comparing a Chinese navy or even airforce to the USA is quite laughable really.
I don't care if they have 100 sub chasers or 100 out of date carriers.. if they don't know how to use them or if the tech doesn't work right, or if it's out of date, we are literally talking Indians with bows and arrows vs cavalry and winchester rifles here.
I'm talking about present capabilities BTW.
If we keep giving away our technology then the Chinese may well get close to technological parity with the USA.
Need I remind us all about the "scary" Iraqi army in gulf war I...the generals had to call off the dogs because it was becoming a slaughter.
You guys can chuckle at my "hand waiving" Chinas navy all you want, but the reality is, when it comes technology, comparing a Chinese navy or even airforce to the USA is quite laughable really.
I don't care if they have 100 sub chasers or 100 out of date carriers.. if they don't know how to use them or if the tech doesn't work right, or if it's out of date, we are literally talking Indians with bows and arrows vs cavalry and winchester rifles here.
I'm talking about present capabilities BTW.
If we keep giving away our technology then the Chinese may well get close to technological parity with the USA.
Need I remind us all about the "scary" Iraqi army in gulf war I...the generals had to call off the dogs because it was becoming a slaughter.
GG
Go read some of the links posted around in here Grog, it'll do you some good.
China is capable. A point proven when they surfaced a sub in the middle of one of our Carrier Battle Groups, while we were in a wartime exercise, and we had no clue they were there.
chaos0xomega wrote: Don't be dense. China could easily hire retired personnel with first-hand experience in such things to train their pilots. For all intents and purposes, they have as I understand it.
I hope they didn't hire Russians.
And it's not just a matter of getting the right people. You need a lot of the right people, and a lot of institutional memory - not to mention the institutions in the first place - to do it up right. We have multiple RAGs, working all the way, always bringing up fresh aviators. We've got complicated rotations of dets for nugget carrier quals, and an awful lot of boats for them to land one, so they're not hamstrung by simply waiting months or years on end for a deck to be available.
It's a very complicated process, and only having one semi-operational carrier means they haven't even truly started it yet. I'd liken it to building a foreign intelligence service; sure, you can plop a building down somewhere, and even hire former spies, but it's still going to take a long, long time to build the institution itself up to useful levels, because it's not something you can teach in a six week correspondence course and then have everyone good to go.
I'm sure the Chinese can afford to hire some Americans. And while you're right that it requires institutional memory, etc. again, a lot of that can be 'prefabricated' by pulling from elsewhere. What took us 80 years can easily be accomplished by them in 20 or 30 if they can get the right resources in place. The biggest issue will be the one carrier (for now), but that will be changing in time.
Nah, it was designed for the Yak-38, a strike fighter and a terrible, terrible VTOL. Everything they built for aviation was designated in that "cruiser" manner, by the way. The Soviets paid very, very little attention to their fleet air arms, hence the insistence on that 'hybrid' sort of ship for far longer than was practical. It's why their naval aircraft sucked so badly, it's why their boats sucked so badly.
I wouldn't be throwing stones in glass houses, while the US had a few gems in terms of ships and aircraft, its also had a lot of lemons. As for the YAK, it was a much better CAS platform than it was a strike platform (although that might be owing to the fact that their only ever operational use in Afghanaland was as a CAS platform rather than a strike platform).
BTW, a good read if you like what-if is CDR Kraska's "How the United States Lost the Naval War of 2015" if you can find it anywhere online. I would say theres a good amount of "handwavium" at work in it, etc. but its a nice insider-perspective on the matter.
chaos0xomega wrote: I wouldn't be throwing stones in glass houses, while the US had a few gems in terms of ships and aircraft, its also had a lot of lemons. As for the YAK, it was a much better CAS platform than it was a strike platform (although that might be owing to the fact that their only ever operational use in Afghanaland was as a CAS platform rather than a strike platform).
We're talking about an aircraft that couldn't carrier launch with any stores when it was hot out.
I'm curious what you think our aircraft lemons were. I can't think of any since the '60s.
BTW, a good read if you like what-if is Cmdr. Kraska's "How the United States Lost the Naval War of 2015" if you can find it anywhere online. I would say theres a good amount of "handwavium" at work in it, etc. but its a nice insider-perspective on the matter.
I'm kind of amused you haven't figured out you're talking to someone with "insider perspective" yet.
Go read some of the links posted around in here Grog, it'll do you some good.
China is capable. A point proven when they surfaced a sub in the middle of one of our Carrier Battle Groups, while we were in a wartime exercise, and we had no clue they were there.
Wow....hadn't heard that story. I don't really have an answer to that.
All I can say is it's good thing they did that because it will stir the Navy to investigate how that happened and how they will spend their money to counter the threat.
To be honest with you I think China made a mistake doing that, because they kind of gave away their poker face a bit, and this will force the Navy/Pentagon into upping their research.
Seaward, no disrespect intended, but as best I can figure out you're more or less fresh out of the RAG, so... IMO, you have all the insider perspective and experience of a private (and besides that I can get that same perspective from at least a dozen other people I know, seeing as how 3 of my former roommates are aviators and one is an RIO). Besides that, like most junior naval aviators, you still seem to be suffering from the Pensacola induced delirium that you are God's gift to the aviation community and that the US Navy has no Achilles heal.
As for the lemons (barring the pre 1960s which you already alluded to):
The F-4, as much as I love it, was a flying brick that only got off the ground because of the ridiculous quantities of thrust. Lets not forget that it was originally fielded without a gun and had a nasty habit of leaving a nice black smoketrail in its wake until later on. It wasn't until the development of better missile technology, the add-on of a gun, and alterations to its engines that it really began to shine.
The A-5 had a host of issues when it first entered service, and much like the A-3, I would say that they were doctrinally obsolete before they were even introduced, but thats another matter entirely.
F-3 Demon, initial versions were virtually unflyable, even late production versions were slow, underpowered, sluggish, and useless against contemporary adversary aircraft.
The F-111B, originally designed as a dogfighter, so terrible that ultimately the Navy did the intelligent thing and got the hell out of the project, leaving the Air Force holding a bag full of lemons in the form of the F-111A, and attempted to retool it into the F-14.
The F-8 Crusader, its mishap rate (87% approx.) says it all (although still a great aircraft otherwise).
And just for gaks and giggles: The F-14 was an overweight, underpowered pig of an aircraft that was entirely useless in a dogfight against an even half-way decent pilot until over a decade after it was introduced into service when the Navy FINALLY wised up and put a more powerful engine in there.
chaos0xomega wrote: Don't be dense. China could easily hire retired personnel with first-hand experience in such things to train their pilots. For all intents and purposes, they have as I understand it.
I hope they didn't hire Russians.
And it's not just a matter of getting the right people. You need a lot of the right people, and a lot of institutional memory - not to mention the institutions in the first place - to do it up right. We have multiple RAGs, working all the way, always bringing up fresh aviators. We've got complicated rotations of dets for nugget carrier quals, and an awful lot of boats for them to land one, so they're not hamstrung by simply waiting months or years on end for a deck to be available.
It's a very complicated process, and only having one semi-operational carrier means they haven't even truly started it yet. I'd liken it to building a foreign intelligence service; sure, you can plop a building down somewhere, and even hire former spies, but it's still going to take a long, long time to build the institution itself up to useful levels, because it's not something you can teach in a six week correspondence course and then have everyone good to go.
I'm sure the Chinese can afford to hire some Americans. And while you're right that it requires institutional memory, etc. again, a lot of that can be 'prefabricated' by pulling from elsewhere. What took us 80 years can easily be accomplished by them in 20 or 30 if they can get the right resources in place. The biggest issue will be the one carrier (for now), but that will be changing in time.
Nah, it was designed for the Yak-38, a strike fighter and a terrible, terrible VTOL. Everything they built for aviation was designated in that "cruiser" manner, by the way. The Soviets paid very, very little attention to their fleet air arms, hence the insistence on that 'hybrid' sort of ship for far longer than was practical. It's why their naval aircraft sucked so badly, it's why their boats sucked so badly.
I wouldn't be throwing stones in glass houses, while the US had a few gems in terms of ships and aircraft, its also had a lot of lemons. As for the YAK, it was a much better CAS platform than it was a strike platform (although that might be owing to the fact that their only ever operational use in Afghanaland was as a CAS platform rather than a strike platform).
BTW, a good read if you like what-if is CDR Kraska's "How the United States Lost the Naval War of 2015" if you can find it anywhere online. I would say theres a good amount of "handwavium" at work in it, etc. but its a nice insider-perspective on the matter.
I don't care if they have 100 sub chasers or 100 out of date carriers.. if they don't know how to use them or if the tech doesn't work right, or if it's out of date, we are literally talking Indians with bows and arrows vs cavalry and winchester rifles here.
I don't care if they have 100 sub chasers or 100 out of date carriers.. if they don't know how to use them or if the tech doesn't work right, or if it's out of date, we are literally talking Indians with bows and arrows vs cavalry and winchester rifles here.
I don't care if they have 100 sub chasers or 100 out of date carriers.. if they don't know how to use them or if the tech doesn't work right, or if it's out of date, we are literally talking Indians with bows and arrows vs cavalry and winchester rifles here.
Except the battle of little bighorn was indians with repeating rifles vs Cavalry with single shot trap door rifles.
And about that Sub popping up in the middle of a training exercise.
which is better?
A.) Monitor a foreign sub and allow it to pop up in your formation "by surprise" Letting said naiton take Joy in their sub and start to make more of them, even though we know where they are (making the foreign nation waste time and money making outdated subs)
or
B.) alert the foreign sub right away that we can see it and then have said nation go back to the drawing board to design a better sub?
its similar to the Chinese/Russian stealth figther programs, Should we tell them that we have the ability to track Stealth aircraft?or let them waste time(10-20 years), resources and money making stealth aircraft.
yes China is expanding their fleet for the only reason of power projection.
The Chinese government is investing all over Africa for natural resources, it makes sense that china would want to have the ability to respond with military force to something that is threatening their interests and it would be on a Continent that most western nations honestly don't give two gaks about.
Grey Templar wrote: Indeed. I'd like to think we have a competent ability to fool the enemy and keep our own secrets.
We probably have tons of super advanced stuff that nobody outside of the programs has a clue exists.
See DARPA. The things that they make/think of are really scary.
-SyNAPSE - Project plan: create a cognitive computer with similar form, function, and architecture to the mammalian brain (working with IBM on this one)
-Vulture- Project plan: to build a UAV with a flight time of 5 years (400 ft wing span) (working with boeing on this one)
-XOS- Project plan: Powered military exo suit (started in 2000) first designs will be for heavy lifting future designs for combat
-LS3- Project plan: Robotic packhorse for the military(working with boston dynamicsfor this one)
Spoiler:
While its slow now they have other projects for speed
chaos0xomega wrote: Seaward, no disrespect intended, but as best I can figure out you're more or less fresh out of the RAG, so... IMO, you have all the insider perspective and experience of a private (and besides that I can get that same perspective from at least a dozen other people I know, seeing as how 3 of my former roommates are aviators and one is an RIO). Besides that, like most junior naval aviators, you still seem to be suffering from the Pensacola induced delirium that you are God's gift to the aviation community and that the US Navy has no Achilles heal.
No offense taken. In fact, I'll even be a good guy and let you take a Mulligan on this paragraph and allow you the chance to re-Google. The only hints I'll give you are that the "my former roommate is a RIO" thing is an obvious giveaway that you're making gak up, and that only API takes place in Pensacola.
Oh, and the service commitment's eight years from winging. It'd be pretty tough for me to be both already in a cushy private sector job and a nugget jg at the same time.
As for the lemons (barring the pre 1960s which you already alluded to):
The F-4, as much as I love it, was a flying brick that only got off the ground because of the ridiculous quantities of thrust. Lets not forget that it was originally fielded without a gun and had a nasty habit of leaving a nice black smoketrail in its wake until later on. It wasn't until the development of better missile technology, the add-on of a gun, and alterations to its engines that it really began to shine.
The A-5 had a host of issues when it first entered service, and much like the A-3, I would say that they were doctrinally obsolete before they were even introduced, but thats another matter entirely.
F-3 Demon, initial versions were virtually unflyable, even late production versions were slow, underpowered, sluggish, and useless against contemporary adversary aircraft.
The F-111B, originally designed as a dogfighter, so terrible that ultimately the Navy did the intelligent thing and got the hell out of the project, leaving the Air Force holding a bag full of lemons in the form of the F-111A, and attempted to retool it into the F-14.
The F-8 Crusader, its mishap rate (87% approx.) says it all (although still a great aircraft otherwise).
So those are the lemons to you. Some are accurate, though unfortunately all are from the '60s, save the one that was never actually a Navy aircraft.
And just for gaks and giggles: The F-14 was an overweight, underpowered pig of an aircraft that was entirely useless in a dogfight against an even half-way decent pilot until over a decade after it was introduced into service when the Navy FINALLY wised up and put a more powerful engine in there.
How many mock dogfights against F-14As have you been in, out of curiosity? Are your BFM credentials also of the "I know a guy," type? The Rhino's criminally under-thrusted too, yet gun kills against Raptors do indeed happen. As you no doubt know, it's all about playing to the Navy's strengths - low speed, low altitude, high alpha.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote: Wow....hadn't heard that story. I don't really have an answer to that.
All I can say is it's good thing they did that because it will stir the Navy to investigate how that happened and how they will spend their money to counter the threat.
To be honest with you I think China made a mistake doing that, because they kind of gave away their poker face a bit, and this will force the Navy/Pentagon into upping their research.
GG
Stuff like that happens occasionally. The Air Force did COPE India a few years ago and word got out about how the F-15s got totally and completely schooled by the SU-30MKIs and the sky was subsequently starting to fall. ("Schooled" by our standards, anyway, meaning they lost a lot of 1v3 engagements.)
Make what you will of the fact that the COPE India 'incident' happened right around the time Congress was debating cutting F-22 funding.
You would hope so. The 'We'll just pretend we don't know about it' theory doesn't hold up. There is no way to know the sub commander's intent as he tries to breach the groups perimeter and close with the carrier.
I don't care if they have 100 sub chasers or 100 out of date carriers.. if they don't know how to use them or if the tech doesn't work right, or if it's out of date, we are literally talking Indians with bows and arrows vs cavalry and winchester rifles here.
Except the battle of little bighorn was indians with repeating rifles vs Cavalry with single shot trap door rifles.
And about that Sub popping up in the middle of a training exercise.
which is better?
A.) Monitor a foreign sub and allow it to pop up in your formation "by surprise" Letting said naiton take Joy in their sub and start to make more of them, even though we know where they are (making the foreign nation waste time and money making outdated subs)
or
B.) alert the foreign sub right away that we can see it and then have said nation go back to the drawing board to design a better sub?
its similar to the Chinese/Russian stealth figther programs, Should we tell them that we have the ability to track Stealth aircraft?or let them waste time(10-20 years), resources and money making stealth aircraft.
yes China is expanding their fleet for the only reason of power projection.
The Chinese government is investing all over Africa for natural resources, it makes sense that china would want to have the ability to respond with military force to something that is threatening their interests and it would be on a Continent that most western nations honestly don't give two gaks about.
There is of course Option C: "accidently" sink it.
chaos0xomega wrote: Don't be dense. China could easily hire retired personnel with first-hand experience in such things to train their pilots. For all intents and purposes, they have as I understand it.
I hope they didn't hire Russians.
And it's not just a matter of getting the right people. You need a lot of the right people, and a lot of institutional memory - not to mention the institutions in the first place - to do it up right. We have multiple RAGs, working all the way, always bringing up fresh aviators. We've got complicated rotations of dets for nugget carrier quals, and an awful lot of boats for them to land one, so they're not hamstrung by simply waiting months or years on end for a deck to be available.
It's a very complicated process, and only having one semi-operational carrier means they haven't even truly started it yet. I'd liken it to building a foreign intelligence service; sure, you can plop a building down somewhere, and even hire former spies, but it's still going to take a long, long time to build the institution itself up to useful levels, because it's not something you can teach in a six week correspondence course and then have everyone good to go.
I'm sure the Chinese can afford to hire some Americans. And while you're right that it requires institutional memory, etc. again, a lot of that can be 'prefabricated' by pulling from elsewhere. What took us 80 years can easily be accomplished by them in 20 or 30 if they can get the right resources in place. The biggest issue will be the one carrier (for now), but that will be changing in time.
Nah, it was designed for the Yak-38, a strike fighter and a terrible, terrible VTOL. Everything they built for aviation was designated in that "cruiser" manner, by the way. The Soviets paid very, very little attention to their fleet air arms, hence the insistence on that 'hybrid' sort of ship for far longer than was practical. It's why their naval aircraft sucked so badly, it's why their boats sucked so badly.
I wouldn't be throwing stones in glass houses, while the US had a few gems in terms of ships and aircraft, its also had a lot of lemons. As for the YAK, it was a much better CAS platform than it was a strike platform (although that might be owing to the fact that their only ever operational use in Afghanaland was as a CAS platform rather than a strike platform).
BTW, a good read if you like what-if is CDR Kraska's "How the United States Lost the Naval War of 2015" if you can find it anywhere online. I would say theres a good amount of "handwavium" at work in it, etc. but its a nice insider-perspective on the matter.
A.) Monitor a foreign sub and allow it to pop up in your formation "by surprise" Letting said naiton take Joy in their sub and start to make more of them, even though we know where they are (making the foreign nation waste time and money making outdated subs)
Yeah, no thats not what happened. The Song class was already succeeded by the Yuan class by the time the incident occurred. Besides that, considering its a diesel-electric design and China has its sights on a nuclear navy, its irrelevant as to influencing their thinking.
its similar to the Chinese/Russian stealth figther programs, Should we tell them that we have the ability to track Stealth aircraft?or let them waste time(10-20 years), resources and money making stealth aircraft.
They already know we can do that, and they can do it too. The technology has existed for a long time now, it just hasn't really proliferated, which makes the current obsession with stealth aircraft rather strange to me.
We probably have tons of super advanced stuff that nobody outside of the programs has a clue exists.
No doubt, but those secret squirrel programs only make up a tiny fraction of the total force.
See DARPA. The things that they make/think of are really scary.
-SyNAPSE - Project plan: create a cognitive computer with similar form, function, and architecture to the mammalian brain (working with IBM on this one)
-Vulture- Project plan: to build a UAV with a flight time of 5 years (400 ft wing span) (working with boeing on this one)
-XOS- Project plan: Powered military exo suit (started in 2000) first designs will be for heavy lifting future designs for combat
-LS3- Project plan: Robotic packhorse for the military(working with boston dynamicsfor this one)
DARPA is more theoretical for research purposes rather than practical production designs.
No offense taken. In fact, I'll even be a good guy and let you take a Mulligan on this paragraph and allow you the chance to re-Google. The only hints I'll give you are that the "my former roommate is a RIO" thing is an obvious giveaway that you're making gak up, and that only primary takes place in Pensacola.
lol, if you want to believe that, thats cool. or maybe I just wasn't thinking when I typed it and to me RIO and NFO are interchangeable acronyms used to describe the under appreciated bastard that has to put up with all the bs of primadonna naval aviator. Really, it would be a foolish assumption on your end to assume that it wasn't true, considering I was A) in AFROTC, B) roomed with a half dozen Navy midshipmen (I couldn't stand most of my fellow cadets, I quickly learned that the AF is called the "Chair Force" for a reason), C) have a degree in Joint Military Studies (which further exposed me to military personnel, particularly Marines and Sailors) and D) its actually true. I have another roommate who is currently qualifying as a surface nuke officer, a good friend whos finishing up prototype in Saratoga Springs before reporting to a sub, a couple friends that have already completed sub quals, etc. and are stationed out in Hawaii (as well as a SWO buddy doing a tour on a Cruiser), another one stationed in Groton, another whos wrapping up a tour in San Diego off an amphib before reporting to a shore tour as a liason to a contractor in Mobile, Alabama, another "buddy" (if you can call him that anymore, lot of bad blood there) who just reported to NAS Oceania to fly Superhornets, and another roommate who evidently couldn't hack it as a jet pilot who was given another chance at life and just got sent back to P-cola/Whiting Field to take a shot at helo's.
And just for gaks and giggles: My dad flew MiG-19s for the Hungarian Air Force. Completely irrelevant to anything and everything we're discussing, I just think its cool.
Oh, and the service commitment's eight years from winging. It'd be pretty tough for me to be both already in a cushy private sector job and a nugget jg at the same time.
Then you've been misrepresenting yourself, as I had been under the impression that you were still active duty.
So those are the lemons to you. Some are accurate, though unfortunately all are from the '60s, save the one that was never actually a Navy aircraft.
Are they? Eh, there haven't been quite that many planes since the 60s to begin with, save the Hornet/Superhornet (and the F-35, which I'd like to lump into the lemon category, but I can't exactly blame the Navy for that one), which I really can't hate on too much, because while they might not be the best, they are still pretty damned good, and at least they are/were cheap.
How many mock dogfights against F-14As have you been in, out of curiosity? Are your BFM credentials also of the "I know a guy," type? The Rhino's criminally under-thrusted too, yet gun kills against Raptors do indeed happen. As you no doubt know, it's all about playing to the Navy's strengths - low speed, low altitude, high alpha.
I don't need to be in mock dogfights with an F-14 to know that it was the truth. Theres a reason why the Navy brass (and as I understand it even certain pro-F-14 members of Congress) blocked fly-offs and mock training missions between the two aircraft. Likewise, when it came to foreign sales, every potential candidate for the F-14 (with the exception of the Iranians, who were evidently swayed by the ability of the F-14 to sling Phoenix missiles from 100+ miles away) opted instead for the F-15. In fact, the Israelis, as I understand it, had a lot to say about the virtues of the F-15 relative to the F-14 (one of my college professors was on the Israeli test/evaluation team that unanimously decided in favor of the F-15).
As for low speed/low altitude, yes the F-14 had the advantage there, but as I understand it (this I'm no expert in), you would have to be a pretty green eagle driver (let alone any other airframe) to actually slow down and give the opening to an F-14 to take advantage of that situation. Besides that, from what I've been told, the F-14 had a lot of trouble picking up speed and altitude again once it did slow down, so you might splash one, but what about his wingman?
Stuff like that happens occasionally. The Air Force did COPE India a few years ago and word got out about how the F-15s got totally and completely schooled by the SU-30MKIs and the sky was subsequently starting to fall. ("Schooled" by our standards, anyway, meaning they lost a lot of 1v3 engagements.)
Make what you will of the fact that the COPE India 'incident' happened right around the time Congress was debating cutting F-22 funding.
I thought COPE India was F-15s vs. MiG-21bis, F-15s were barred from using RADAR and without AWACS support?
The COPE India 2004 exercise had our F-15's fighting 1-3 odds, against a variety of aircraft that could take advantage of different tactics. They were also un-upgraded models, and weren't allowed to use certain weapons that would have evened the odds.
It was a situation where our pilots hands were tied, thrown into a dogfight they don't really train for, and the result was expected. Had they had the equipment that they would in a real conflict, it certainly would have gone down differently.
chaos0xomega wrote: lol, if you want to believe that, thats cool. or maybe I just wasn't thinking when I typed it and to me RIO and NFO are interchangeable acronyms used to describe the under appreciated bastard that has to put up with all the bs of primadonna naval aviator.
I'd get out of that habit. RIOs haven't existed for a while now.
Really, it would be a foolish assumption on your end to assume that it wasn't true, considering I was A) in AFROTC, B) roomed with a half dozen Navy midshipmen (I couldn't stand most of my fellow cadets, I quickly learned that the AF is called the "Chair Force" for a reason), C) have a degree in Joint Military Studies (which further exposed me to military personnel, particularly Marines and Sailors) and D) its actually true. I have another roommate who is currently qualifying as a surface nuke officer, a good friend whos finishing up prototype in Saratoga Springs before reporting to a sub, a couple friends that have already completed sub quals, etc. and are stationed out in Hawaii (as well as a SWO buddy doing a tour on a Cruiser), another one stationed in Groton, another whos wrapping up a tour in San Diego off an amphib before reporting to a shore tour as a liason to a contractor in Mobile, Alabama, another "buddy" (if you can call him that anymore, lot of bad blood there) who just reported to NAS Oceania to fly Superhornets, and another roommate who evidently couldn't hack it as a jet pilot who was given another chance at life and just got sent back to P-cola/Whiting Field to take a shot at helo's.
I'm still not hearing anything that suggests you actually have any experience with what we're discussing, though I do find it amusing that you disparaged the working knowledge of guys fresh out of Advanced Strike a couple posts ago, and now admit that they're what you're relying on for your perspective.
The basic problem I'm having is understanding where your self-assurance that you know more about naval aviation's coming from. I mean, really, if it's all about discarding personal experience in favor of who knows the most naval aviators...well, I guarantee I win that one, too.
None of which is to say you're not entitled to a perspective. But, like it or not, my dong's longer when it comes to flying gak off boats and getting back aboard, so you can disregard what I have to say all you like, but claiming I don't know what I'm talking about isn't going to fly.
Then you've been misrepresenting yourself, as I had been under the impression that you were still active duty.
No, I've said in many, many threads that I'm currently in the private sector.
I don't need to be in mock dogfights with an F-14 to know that it was the truth.
Yet we know from actual experience that it was not, in fact, the truth. As for who's buying what on the export market...who cares? If I were building a land-based air force, I'd opt for the F-15 over the F-14 in most cases, too. You have to make a lot of sacrifices to make an aircraft seaworthy. And if you end up flying those seaworthy aircraft, you figure out how to minimize the deficiencies and maximize the advantages.
As for low speed/low altitude, yes the F-14 had the advantage there, but as I understand it (this I'm no expert in), you would have to be a pretty green eagle driver (let alone any other airframe) to actually slow down and give the opening to an F-14 to take advantage of that situation. Besides that, from what I've been told, the F-14 had a lot of trouble picking up speed and altitude again once it did slow down, so you might splash one, but what about his wingman?
By the same logic, you'd need to be a "pretty green" Raptor pilot to let a Rhino get guns on you, and yet...well, that's exactly what my avatar's a shot of. Everything the Navy's flown for the better part of three decades now has (primarily transonic) acceleration issues. Oh, well. Just don't let the fight get to a point where that becomes relevant. Get on the perch, then force it slow, where the ability to keep pointing the nose when the other guy can't wins.
All of which is irrelevant, of course, because air-to-air Top Gun-style gunfights are a thing of the past, and are only going to become more irrelevant as the F-35 makes its debut. A lot of people waste a lot of time fretting over individual numbers - "Oh my God, plane X can only sustain 5G turns!" - without knowing what they actually mean and in what context.
I thought COPE India was F-15s vs. MiG-21bis, F-15s were barred from using RADAR and without AWACS support?
COPE India's been a lot of things. It's not a one-off exercise.
Here's the bottom line: when it comes to Chinese naval aviation, they're nowhere close to being operational. They're going to dick around learning how to do it with whatever they're calling the Varyag for at least a decade, because it's going to take them that long to build up the cadre of experienced pilots they need to start teaching new guys how to do it. They're going to need to build more boats. They're going to need to come up with better navalized aircraft. And, in twenty to thirty years, when they're finally up on their feet...they're still going to suck, unless they've managed to stop buying avionics from the Russians.
chaos0xomega wrote: Just because it was a situation they don't train for doesn't mean its a situation that can't happen in a 'real conflict'.
Our aircraft would not be sent on an air combat mission where they don't have radar, and our standard missiles. And they were still outnumbered 3 to 1. We effectively tied a hand behind the back of our pilots and sent them into combat, the results to me weren't exactly to surprising.
djones520 wrote: The COPE India 2004 exercise had our F-15's fighting 1-3 odds, against a variety of aircraft that could take advantage of different tactics. They were also un-upgraded models, and weren't allowed to use certain weapons that would have evened the odds.
It was a situation where our pilots hands were tied, thrown into a dogfight they don't really train for, and the result was expected. Had they had the equipment that they would in a real conflict, it certainly would have gone down differently.
A lot of people, myself included, suspect the 04 showing was designed to get Congress to freak out.
chaos0xomega wrote: lol, if you want to believe that, thats cool. or maybe I just wasn't thinking when I typed it and to me RIO and NFO are interchangeable acronyms used to describe the under appreciated bastard that has to put up with all the bs of primadonna naval aviator.
I'd get out of that habit. RIOs haven't existed for a while now.
I honestly don't really care since its a situation that comes up maybe once a year, if that, and makes no real difference in my personal or professional life, nor am I really sure where I picked up that "habit" to begin with.
I'm still not hearing anything that suggests you actually have any experience with what we're discussing, though I do find it amusing that you disparaged the working knowledge of guys fresh out of Advanced Strike a couple posts ago, and now admit that they're what you're relying on for your perspective.
The basic problem I'm having is understanding where your self-assurance that you know more about naval aviation's coming from. I mean, really, if it's all about discarding personal experience in favor of who knows the most naval aviators...well, I guarantee I win that one, too.
None of which is to say you're not entitled to a perspective. But, like it or not, my dong's longer when it comes to flying gak off boats and getting back aboard, so you can disregard what I have to say all you like, but claiming I don't know what I'm talking about isn't going to fly.
It wasn't about personal experience, it was about having access to an insiders perspective to Naval Ops and the future of the Navy. As you will recall, I suggested that "How the US Lost the Naval War of 2015" (an article written by a Commander in the US Navy) was an interesting read, and offered a bit of an insiders perspective on the situation. You suggested that you could give your own insiders perspective on the manner, I (operating under the assumption that you were inexperienced and didn't know gak) suggested that if I wanted the perspective of someone who didn't know gak I had plenty of other alternatives available to me, and now we're here.
No, I've said in many, many threads that I'm currently in the private sector.
I honestly don't pay that much attention to things.
Yet we know from actual experience that it was not, in fact, the truth.
Based on... what experience exactly? The F-14A was, in fact, an overweight, underpowered pig... it was also a huge hangar queen. I've had a retired Tomcat driver tell me as much himself, the F-14B and later the F-14D was a huge improvement on the design, but made for a much better Strike aircraft (better than the Strike Eagle from what I've been told, at least until the most recent iteration of avionics upgrades, by which point I think the Tomcat was retired). Are you talking about the Iran/Iraq war, where F-14s went up against laregely outdated and obsolete airframes, and piece o' gak MiG-23s flown by poorly trained and inexperienced pilots? The incidents in Libya where, as I understand it, the Libyan pilots flew along a straight, level flight path, launched missiles... and continued along a straight, level flight path as the F-14s evaded their missiles and then shot them down? AFAIK, most of the US F-14 combat experience came in an air-to-ground role, rather than an air-to-air role.
By the same logic, you'd need to be a "pretty green" Raptor pilot to let a Rhino get guns on you, and yet...well, that's exactly what my avatar's a shot of. Everything the Navy's flown for the better part of three decades now has (primarily transonic) acceleration issues. Oh, well. Just don't let the fight get to a point where that becomes relevant. Get on the perch, then force it slow, where the ability to keep pointing the nose when the other guy can't wins.
AFAIK, correct me if I'm wrong, theres only been one kill against an F-22 by an F-18 or variant thereof (from what I was told it was an EA-18G Growler), which in fact occurred after the cessation of combat maneuvering as the F-22 pilot was standing down (and thus not even attempting to evade the Growler) after the Growler pilot dropped below the hard deck. In any case, I've met a few Eagle drivers who managed to score a kill or two against F-22s out of Langley in mock combat, so its not *quite* that impressive.
All of which is irrelevant, of course, because air-to-air Top Gun-style gunfights are a thing of the past, and are only going to become more irrelevant as the F-35 makes its debut. A lot of people waste a lot of time fretting over individual numbers - "Oh my God, plane X can only sustain 5G turns!" - without knowing what they actually mean and in what context.
They said that of 'Nam, that turned out to not be true. In any case, the F-35 is an impressive turd of an aircraft for an altogether different set of reasons relating to its actual practical use and lifetime costs, rather than its dogfight performance. IMO, its amazing at pretty much everything you don't really need it to do, and deficient in pretty much everything you would want it to do.
Our aircraft would not be sent on an air combat mission where they don't have radar, and our standard missiles. And they were still outnumbered 3 to 1. We effectively tied a hand behind the back of our pilots and sent them into combat, the results to me weren't exactly to surprising.
So, its altogether unfeasible that a flight of F-15s returning from a combat mission in which they blew their entire load could end up in a situation where the on-station AWACS has been blown out of the sky get hit from behind by an enemy flight of Sukhois/MiGs/what have you and taken for surprise? I know its unlikely, but that doesn't mean it *can't* happen.
djones520 wrote: The COPE India 2004 exercise had our F-15's fighting 1-3 odds, against a variety of aircraft that could take advantage of different tactics. They were also un-upgraded models, and weren't allowed to use certain weapons that would have evened the odds.
It was a situation where our pilots hands were tied, thrown into a dogfight they don't really train for, and the result was expected. Had they had the equipment that they would in a real conflict, it certainly would have gone down differently.
A lot of people, myself included, suspect the 04 showing was designed to get Congress to freak out.
Thats generally true of a lot of military exercises. Deficiency in the military only has one solution: POUR MOAR MONEY INTO IT!!!
djones520 wrote: Yes, Chaos, I'd say that situation would be unfeasible. Part of the reason we spend so much money on defense is to make it so.
"No plan survives contact with the enemy." "The first casualty of war is the battle plan." etc. etc. ad nauseum. Check your hubris at the door my friend, even our military isn't infallible.
At the risk of Godwinning the thread, I can't help but think of reading the seemingly well thought comments of the Jews in Germany stating nothing could possibly happen to them because of one reason or another.
The rest, as they say, is history.
I don't care if they have 100 sub chasers or 100 out of date carriers.. if they don't know how to use them or if the tech doesn't work right, or if it's out of date, we are literally talking Indians with bows and arrows vs cavalry and winchester rifles here.
Except the battle of little bighorn was indians with repeating rifles vs Cavalry with single shot trap door rifles.
And about that Sub popping up in the middle of a training exercise.
which is better?
A.) Monitor a foreign sub and allow it to pop up in your formation "by surprise" Letting said naiton take Joy in their sub and start to make more of them, even though we know where they are (making the foreign nation waste time and money making outdated subs)
or
B.) alert the foreign sub right away that we can see it and then have said nation go back to the drawing board to design a better sub?
its similar to the Chinese/Russian stealth figther programs, Should we tell them that we have the ability to track Stealth aircraft?or let them waste time(10-20 years), resources and money making stealth aircraft.
yes China is expanding their fleet for the only reason of power projection.
The Chinese government is investing all over Africa for natural resources, it makes sense that china would want to have the ability to respond with military force to something that is threatening their interests and it would be on a Continent that most western nations honestly don't give two gaks about.
Considering that you guys extended the lease of HMS Gotland for a year to get more practice in locating conventional submarines I'd say it's pretty fair to assume that the Chinese are just as capable as us Swedes at building and operating submarines (considering how much more money they could throw at it than us...), unless you're arguing that the US is so much better than everyone else in the world that they'd lease a Swedish submarine and conduct anti-submarine excercises for two years just to pretend that the US Navy is worse at its job than it is. There really is nothing pointing to the US "letting" the Chinese sub surface where it did. It's possible, but a simpler explanation is to simply accept that other nations can do awesome stuff too.
U.S. Flies B-52s Into China’s Expanded Air Defense Zone
WASHINGTON — Two long-range American bombers have conducted what Pentagon officials described Tuesday as a routine training mission through international air space recently claimed by China as its “air defense identification zone.”
The Chinese government said Saturday that it has the right to identify, monitor and possibly take military action against aircraft that enter the area, which includes sea and islands also claimed by Japan. The claim threatens to escalate an already tense dispute over some of the maritime territory.
American officials said the pair of B-52s carried out a mission that had been planned long in advance of the Chinese announcement this past weekend, and that the United States military would continue to assert its right to fly through what it regards as international air space.
Pentagon officials said the two bombers made a round-trip flight from Guam, passing through a zone that covers sea and islands that are the subject of a sovereignty dispute between Japan and China.
Officials said there had been no Chinese response to the bomber run.
Within hours of the Chinese announcement this weekend that it had declared what Beijing termed an “East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone,” Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel issued a statement expressing deep concern over the action.
“We view this development as a destabilizing attempt to alter the status quo in the region,” Mr. Hagel said. “This unilateral action increases the risk of misunderstanding and miscalculations.”
Mr. Hagel noted that “this announcement by the People’s Republic of China will not in any way change how the United States conducts military operations in the region.”
Pentagon officials said the training sortie by the two B-52s could be seen as underscoring that commitment to preserving traditional rules of international air space.
Mr. Hagel’s statement said the United States had conveyed “concerns to China through diplomatic and military channels, and we are in close consultation with our allies and partners in the region, including Japan.”
His statement concluded by noting the United States is “steadfast in our commitments to our allies and partners. The United States reaffirms its longstanding policy that Article V of the U.S.-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty applies to the Senkaku Islands.”
The move by China appeared to be another step in its efforts to intensify pressure on Japan over the Japanese-controlled islands in the East China Sea that are at the heart of the dispute.
The declaration, from a Ministry of National Defense spokesman, Col. Yang Yujun, accompanied the ministry’s release of a map, geographic coordinates and rules in Chinese and English that said “China’s armed forces will take defensive emergency measures to respond to aircraft that do not cooperate in identification or refuse to follow orders.”
“The objective is to defend national sovereignty and territorial and air security, as well as to maintain orderly aviation,” Colonel Yang said in comments issued on the ministry’s website.
The experience of many, many pilots who either flew it or flew against it.
AFAIK, correct me if I'm wrong, theres only been one kill against an F-22 by an F-18 or variant thereof (from what I was told it was an EA-18G Growler), which in fact occurred after the cessation of combat maneuvering as the F-22 pilot was standing down (and thus not even attempting to evade the Growler) after the Growler pilot dropped below the hard deck. In any case, I've met a few Eagle drivers who managed to score a kill or two against F-22s out of Langley in mock combat, so its not *quite* that impressive.
There have been more than that. And the point was raised simply because if the contention that a slow-to-accelerate, overweight aircraft can't possibly be a competent dogfighter, your real exemplar is the Rhino, not the Tomcat. Nothing gets faster slower (or slower faster) than an E or F. Yet here it is, managing to pull off gun kills against the most advanced fighter in the world.
They said that of 'Nam, that turned out to not be true.
The difference in missile technology, countermeasures, and avionics between 1962 and today is pretty vast. We now have lots of combat experience with air-to-air missiles and know how to test them and make them work. The last time anybody got killed in a dogfight with guns was...well, likely in the '80s, by an Israeli.
In any case, the F-35 is an impressive turd of an aircraft for an altogether different set of reasons relating to its actual practical use and lifetime costs, rather than its dogfight performance. IMO, its amazing at pretty much everything you don't really need it to do, and deficient in pretty much everything you would want it to do.
I disagree profoundly, but the thread's off-topic enough. The F-35's amazing once you understand it. I'd be happy to fly it into combat if I still had the opportunity to do that sort of thing.
U.S. Flies B-52s Into China’s Expanded Air Defense Zone
WASHINGTON — Two long-range American bombers have conducted what Pentagon officials described Tuesday as a routine training mission through international air space recently claimed by China as its “air defense identification zone.”
The Chinese government said Saturday that it has the right to identify, monitor and possibly take military action against aircraft that enter the area, which includes sea and islands also claimed by Japan. The claim threatens to escalate an already tense dispute over some of the maritime territory.
American officials said the pair of B-52s carried out a mission that had been planned long in advance of the Chinese announcement this past weekend, and that the United States military would continue to assert its right to fly through what it regards as international air space.
Pentagon officials said the two bombers made a round-trip flight from Guam, passing through a zone that covers sea and islands that are the subject of a sovereignty dispute between Japan and China.
Officials said there had been no Chinese response to the bomber run.
Within hours of the Chinese announcement this weekend that it had declared what Beijing termed an “East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone,” Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel issued a statement expressing deep concern over the action.
“We view this development as a destabilizing attempt to alter the status quo in the region,” Mr. Hagel said. “This unilateral action increases the risk of misunderstanding and miscalculations.”
Mr. Hagel noted that “this announcement by the People’s Republic of China will not in any way change how the United States conducts military operations in the region.”
Pentagon officials said the training sortie by the two B-52s could be seen as underscoring that commitment to preserving traditional rules of international air space.
Mr. Hagel’s statement said the United States had conveyed “concerns to China through diplomatic and military channels, and we are in close consultation with our allies and partners in the region, including Japan.”
His statement concluded by noting the United States is “steadfast in our commitments to our allies and partners. The United States reaffirms its longstanding policy that Article V of the U.S.-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty applies to the Senkaku Islands.”
The move by China appeared to be another step in its efforts to intensify pressure on Japan over the Japanese-controlled islands in the East China Sea that are at the heart of the dispute.
The declaration, from a Ministry of National Defense spokesman, Col. Yang Yujun, accompanied the ministry’s release of a map, geographic coordinates and rules in Chinese and English that said “China’s armed forces will take defensive emergency measures to respond to aircraft that do not cooperate in identification or refuse to follow orders.”
“The objective is to defend national sovereignty and territorial and air security, as well as to maintain orderly aviation,” Colonel Yang said in comments issued on the ministry’s website.
I will state for the record, that I fully support many of the things the Obama policy or lack thereof have done or not done. Nation building in Libya, no, but I think they learned enough to back off from Syria.
The experience of many, many pilots who either flew it or flew against it.
As I mentioned before, I know one or two who had that distinction, and their opinions weren't quite the same (though I do know of one former Tomcat driver that absolutely loved it).
There have been more than that. And the point was raised simply because if the contention that a slow-to-accelerate, overweight aircraft can't possibly be a competent dogfighter, your real exemplar is the Rhino, not the Tomcat. Nothing gets faster slower (or slower faster) than an E or F. Yet here it is, managing to pull off gun kills against the most advanced fighter in the world.
I never said that it (F-14A) COULDN'T be a competent dogfighter, just that it was, when first delivered, pretty much a hunk of junk (and useless at anything other than intercepting a Soviet bomber).
I still can find nothing beyond the one instance of the EA-18G scoring a kill against the Raptor. Since I know that F-15s have managed the feat on several occasions, I'm not going to call into question the legitimacy of the claim, but I will say that circumstance matters, and I will also point out that the F-22s kill ratio in simulated air combat indicates that while its possible, its also improbable.
The difference in missile technology, countermeasures, and avionics between 1962 and today is pretty vast. We now have lots of combat experience with air-to-air missiles and know how to test them and make them work. The last time anybody got killed in a dogfight with guns was...well, likely in the '80s, by an Israeli.
Actually it was during the Ethiopian-Eritrean War, February 1999, Ethiopian Su-27 gunned down an Eritrean MiG-29 after the MiG successfully dodged the Sukhois missiles.... allegedly, apparently there is some dispute as to the exact events although there is (evidently) photographic evidence of the shoot-down. Also, I find it odd that you would state that gun-fighting is done with, yet harp the F-18 gun kills on F-22s, clearly gun kills aren't a thing of a past in this age of missiles and stealth technology, especially since the Navy (via TOPGUN) and the Air Force (via Weapons School) still put a lot of effort into training pilots to dogfight.
I disagree profoundly, but the thread's off-topic enough. The F-35's amazing once you understand it. I'd be happy to fly it into combat if I still had the opportunity to do that sort of thing.
That makes one of us. My dislike of the F-35 is so intense that the mere risk that I might potentially end up in the cockpit of one is enough to make me want to be a grunt, which leads me to my present situation.... I have to say, I'm actually pretty surprised to see you supporting a single-engine high maintenance airframe for carrier operations.
I for one feel enlightened by some random kay-det holding forth on things he's heard about mostly from inexperienced other kay-dets and junior officers. Thanks Chaos, you really shine here.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I for one feel enlightened by some random kay-det holding forth on things he's heard about mostly from inexperienced other kay-dets and junior officers. Thanks Chaos, you really shine here.
Well, I DID study Aerodynamic Engineering (including a course on E-M theory) before switching to Industrial, so I would *like* to think I have some amount of theoretical understanding of the physics behind air combat, in addition to the airpower theory courses I had to take for my minor. While I can't claim *practical* understanding of air warfare, I do *actually* have a basis to speak on in terms of theoretical knowledge (more-so as it relates to strategic level considerations rather than the immediate down and dirty tactical maneuvers, etc.).
As for Junior Officers, err, well the courses I mostly refer back to were taught by active and retired O-6s mostly (Sub officer, USMC Infantry officer, SWO, C-17 pilot, A-10/F-16 pilot), one active O-5 (missileer of all things), and one retired O-7 (USAF Spec Ops pilot before transitioning to F-15s). The remainder were either civilian engineers, with two courses by USAF O-3s (both of whom had been prior-E, one as an F-117 mechanic, the other as a grunt in the Marines). Academically speaking, I would probably be the "kay-det" that the other kay-dets would hear things from to hold on about, considering that I was generally regarded as the "most knowledgeable kay-det", even earning the praise of the aforementioned professors/personnel for my level of understanding and knowledge of military concepts, affairs, technology, strategy, and doctrine (including the USMC infantry O-6, who after I left AFROTC offered me an NROTC scholarship as a marine option (which I didn't take) - I state this not because it's relevant, just because it's probably the one thing I'm most proud of, he wasn't easy to impress).
Considering that the things I'm "holding on about" are primarily in the realm of the theoretical (example: arguing that an F-14A had an inadequate thrust: weight ratio) rather than the realm of practical (I'm not arguing that the the F-14A was incapable of performing some maneuver or another, which I will freely admit that I would have absolutely no real knowledge or basis to stand on), your comment speaks to some sort of elitist holier-than-thou attitude on the premise that theoretical knowledge is of no value relative to practical knowledge... which is funny, because if thats the case, then Colonel Boyd would have had a tough time helping your Marine Corps develop their maneuver warfare doctrine, given that he was a USAF fighter pilot and had no practical knowledge of ground combat, or for that matter amphibious operations.
U.S. Flies B-52s Into China’s Expanded Air Defense Zone
WASHINGTON — Two long-range American bombers have conducted what Pentagon officials described Tuesday as a routine training mission through international air space recently claimed by China as its “air defense identification zone.”
The Chinese government said Saturday that it has the right to identify, monitor and possibly take military action against aircraft that enter the area, which includes sea and islands also claimed by Japan. The claim threatens to escalate an already tense dispute over some of the maritime territory.
American officials said the pair of B-52s carried out a mission that had been planned long in advance of the Chinese announcement this past weekend, and that the United States military would continue to assert its right to fly through what it regards as international air space.
Pentagon officials said the two bombers made a round-trip flight from Guam, passing through a zone that covers sea and islands that are the subject of a sovereignty dispute between Japan and China.
Officials said there had been no Chinese response to the bomber run.
Within hours of the Chinese announcement this weekend that it had declared what Beijing termed an “East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone,” Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel issued a statement expressing deep concern over the action.
“We view this development as a destabilizing attempt to alter the status quo in the region,” Mr. Hagel said. “This unilateral action increases the risk of misunderstanding and miscalculations.”
Mr. Hagel noted that “this announcement by the People’s Republic of China will not in any way change how the United States conducts military operations in the region.”
Pentagon officials said the training sortie by the two B-52s could be seen as underscoring that commitment to preserving traditional rules of international air space.
Mr. Hagel’s statement said the United States had conveyed “concerns to China through diplomatic and military channels, and we are in close consultation with our allies and partners in the region, including Japan.”
His statement concluded by noting the United States is “steadfast in our commitments to our allies and partners. The United States reaffirms its longstanding policy that Article V of the U.S.-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty applies to the Senkaku Islands.”
The move by China appeared to be another step in its efforts to intensify pressure on Japan over the Japanese-controlled islands in the East China Sea that are at the heart of the dispute.
The declaration, from a Ministry of National Defense spokesman, Col. Yang Yujun, accompanied the ministry’s release of a map, geographic coordinates and rules in Chinese and English that said “China’s armed forces will take defensive emergency measures to respond to aircraft that do not cooperate in identification or refuse to follow orders.”
“The objective is to defend national sovereignty and territorial and air security, as well as to maintain orderly aviation,” Colonel Yang said in comments issued on the ministry’s website.
I wouldn't attribute to much of this to Obama. As the article said, it had been planned months in advance. If anything, it was probably just a footnote in one of his daily briefings.
djones520 wrote: I wouldn't attribute to much of this to Obama. As the article said, it had been planned months in advance. If anything, it was probably just a footnote in one of his daily briefings.
Probably not, though I'm sure someone somewhere would have had to check with him or someone within his administration to make sure that they could continue with the exercise. I don't imagine too many people would risk an international incident and/or their job by going ahead with something that could potentially prove to be career-ending, if not monumentally stupid in terms of international relations.
Relapse wrote: At the risk of Godwinning the thread, I can't help but think of reading the seemingly well thought comments of the Jews in Germany stating nothing could possibly happen to them because of one reason or another.
The rest, as they say, is history.
If you're going to go back to WWII for an analogy, why would you then use a civilian population assuming political protection as your analogy to assumptions about military doctrine? Wouldn't it make more sense to use, say, the French high command just knowing that another war in Europe would be another attritional grind?
chaos0xomega wrote: As I mentioned before, I know one or two who had that distinction, and their opinions weren't quite the same (though I do know of one former Tomcat driver that absolutely loved it).
Okay. You don't mind if I stick with my personal experience and that of my peers, right?
I never said that it (F-14A) COULDN'T be a competent dogfighter, just that it was, when first delivered, pretty much a hunk of junk (and useless at anything other than intercepting a Soviet bomber).
I disagree.
I still can find nothing beyond the one instance of the EA-18G scoring a kill against the Raptor. Since I know that F-15s have managed the feat on several occasions, I'm not going to call into question the legitimacy of the claim, but I will say that circumstance matters, and I will also point out that the F-22s kill ratio in simulated air combat indicates that while its possible, its also improbable.
Why would you expect to be able to find such information? Can you readily pull up your neighbor's 1v1 pick-up basketball game record online?
Actually it was during the Ethiopian-Eritrean War, February 1999, Ethiopian Su-27 gunned down an Eritrean MiG-29 after the MiG successfully dodged the Sukhois missiles.... allegedly, apparently there is some dispute as to the exact events although there is (evidently) photographic evidence of the shoot-down. Also, I find it odd that you would state that gun-fighting is done with, yet harp the F-18 gun kills on F-22s, clearly gun kills aren't a thing of a past in this age of missiles and stealth technology, especially since the Navy (via TOPGUN) and the Air Force (via Weapons School) still put a lot of effort into training pilots to dogfight.
I'm "harping" on gun kills as a method of pointing out that aircraft lacking in acceleration and top-end power can still use the advantages they do have to wind up winning a given fight. That doesn't mean guns are still terribly relevant in air-to-air combat; most simulated gun kills occur in gun-only fights. We teach aerial gunfighting still for the same reason we teach dead reckoning; you might need to know how to do it someday, though chances are you won't. The prevalence of HOBS cuing and shooting has made a lot of the doctrines of the past if not obsolete, then at least less relevant. When I don't need to get my nose on you to kill you in a knife fight anymore, it doesn't matter if you're more maneuverable.
That makes one of us. My dislike of the F-35 is so intense that the mere risk that I might potentially end up in the cockpit of one is enough to make me want to be a grunt, which leads me to my present situation.... I have to say, I'm actually pretty surprised to see you supporting a single-engine high maintenance airframe for carrier operations.
Well, what can I say? I know what I'm talking about.
I know nothing about the military but didn't the manoeverabilty ( i know nothing of spelling either ) of the Zero plane used by the japanese have a lot to do with it's success - granted i do realise that todays air war is completely different.
Bullockist wrote: I know nothing about the military but didn't the manoeverabilty ( i know nothing of spelling either ) of the Zero plane used by the japanese have a lot to do with it's success - granted i do realise that todays air war is completely different.
It did have a lot to do with its initial success, yes. Then the Navy figured out how to fight it in a manner that played to the strength of Wildcats/Corsairs/Hellcats/et. al. and not to the strength of the Zero.
chaos0xomega wrote: As I mentioned before, I know one or two who had that distinction, and their opinions weren't quite the same (though I do know of one former Tomcat driver that absolutely loved it).
Okay. You don't mind if I stick with my personal experience and that of my peers, right?
Sure.
I never said that it (F-14A) COULDN'T be a competent dogfighter, just that it was, when first delivered, pretty much a hunk of junk (and useless at anything other than intercepting a Soviet bomber).
I disagree.
You're entitled to your opinion (just as I am), even if its wrong
Why would you expect to be able to find such information? Can you readily pull up your neighbor's 1v1 pick-up basketball game record online?
Well, given the big deal that was made about that Growler kill, it seemed logical to me that there would be more news stories about such events occurring.
I'm "harping" on gun kills as a method of pointing out that aircraft lacking in acceleration and top-end power can still use the advantages they do have to wind up winning a given fight. That doesn't mean guns are still terribly relevant in air-to-air combat; most simulated gun kills occur in gun-only fights. We teach aerial gunfighting still for the same reason we teach dead reckoning; you might need to know how to do it someday, though chances are you won't. The prevalence of HOBS cuing and shooting has made a lot of the doctrines of the past if not obsolete, then at least less relevant. When I don't need to get my nose on you to kill you in a knife fight anymore, it doesn't matter if you're more maneuverable.
(AFAIK, the USAF doesn't teach dead reckoning as of a couple years ago)
I disagree on your assertion that being more maneuverable is irrelevant. Dodging a missile is as much a function of maneuverability (at least for the Russians, who as I understand it rely more on maneuverability than they do on defensive systems) as it is a function of countermeasures. As a former pilot, you should know that in the process of evading said missile you can put yourself in a position of disadvantage where your maneuverability, ability to accelerate and top-end power all become major factors as to whether or not you come home in one piece or not.
Well, what can I say? I know what I'm talking about.
That doesn't make you right. Some casual searches through various news sources will turn up about as many current/former pilots declaring it to be a hunk of junk as it will current/former pilots that think its a great airframe and head and shoulders above any possible competition, so clearly there are plenty of people who 'know what they are talking about' out there who can, will, and do disagree with you.
Well, thus far, that hasn't really been the case. Politically, Australia, Indonesia, Singapore, Vietnam, Japan, South Korea, the Phillipines, and India have all been taking steps to further align themselves with the US, in a manner that is clearly indicative of the formation of spheres of influence organized along a Chinese vs. US sort of axis.
chaos0xomega wrote: Well, thus far, that hasn't really been the case. Politically, Australia, Indonesia, Singapore, Vietnam, Japan, South Korea, the Phillipines, and India have all been taking steps to further align themselves with the US, in a manner that is clearly indicative of the formation of spheres of influence organized along a Chinese vs. US sort of axis.
I have a feeling that a military encounter may change that alignment. It could be a case of 'we wont ask to invoke the treaty if you don't either" kind of thing.
Put another way If China has to have its way and a military option its is only recourse then an ally the US will need to be knocked down hard - I don't see a lot of SE Asian nations having the stomach for their homeland to be bombarded whilst it is used as a US aircraft carrier.
I can also see any paper allies of the US politely saying their air and sea pace is out of bounds also.
Well, I highly doubt Vietnam (terrified of China, several millenia bad blood between the two, including a war only a few decades ago), Japan (terrified of China, they know all too well that the Chinese remember their history), South Korea (enemy of North Korea, which is, despite recite events, solidly a Chinese ally), the Phillipines (long time staunch US allies who no doubt recognize that the US sent billions of dollars and a fleet to their aid after the recent storm, meanwhile China sent millions and as I understand it a single medical ship), and Australia ("51st State"), perhaps some of the other smaller states in the region might though....
chaos0xomega wrote: Well, thus far, that hasn't really been the case. Politically, Australia, Indonesia, Singapore, Vietnam, Japan, South Korea, the Phillipines, and India have all been taking steps to further align themselves with the US, in a manner that is clearly indicative of the formation of spheres of influence organized along a Chinese vs. US sort of axis.
I have a feeling that a military encounter may change that alignment. It could be a case of 'we wont ask to invoke the treaty if you don't either" kind of thing.
Put another way If China has to have its way and a military option its is only recourse then an ally the US will need to be knocked down hard - I don't see a lot of SE Asian nations having the stomach for their homeland to be bombarded whilst it is used as a US aircraft carrier.
I can also see any paper allies of the US politely saying their air and sea pace is out of bounds also.
I'd like to know what you base that opinion on, cause it seems extremely flimsy. We have military facilities in Japan, South Korea currently, and to call them "paper allies" is just extremely ignorant of how strong our ties are with those nations. We've had bases in the past in the Phillipines, and frequently have military flights in and out of that nation, and we're considered much more then "paper" allies with our ever present aid. We are currently building a military base in Australia, and have spent the last 12 years fighting wars alongside them. We routinely train with India and Indonesia, helping their forces prepare for conflicts, and again both nations have been supportive with our efforts in Afghanistan. The only nation you listed that might balk is Vietnam, but as Chaos pointed out, they hate China more then us. China tried to invade Vietnam in 1979, and hostilities lasted between the two nations until 1990. That is just another of a long line of attempts by China to absorb that country.
It's a term used by some to describe the close relationship between the two countries, also applied to Canada and the UK.... I wish it was the 51st+ state though...
chaos0xomega wrote: Well, thus far, that hasn't really been the case. Politically, Australia, Indonesia, Singapore, Vietnam, Japan, South Korea, the Phillipines, and India have all been taking steps to further align themselves with the US, in a manner that is clearly indicative of the formation of spheres of influence organized along a Chinese vs. US sort of axis.
I have a feeling that a military encounter may change that alignment. It could be a case of 'we wont ask to invoke the treaty if you don't either" kind of thing.
Put another way If China has to have its way and a military option its is only recourse then an ally the US will need to be knocked down hard - I don't see a lot of SE Asian nations having the stomach for their homeland to be bombarded whilst it is used as a US aircraft carrier.
I can also see any paper allies of the US politely saying their air and sea pace is out of bounds also.
I'd like to know what you base that opinion on, cause it seems extremely flimsy. We have military facilities in Japan, South Korea currently, and to call them "paper allies" is just extremely ignorant of how strong our ties are with those nations. We've had bases in the past in the Phillipines, and frequently have military flights in and out of that nation, and we're considered much more then "paper" allies with our ever present aid. We are currently building a military base in Australia, and have spent the last 12 years fighting wars alongside them. We routinely train with India and Indonesia, helping their forces prepare for conflicts, and again both nations have been supportive with our efforts in Afghanistan. The only nation you listed that might balk is Vietnam, but as Chaos pointed out, they hate China more then us. China tried to invade Vietnam in 1979, and hostilities lasted between the two nations until 1990. That is just another of a long line of attempts by China to absorb that country.
I'm not sure the promise of US intervention is something that makes ASEAN members sleep soundly when having nightmares of growing Chinese power and inlfuence.
The stark fact remains that American muscle would not be able to totally stop a determined China from getting what it wants. SE Asia realize this.
There is little the US military can do to stop China economically, but if it comes down to a shooting scenario... explain how the worlds strongest military cannot stop them.
chaos0xomega wrote: Well, thus far, that hasn't really been the case. Politically, Australia, Indonesia, Singapore, Vietnam, Japan, South Korea, the Phillipines, and India have all been taking steps to further align themselves with the US, in a manner that is clearly indicative of the formation of spheres of influence organized along a Chinese vs. US sort of axis.
I have a feeling that a military encounter may change that alignment. It could be a case of 'we wont ask to invoke the treaty if you don't either" kind of thing.
Put another way If China has to have its way and a military option its is only recourse then an ally the US will need to be knocked down hard - I don't see a lot of SE Asian nations having the stomach for their homeland to be bombarded whilst it is used as a US aircraft carrier.
I can also see any paper allies of the US politely saying their air and sea pace is out of bounds also.
I'd like to know what you base that opinion on, cause it seems extremely flimsy. We have military facilities in Japan, South Korea currently, and to call them "paper allies" is just extremely ignorant of how strong our ties are with those nations. We've had bases in the past in the Phillipines, and frequently have military flights in and out of that nation, and we're considered much more then "paper" allies with our ever present aid. We are currently building a military base in Australia, and have spent the last 12 years fighting wars alongside them. We routinely train with India and Indonesia, helping their forces prepare for conflicts, and again both nations have been supportive with our efforts in Afghanistan. The only nation you listed that might balk is Vietnam, but as Chaos pointed out, they hate China more then us. China tried to invade Vietnam in 1979, and hostilities lasted between the two nations until 1990. That is just another of a long line of attempts by China to absorb that country.
I'm not sure the promise of US intervention is something that makes ASEAN members sleep soundly when having nightmares of growing Chinese power and inlfuence.
The stark fact remains that American muscle would not be able to totally stop a determined China from getting what it wants. SE Asia realize this.
American muscle on its own? Maybe, maybe not. American + Japanese + South Korean (+ Australian + Singaporian)? Yes, most definitely.
China has apparently already come to some initial conclusions that it must pursue their territorial ambitions in such a way so as not to come into direct confrontation with the US, otherwise what is to stop China from enforcing its sovereignty over the East and South China Sea?
Seriously, what can Japan, Taiwan, Viet Nam, the Philippines, or any other western Pacific Rim nation do on their own or together to stop China? If the answer is nothing, then why are they not rolling over for China? It strongly suggests that they are counting on some kind of outside influence or counter to Chinese power. Maybe France!?
chaos0xomega wrote: Well, given the big deal that was made about that Growler kill, it seemed logical to me that there would be more news stories about such events occurring.
No. It wasn't a "big deal" when Rafales got kills on them, either. There's nothing invincible.
(AFAIK, the USAF doesn't teach dead reckoning as of a couple years ago)
I disagree on your assertion that being more maneuverable is irrelevant. Dodging a missile is as much a function of maneuverability (at least for the Russians, who as I understand it rely more on maneuverability than they do on defensive systems) as it is a function of countermeasures. As a former pilot, you should know that in the process of evading said missile you can put yourself in a position of disadvantage where your maneuverability, ability to accelerate and top-end power all become major factors as to whether or not you come home in one piece or not.
What in the everloving feth are you talking about? You're applying movie "missile evasion" principals to real life. That's not how defending works.
Especially not against modern missiles. Unless you're at the extreme end of a given slammer's range, and thus it's burned out, it's going to have far more energy to work with than you, no matter what you're flying. Without going into specifics that could wind up with me having uncomfortable conversations with angry federal employees, with an AN/APG-79 and an AIM-120C I have a very good chance of hitting you before you even know a missile's been fired. Again, unless I'm shooting at you at maximum range and you have lightning reflexes, there's not a maneuver in the book - or out of it, for that matter - that will defeat that shot.
Everything - absolutely everything - loses energy when it maneuvers. The most effective course of action once the missile's in the air is dumping chaff (or flares if appropriate, I suppose, though with modern IR seekers being what they are these days, it's almost not worth it; against older IR tech, sure) and breaking. Not continuing to break, mind you, but just breaking. Getting the missile on the 3/9 line and hoping for the best. If it doesn't go for the physical countermeasures, you can try fancy stuff that's just going to slow you down (again, no matter what you're flying), but air-to-air missiles are not anywhere near as easy to visually acquire as SAMs, and without visual acquisition, maneuvering's basically akin to trying to parkour around an unfamiliar living room in the dark. There's a chance you'll hit the magic sequence, but it's extremely low.
Best practice against a potential BVR aggressor? Get him defensive before the missile's got a chance to get off the rail. Once the missile goes, unless it's old technology, your chances of survival go way down. Chaff? AMRAAMs don't care about it anymore. Jamming? Might work, depending on the platform, but a lot of the stuff F-15s/16s (to use as examples) have access to won't do the trick, and the nifty home-on-jamming features of modern AMRAAMs mean it'll probably help it more than anything. Maneuvering? Again, it's got the energy state advantage unless you're at the extreme end of its kill zone - and maneuvering's dependent on knowing you were shot at.
That doesn't make you right. Some casual searches through various news sources will turn up about as many current/former pilots declaring it to be a hunk of junk as it will current/former pilots that think its a great airframe and head and shoulders above any possible competition, so clearly there are plenty of people who 'know what they are talking about' out there who can, will, and do disagree with you.
Not really, no. About the only guys trashing it work for Boeing. Everyone else who's taken more than a cursory glance at the plane and has flown something more nimble than a 737 likes what they see.
chaos0xomega wrote: Well, given the big deal that was made about that Growler kill, it seemed logical to me that there would be more news stories about such events occurring.
No. It wasn't a "big deal" when Rafales got kills on them, either. There's nothing invincible.
Considering how many people are talking about the growler kill, and how nobody is talking about the F-15s, Rafales, etc. etc. etc. I would say it was made into a big deal.
What in the everloving feth are you talking about? You're applying movie "missile evasion" principals to real life. That's not how defending works.
So what you're saying is that you were taught to fly in a straight line when someone had a lock? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't SOP for defending against a missile an initial hard breaking turn while punching flares/chaff/other countermeasures with additional maneuvers/countermeasures as needed to break the lock? Pretty sure thats an 'evasive maneuver' which is intended to defeat the seeker (by disrupting its tracking/introducing radar 'jitter', altering the aspect, shielding your exhaust, etc. etc. etc. and giving it something else to home in on), in this case your maneuverability would factor in based on the angle of the missile relative to the aircraft as well as the distance between, as missiles generally cannot out-turn a fighter, allowing you to get out of line of sight (for lack of a better term) of the seeker, etc. with some relative angles being more advantageous for the missile than others.
Not really, no. About the only guys trashing it work for Boeing. Everyone else who's taken more than a cursory glance at the plane and has flown something more nimble than a 737 likes what they see.
Also of note (besides commentary from pilots) is commentary by Sprey, Wheeler, and Christie, who if you don't know are extremely knowledgeable about air combat in general, as well as aircraft performance. Also, IIRC the helmet display referenced in the article was axed by budget cuts, though I'm not 100% on that.
Also also, worth noting that at present the Air Force is facing a serious pilot shortage, which, while a factor of many issues, but also in part the result (at least according to two current pilot friends of mine) of veteran F-16 pilots who aren't too enthused about the prospect of having their planes replaced with F-35s.
For the most part, the positive reviews I've been seeing are coming from test pilots for the F-35B who said it was a dream to fly compared to the Harrier (or in at least one instance have never flown a VTOL before, and thus most of the review was gushing about how surprisingly easy it was to take off in such a manner). There is one set of reviews I've read that makes it seem like an amazing aircraft relative to F-18s (specifically CF-18s), but it was written by a LockMart test pilot, so just as you are critical of reviews coming from "Boeing people" i'm critical of reviews coming from Lockheed Martin employees.
And for what its worth, Senator McCain (former Navy F-4 pilot) is definitely not a fan.
Considering how many people are talking about the growler kill, and how nobody is talking about the F-15s, Rafales, etc. etc. etc. I would say it was made into a big deal.
Probably because, as I said, most people don't know about them. Stuff gets mock-killed all the time. Unless you were there or know guys who were, you're never going to hear about it.
So what you're saying is that you were taught to fly in a straight line when someone had a lock? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't SOP for defending against a missile an initial hard breaking turn while punching flares/chaff/other countermeasures with additional maneuvers/countermeasures as needed to break the lock? Pretty sure thats an 'evasive maneuver' which is intended to defeat the seeker (by disrupting its tracking/introducing radar 'jitter', altering the aspect, shielding your exhaust, etc. etc. etc. and giving it something else to home in on), in this case your maneuverability would factor in based on the angle of the missile relative to the aircraft as well as the distance between, as missiles generally cannot out-turn a fighter, allowing you to get out of line of sight (for lack of a better term) of the seeker, etc. with some relative angles being more advantageous for the missile than others.
See the updated post.
And no, "maneuverability" doesn't factor into it. Every fighter worth that appellation can perform a ninety-degree bank. Said bank is absolutely useless without countermeasures, though. Even that's going to become a thing of the past once stuff like CUDA's more common.
Oh, I've read it. I also know what's in context and what isn't. Aft visibility from the F-35 sucks. Doesn't matter with EOTAS. The helmet had lag. Been fixed. Only about 10% of the code to run the thing's been pushed. Knowing what the remaining 90%'s going to do is a lot more helpful.
Test pilots report on issues with the plane. That's their job. Taking those reports and concluding, "They say the don't like it!" is entirely incorrect.
Also of note (besides commentary from pilots) is commentary by Sprey, Wheeler, and Christie, who if you don't know are extremely knowledgeable about air combat in general, as well as aircraft performance. Also, IIRC the helmet display referenced in the article was axed by budget cuts, though I'm not 100% on that.
There is no "commentary from pilots" inside the program. Sprey's articles are pretty hilarious for their nostalgia and myth-perpetuation, but not much else. Guys who were around designing in the '60s and who haven't done anything since aren't the most credible on 5th gen aircraft.
And given how crucial the helmet is to the aircraft's operation, it's not going anywhere.
Also also, worth noting that at present the Air Force is facing a serious pilot shortage, which, while a factor of many issues, but also in part the result (at least according to two current pilot friends of mine) of veteran F-16 pilots who aren't too enthused about the prospect of having their planes replaced with F-35s.
Sure. I'd imagine one of your RIO buddies told you that.
Let's pretend for a second that you actually got that information from somebody, though. Know what you saw in ready rooms in 2004? T-shirts with slogans such as, "I'm a Tomcat guy, and you're a homo!" Care to guess how many of those guys said, "feth it, I'm done with the fighter pilot thing. If I have to transition to the Rhino, I quit."
VFA-101's happy with the F-35. I know the 33d is happy with it as well.
For the most part, the positive reviews I've been seeing are coming from test pilots for the F-35B who said it was a dream to fly compared to the Harrier (or in at least one instance have never flown a VTOL before, and thus most of the review was gushing about how surprisingly easy it was to take off in such a manner). There is one set of reviews I've read that makes it seem like an amazing aircraft relative to F-18s (specifically CF-18s), but it was written by a LockMart test pilot, so just as you are critical of reviews coming from "Boeing people" i'm critical of reviews coming from Lockheed Martin employees.
Don't sell yourself short. You know a lot of pilots, remember? I have no doubt you were roommates with at least three guys currently flying the A for the Air Force. You don't need to rely on Lockheed Martin reviews. And just on the off chance you somehow don't know anybody in the nascent F-35 community despite your wide range of contacts, there are published commentaries from the guys flying it down at Eglin out there.
And for what its worth, Senator McCain (former Navy F-4 pilot) is definitely not a fan.
McCain did not fly F-4s. He was an attack puke guy, and not a terribly good one. Flew A-4s. And he's critical of the acquisition process, not the plane.
See, this is why there's little point to this discussion. The constant mix of second- or third-hand knowledge, out of context or inaccurate, into this weird faux-authoritative sludge just doesn't provide anything useful.
There is little the US military can do to stop China economically, but if it comes down to a shooting scenario... explain how the worlds strongest military cannot stop them.
Its a very real consideration that potential allies could become neutral if any conflict were to arise in that part of the world. A neutral observer may decide that its best if red or blue do not violate their sovereign territory.
Strong allies would not want a heavy escalation. Certainly SK would be begrudging partners if the US got involved in the area but there will be political crisis if Japan is supported during a small territorial dispute. I don't think the average SK citizen would want bombs falling on their heads if it sees Japanese property being seized. Politics would hamstring the US involvement out of SK regardless of what security arrangements appear to be in place. and vice versa.
The point being that the worlds strongest military could well be hamstrung even before it fights against one of its toughest opponents since the end of ww2.
And no, "maneuverability" doesn't factor into it. Every fighter worth that appellation can perform a ninety-degree bank. Said bank is absolutely useless without countermeasures, though. Even that's going to become a thing of the past once stuff like CUDA's more common.
Fair enough, regarding missile combat, you're using American missiles as an example, is this true of Russian/other aggressor states tech as well?
Test pilots report on issues with the plane. That's their job. Taking those reports and concluding, "They say the don't like it!" is entirely incorrect.
When the commentary is "“Aft visibility will get the pilot gunned every time.” "Inferior acceleration, inferior climb [rate], inferior sustained turn capability,” “Also has lower top speed. Can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run.” “There is no confidence that the pilot can perform critical tasks safely” etc. I'm not sure how else you can interpret those reports. Those reports are telling you that the aircraft is in some way, shape, or form deficient.
There is no "commentary from pilots" inside the program. Sprey's articles are pretty hilarious for their nostalgia and myth-perpetuation, but not much else. Guys who were around designing in the '60s and who haven't done anything since aren't the most credible on 5th gen aircraft.
From an engineering standpoint, I'm going to have to disagree with you, aerodynamics and physics are pretty precise sciences that don't really care about the difference between 2nd generation and 5th generation fighter aircraft. Guns were declared outmoded at several times in the past due to advances in missile technology, etc. yet experience has shown us that thus far this has not been the case. The argument that 5th generation air warfare will finally be the end to the gunfight is ironic given that 5th generation aircraft are defined, amongst other qualities, by stealth technology which is supposed to make them more difficult (ideally impossible) to defeat with a missile system, meaning that the most effective way to actually score a kill on one would be to use a gun (unless theres some sort of other offensive system that I'm not aware of).
And given how crucial the helmet is to the aircraft's operation, it's not going anywhere.
I looked it up, they scrapped the alternative helmet option in October, my mistake.
Sure. I'd imagine one of your RIO buddies told you that.
Let's pretend for a second that you actually got that information from somebody, though. Know what you saw in ready rooms in 2004? T-shirts with slogans such as, "I'm a Tomcat guy, and you're a homo!" Care to guess how many of those guys said, "feth it, I'm done with the fighter pilot thing. If I have to transition to the Rhino, I quit."
VFA-101's happy with the F-35. I know the 33d is happy with it as well.
I get that you're trying to take a jab at me with the RIO bit, but I'm going to say it anyway: The AF never had RIO's.
As for the F-14 to F-18 transition, that I can't really speak of, but I'm sure it happened, because it's happened in the past. I know of F-100 pilots who refused to transition to the F-105/F-4, and I know of pilots who refused to fly the F-104 in general due to safety concerns (similarly, a year or two ago a handful of AF pilots refused to fly the F-22 due to its safety issues). Regardless, the fact of the matter is the Air Force does actually have a current shortage of (fighter) pilots which they are expecting will get severely worse in the next decade, to the point that they are offering $250k incentive packages to veteran pilots who agree to stick around. Look it up if you don't believe me.
Don't sell yourself short. You know a lot of pilots, remember? I have no doubt you were roommates with at least three guys currently flying the A for the Air Force. You don't need to rely on Lockheed Martin reviews. And just on the off chance you somehow don't know anybody in the nascent F-35 community despite your wide range of contacts, there are published commentaries from the guys flying it down at Eglin out there.
Hardy har har. No, I know nobody in the F-35 community... well, I do know an engineer out at Edwards working on the program with a test/eval squadron, but obviously she can't really talk about her work.
McCain did not fly F-4s. He was an attack puke, and not a terribly good one.
"Fighter pilots make movies, attack pilots make history." Wasn't he sitting in the cockpit of an F-4 on the Forrestal during the fire incident?
See, this is why there's little point to this discussion. The constant mix of second- or third-hand knowledge, out of context or inaccurate, into this weird faux-authoritative sludge just doesn't provide anything useful.
Then, stop posting? I'm hardly the only person that thinks the F-35 is an overpriced, underpowered, unnecessary piece of gold-plated hardware. I'm hardly the only person that thinks the F-14A was an overweight, underpowered, overrated hangar queen. I'm entitled to those opinions, "even if it's wrong" on the basis that you disagree with me and profess personal experience that makes you more knowledgeable, because, again, there are others out there with just as much experience (if not moreso) that share my opinion, as well as people out there that share yours. My thoughts on the F-35 are simple:
F-35A - Inferior air-to-air combatant relative to the F-16 its going to replace. Inferior close air support platform relative to the A-10 its going to replace. Better multirole capabilities than either of the two, but (in my opinion) not worth the loss of A-10s and is too expensive due to unnecessary levels of capability from what most of the aircraft procured are going to likely end up doing (low-intensity conflicts/COIN ops, air alert/defense with the ANG).
F-35B - Well... its better than the Harrier, but I question whether or not a super-expensive, high-maintenance, ultra-sophisticated stealth platform with (what I consider) an inadequate payload can fill the Corps need for a workhorse CAS platform. Then again, I question whether or not the Corps really needed a true replacement for the Harrier to begin with, given that the Harrier was never really 100% necessary to begin with.
F-35C - It's comparable (if not marginally better) performance-wise to an F/A-18 Hornet, so there's that at least, but from what I've heard the stealth coatings don't respond well to a salty maritime environment and its really maintenance intensive. For the price we're paying for this thing, I would want it to have more than just comparable performance to an F/A-18.
chaos0xomega wrote: Fair enough, regarding missile combat, you're using American missiles as an example, is this true of Russian/other aggressor states tech as well?
Yep.
When the commentary is "“Aft visibility will get the pilot gunned every time.” "Inferior acceleration, inferior climb [rate], inferior sustained turn capability,” “Also has lower top speed. Can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run.” “There is no confidence that the pilot can perform critical tasks safely” etc. I'm not sure how else you can interpret those reports. Those reports are telling you that the aircraft is in some way, shape, or form deficient.
And what's missing from those reports is context. Aft visibility without EOTAS - what was being reported on - is bad. Aft visibility with EOTAS? Irrelevant. Performing critical tasks with the overwhelming majority of the computer code missing? Horrible. Performing critical tasks once everything's actually in and running? Entirely different story.
From an engineering standpoint, I'm going to have to disagree with you, aerodynamics and physics are pretty precise sciences that don't really care about the difference between 2nd generation and 5th generation fighter aircraft. Guns were declared outmoded at several times in the past due to advances in missile technology, etc. yet experience has shown us that thus far this has not been the case. The argument that 5th generation air warfare will finally be the end to the gunfight is ironic given that 5th generation aircraft are defined, amongst other qualities, by stealth technology which is supposed to make them more difficult (ideally impossible) to defeat with a missile system, meaning that the most effective way to actually score a kill on one would be to use a gun (unless theres some sort of other offensive system that I'm not aware of).
We haven't gotten an aerial gun kill in decades. We've got a massive lead in AESA technology. The F-22, despite its supermaneuverability hype, is designed to sit back undetected and lob AMRAAMs. The F-35 can dogfight in the traditional sense, but that's not how it's designed to fight. Rather than winning from the merge, it's going to ignore the merge entirely and just shoot an AIM-9X over the shoulder - if it ever even gets to the merge without killing its adversary, which is unlikely, given its significant advantages.
What we know from experience is that being able to kill the other guy from miles away without him ever knowing you were there is far, far more useful than being able to win a World War II-style dogfight. Given the prevalence of HOBS cuing, the current reality of that old dogfight scenario is that everybody dies. When I have HOBS heater capability and you have HOBS heater capability, we're going to kill each other. Hundreds upon hundreds of scenarios run have shown us this. When I have HOBS capability and you don't, I win. It doesn't matter if you could eventually out-maneuver to a guns snapshot, you'll be dead before it happens.
Then, stop posting? I'm hardly the only person that thinks the F-35 is an overpriced, underpowered, unnecessary piece of gold-plated hardware. I'm hardly the only person that thinks the F-14A was an overweight, underpowered, overrated hangar queen. I'm entitled to those opinions, "even if it's wrong" on the basis that you disagree with me and profess personal experience that makes you more knowledgeable, because, again, there are others out there with just as much experience (if not moreso) that share my opinion, as well as people out there that share yours. My thoughts on the F-35 are simple:
And this is what I keep telling you. There aren't. You can point to a lot of guys who have nothing to do with the program, who have no insider information, and are simply making judgment calls using outmoded air combat theory and publicly available information saying, "The F-35 sucks." But that's pretty much it.
F-35A - Inferior air-to-air combatant relative to the F-16 its going to replace.
This is phenomenally untrue. I mean, just massively, massively untrue. The F-16 is the F-35's closest analogue in terms of aerodynamic performance, with the important distinction that the F-35's a lot better when it's actually loaded up for war. The F-16 looks great clean. Its clean performance is considerably different from its performance with a combat load. The F-35's isn't. And when it comes to air-to-air, hands down, the F-35's massively better. It'll spot the F-16 long, long, long before the F-16 spots it. It's far more capable of the sort of proactive EW that prevents the F-16 from getting a clean shot, and it can easily defeat the F-16's defenses. The F-35's capable of achieving air-to-air parity with the F-22 - and if the F-22's upgrade path remains shut down due to sequestration, then guess what, the F-35's going to come out ahead of even it - so the suggestion that the Viper's in the same league just doesn't have a basis in reality.
Inferior close air support platform relative to the A-10 its going to replace.
The only significant advantage the A-10 has is loiter time. It has significant disadvantages, including its inability to operate in anything resembling remotely hostile airspace.
F-35B - Well... its better than the Harrier, but I question whether or not a super-expensive, high-maintenance, ultra-sophisticated stealth platform with (what I consider) an inadequate payload can fill the Corps need for a workhorse CAS platform. Then again, I question whether or not the Corps really needed a true replacement for the Harrier to begin with, given that the Harrier was never really 100% necessary to begin with.
The Harrier was quite necessary to the Marine Corps' doctrine regarding air power and its integration into MAGTFs.
F-35C - It's comparable (if not marginally better) performance-wise to an F/A-18 Hornet, so there's that at least, but from what I've heard the stealth coatings don't respond well to a salty maritime environment and its really maintenance intensive. For the price we're paying for this thing, I would want it to have more than just comparable performance to an F/A-18.
Again, no. The F-35C smokes a Hornet, legacy or Super, all day long. We're once again back to comparing the Hornet's air show config against an F-35 loaded for bear, and the F-35 still wins out. In addition, you're significantly undervaluing the ability to see the Hornet - and shoot the Hornet down - before the Hornet even knows the F-35's there. VLO isn't a fad. The ability to passively spot you before you have even a remote chance of spotting me isn't a minor thing. The ability to shut down your offense with a significant percentage that I don't think I can disclose of the Growler's electronic warfare capability isn't something to be taken lightly.
Modern air combat isn't who can pull off Pugachev's Cobra. It's who sees who first. It's who shoots first. It's who can get missiles off the rails at the at targets abeam or even abaft of the aircraft.
Seaward wrote: And what's missing from those reports is context. Aft visibility without EOTAS - what was being reported on - is bad. Aft visibility with EOTAS? Irrelevant. Performing critical tasks with the overwhelming majority of the computer code missing? Horrible. Performing critical tasks once everything's actually in and running? Entirely different story.
Alright, fair enough.
We haven't gotten an aerial gun kill in decades.
A-10 pilot recorded a gun-kill on an Iraqi helo during the Gulf War (I actually had the honor of meeting the pilot in question, really cool dude)
Rather than winning from the merge, it's going to ignore the merge entirely and just shoot an AIM-9X over the shoulder - if it ever even gets to the merge without killing its adversary, which is unlikely, given its significant advantages.
I'm not convinced. History has shown that defensive systems have evolved to keep pace with offensive systems pretty handily. Besides that, as I understand it, the F-15 is currently capable of doing that same over-the-shoulder trick (or at least thats what the Eagle drivers down at Langley led me to believe), was it really necessary to spend billions (trillions?) on the F-35 then?
What we know from experience is that being able to kill the other guy from miles away without him ever knowing you were there is far, far more useful than being able to win a World War II-style dogfight. Given the prevalence of HOBS cuing, the current reality of that old dogfight scenario is that everybody dies. When I have HOBS heater capability and you have HOBS heater capability, we're going to kill each other. Hundreds upon hundreds of scenarios run have shown us this. When I have HOBS capability and you don't, I win. It doesn't matter if you could eventually out-maneuver to a guns snapshot, you'll be dead before it happens.
I don't disagree with you, but that doesn't mean I'm 100% with you either. The idea that "no one will ever know you were there" sounds good, but I'm not convinced that stealth-tech is sufficiently future proof to give us that advantage past the end of this decade. The technology to track an F-22 and an F-35 already exists, we know this because LockMart (amongst others no doubt) developed just that type of radar system.
This is phenomenally untrue. I mean, just massively, massively untrue. The F-16 is the F-35's closest analogue in terms of aerodynamic performance, with the important distinction that the F-35's a lot better when it's actually loaded up for war. The F-16 looks great clean. Its clean performance is considerably different from its performance with a combat load. The F-35's isn't. And when it comes to air-to-air, hands down, the F-35's massively better. It'll spot the F-16 long, long, long before the F-16 spots it. It's far more capable of the sort of proactive EW that prevents the F-16 from getting a clean shot, and it can easily defeat the F-16's defenses. The F-35's capable of achieving air-to-air parity with the F-22 - and if the F-22's upgrade path remains shut down due to sequestration, then guess what, the F-35's going to come out ahead of even it - so the suggestion that the Viper's in the same league just doesn't have a basis in reality.
Okay, you win this round, I didn't consider the virtues of the F-35 under a combat load relative to the F-16 under a combat load.
The only significant advantage the A-10 has is loiter time. It has significant disadvantages, including its inability to operate in anything resembling remotely hostile airspace.
The A-10 can take a hell of a lot more incoming fire than an F-35 can. It also IS a workhorse that can generate sorties at a much higher rate than the F-35 can. It can also "go slow", which as it turns out, has made it a great bird for escorting CSAR helo's (much like the Skyraiders back in Vietnam). Those qualities ALSO give the A-10 a significant advantage over the F-16 and the F-35 (let alone the added benefit of having a sexy, sexy, tank-busting minigun with a plane strapped to it) the idea that the F-35 can effectively fill the role of the A-10 is along the same vein of thinking that comes down from Air Force brass every time they try to get rid of the thing.
The Harrier was quite necessary to the Marine Corps' doctrine regarding air power and its integration into MAGTFs.
Since the Harrier entered service, was there ever a time that the Marines operated without the support of Navy or Air Force air assets (or Marine assets off of a Carrier for that matter)? I understand the concept of a MAGTF and the spot that the Harrier is supposed to fill in it, but in the present reality of a joint environment where they can call on assets from someone else (or from a Marine F/A-18 off of a 'proper' carrier if they are really so picky about having Marines support Marines), is it really necessary? Besides that, the idea of using the Harrier from a forward-deployed austere airfield 'in the mud' is something which never, to my knowledge, actually materialized, and couldn't actually be done, since the Harriers engines were evidently super-finicky and didn't much like all the FOD that would get kicked into the engines during a take-off.
Again, no. The F-35C smokes a Hornet, legacy or Super, all day long. We're once again back to comparing the Hornet's air show config against an F-35 loaded for bear, and the F-35 still wins out. In addition, you're significantly undervaluing the ability to see the Hornet - and shoot the Hornet down - before the Hornet even knows the F-35's there. VLO isn't a fad. The ability to passively spot you before you have even a remote chance of spotting me isn't a minor thing. The ability to shut down your offense with a significant percentage that I don't think I can disclose of the Growler's electronic warfare capability isn't something to be taken lightly.
But with the presence of a Growler, which as I understand it basically puts up a nice little bubble of broad-spectrum electronic 'feth you' to anything that might threaten another aircraft, was the F-35's VLO/stealth capability really necessary?
I also want to point out, in reference to the A/C version (because its truly irrelevant to the B), when you say "loaded for bear" unless I've been mislead, using the external racks in any which way, shape, or form, completely neutralizes any benefit that might be derived from all that lovely stealth capability, meaning you're relying solely on the internal bays, which offer an extremely limited air-to-air payload.
I had a similar reaction whembly , although due to my anger my forehead almost made contact with the back of my monitor. 51st state? feth me being taken for granted like that statement implies is why Australia REALLY needs to have a strong look at it's foreign policy.
Bullockist wrote: I know nothing about the military but didn't the manoeverabilty ( i know nothing of spelling either ) of the Zero plane used by the japanese have a lot to do with it's success - granted i do realise that todays air war is completely different.
It was originally an important feature, but the bigger factor is the US starting the war with planes that were pretty modest. The US rapidly developed new planes and then set about upgrading those planes massively over the course of the war, while the Japanese were never able to develop a modern replacement for the Zero, nor was the plane able to be upgraded anywhere near as well.
The decisive elements of air combat change pretty rapidly over the course of the war as well. While in the early stages of the war maneuverability was a key factor in winning dogfights, by the mid and later stages of the war armour and armament became decisive factors as well, and the Zero couldn't match American aircraft in those elements.
Bullockist wrote: I had a similar reaction whembly , although due to my anger my forehead almost made contact with the back of my monitor. 51st state? feth me being taken for granted like that statement implies is why Australia REALLY needs to have a strong look at it's foreign policy.
It's a tough issue, to be honest. On the one hand, the idea that our unquestioning support for US actions gets us pretty much zero recognition among the general US population. I mean, just read dakka "oh us poor Americans go it alone in all these conflicts" is practically a mantra.
On the other hand, we actually can't go it alone. Our choices are either to aid the US or to simply not deploy troops overseas. Because we've basically got a handful of glorified rifle companies. And then there's intelligence - the working relationship between Australia and the US on matters of intelligence is extremely close - we simply can't afford to launch our own satellites and so we either find a way to access their's or we do without.
For people in the know though Aussie support is quite popular and appreciated. I haven't worked with any of your lads directly, but they have a good rep and I hear nice things about your SAS as well*. For me, I'm more then happy to ruck up with any commonwealth troops. Particularly the guys from Canada's Princess Patricia's Light Infantry, my colleagues in the Royal Marines, and those crazy Ghurkas. Man those fethers can fight!
*Nice being, they're in a similar league to the British variant and nothing else. Nothing. Else.
I had a similar reaction whembly , although due to my anger my forehead almost made contact with the back of my monitor. 51st state? feth me being taken for granted like that statement implies is why Australia REALLY needs to have a strong look at it's foreign policy.
You took it the wrong way mate, it wasnt meant to imply being taken for granted by any means, nor was it mwant to imply that you're a vassal state or anything of the sort. Again, just another way of saying that the US and Australia have a very close relationship.... Long live Australmerica (or was it Americalia?).
I am probably taking it completely the wrong way, but i still think calling Australia the 51st state of America does definitely imply a definite vassal status. The actions of previous governments and the soon to be actions of the current Australian government will add to this perceived status.
I don't even want to start on the abomination of Americalia... the sooner it dies the better.
djones520 wrote: I love working with the Aussies. We have an RAAF member in my unit, and his accent just makes my heart melt.
There is nothing worse than going out in to the wide world for the first time, being surrounded by people from all over the world, and then hearing another Australian talk - "we sound like that?!"
chaos0xomega wrote: A-10 pilot recorded a gun-kill on an Iraqi helo during the Gulf War (I actually had the honor of meeting the pilot in question, really cool dude)
I don't doubt it.. Not what I consider air-to-air, though. Helos don't exactly present much of a challenge. We've hit them - while airborne - with bombs before.
I'm not convinced. History has shown that defensive systems have evolved to keep pace with offensive systems pretty handily. Besides that, as I understand it, the F-15 is currently capable of doing that same over-the-shoulder trick (or at least thats what the Eagle drivers down at Langley led me to believe), was it really necessary to spend billions (trillions?) on the F-35 then?
You've been misled, then. Nobody can shoot over the shoulder at the moment. Look into the F-35's EOTAS. It's impressive, for a number of reasons.
I don't disagree with you, but that doesn't mean I'm 100% with you either. The idea that "no one will ever know you were there" sounds good, but I'm not convinced that stealth-tech is sufficiently future proof to give us that advantage past the end of this decade. The technology to track an F-22 and an F-35 already exists, we know this because LockMart (amongst others no doubt) developed just that type of radar system.
No, not really. You spot F-22s when they light up their AESA, which is sadly not as good as it could be. If they stay dark, they're extremely difficult to find unless they're very, very close. If they're very, very close, you're already dead. However, the F-35 has an answer to that.
The A-10 can take a hell of a lot more incoming fire than an F-35 can. It also IS a workhorse that can generate sorties at a much higher rate than the F-35 can. It can also "go slow", which as it turns out, has made it a great bird for escorting CSAR helo's (much like the Skyraiders back in Vietnam). Those qualities ALSO give the A-10 a significant advantage over the F-16 and the F-35 (let alone the added benefit of having a sexy, sexy, tank-busting minigun with a plane strapped to it) the idea that the F-35 can effectively fill the role of the A-10 is along the same vein of thinking that comes down from Air Force brass every time they try to get rid of the thing.
The A-10's much mythologized, but in truth it's no more effective than anything else that's been doing air-to-ground gunnery. It can withstand punishment, but it's better not to be hit at all. It's not an aircraft we can send into hostile airspace. There's absolutely zero question about this. SAMs built in the 50s will have no trouble spiking it. It's perfectly adequate for conflicts where there is zero ground-to-air or air-to-air threat, but we can find much cheaper alternatives for that kind of work - which is why the Air Force is looking at far less costly prop-driven aircraft.
I don't know what you mean by referring to its ability to "go slow," either. I assure you the F-35's plenty capable of staying aloft at 200 knots.
But with the presence of a Growler, which as I understand it basically puts up a nice little bubble of broad-spectrum electronic 'feth you' to anything that might threaten another aircraft, was the F-35's VLO/stealth capability really necessary?
Absolutely. The fewer planes you need to include in a strike package, the better. The Growler isn't the first EW aircraft we've ever designed, so that question's a bit like saying, "Hey, we already have Prowlers or Wild Weasels, why bother?" The Q Package strike from '91 is your answer.
I also want to point out, in reference to the A/C version (because its truly irrelevant to the B), when you say "loaded for bear" unless I've been mislead, using the external racks in any which way, shape, or form, completely neutralizes any benefit that might be derived from all that lovely stealth capability, meaning you're relying solely on the internal bays, which offer an extremely limited air-to-air payload.
The F-35 will be capable of carrying eight AMRAAMs in its internal bay. That's hardly a limited air-to-air payload. All you do, see, is put racks on the internal hardpoints, with two AIM-120s on each rack. They've already tested them. Works fine, and provides an absolute monster that nobody's going to want to fight, given all its other advantages.
Here's the thing about the F-35; it's years away from being operational. It's extremely expensive. Its procurement process was arguably one of the worst in history. The general public is feeding on information on it that's a couple years out of date at best. Much of what makes it amazing is difficult to understand for people who don't fly fighters. It's not going to set any speed records, and it's not going to be doing all the fancy post-departure maneuvering that the F-22 or the new Flankers do at air shows. It's a very easy target for people who don't understand the way it was designed to fight. The best analogy I've heard is that trying to explain the F-35 would be like trying to explain the B-17 to someone who only knew about World War I bombers. He'd say, "You idiots, there's no open cockpit. How's the pilot supposed to throw bombs out of the aircraft?!"
What any of this has to do with China flexing its nascent military muscle, I don't know.
I had a similar reaction whembly , although due to my anger my forehead almost made contact with the back of my monitor. 51st state? feth me being taken for granted like that statement implies is why Australia REALLY needs to have a strong look at it's foreign policy.
Dude... we don't take you for granted. o.O
We fething love the Aussies. Don't ever forget that man.
Bullockist wrote: I had a similar reaction whembly , although due to my anger my forehead almost made contact with the back of my monitor. 51st state? feth me being taken for granted like that statement implies is why Australia REALLY needs to have a strong look at it's foreign policy.
It's a tough issue, to be honest. On the one hand, the idea that our unquestioning support for US actions gets us pretty much zero recognition among the general US population. I mean, just read dakka "oh us poor Americans go it alone in all these conflicts" is practically a mantra.
Oh stop it. Stoooooooop it. STAAAAAHP!
We love the Aussies. Never forget that.
On the other hand, we actually can't go it alone. Our choices are either to aid the US or to simply not deploy troops overseas. Because we've basically got a handful of glorified rifle companies. And then there's intelligence - the working relationship between Australia and the US on matters of intelligence is extremely close - we simply can't afford to launch our own satellites and so we either find a way to access their's or we do without.
Yep... we like helping our battle-brothers and what ya'll do for us!
djones520 wrote: I love working with the Aussies. We have an RAAF member in my unit, and his accent just makes my heart melt.
There is nothing worse than going out in to the wide world for the first time, being surrounded by people from all over the world, and then hearing another Australian talk - "we sound like that?!"
This , so much this. I remember coming back home and hearing some Australian speak " Owyougoin ? I'm orf for a bee-a , you comin?" and thinking jesus i knew we had a weird accent, but that just sounds bad.
Whembly , Americans may like Aussies but it doesn't stop you subsidising farmers and destroying our farmers whilst under a free trade agreement. After that happened I place a lot less value on American agreements.
djones520 wrote: I love working with the Aussies. We have an RAAF member in my unit, and his accent just makes my heart melt.
There is nothing worse than going out in to the wide world for the first time, being surrounded by people from all over the world, and then hearing another Australian talk - "we sound like that?!"
This , so much this. I remember coming back home and hearing some Australian speak " Owyougoin ? I'm orf for a bee-a , you comin?" and thinking jesus i knew we had a weird accent, but that just sounds bad.
Whembly , Americans may like Aussies but it doesn't stop you subsidising farmers and destroying our farmers whilst under a free trade agreement. After that happened I place a lot less value on American agreements.
Your right. I'm gonna go slap the first American I see for being such a dick.
The Chinese have been placed in an awkward position. With the US sending warplanes through without notifying them, and several commercial airlines saying they will no longer do so either, they're in severe danger of losing face here. Which is something no communist party in any country has ever been happy to tolerate.
The question is how much closer to the brink this one can physically get. I suspect the next step for the Chinese will be to buzz a fighter jet or two past a few airliners sufficiently close to the mainland, and give them flying/landing instructions. They won't be stupid enough to try it with actual military craft, but they can't make this big of a song and dance about a defence ID zone, and then look past everybody blatantly ignoring them.
Thanks DJ. I couldn't remember if it was like a standard cargo aircraft or an AWAC's aircraft or something. Wait..let's not forget the Russian Mig pilot that downed a SK Airliner to...
Jihadin wrote: Thanks DJ. I couldn't remember if it was like a standard cargo aircraft or an AWAC's aircraft or something. Wait..let's not forget the Russian Mig pilot that downed a SK Airliner to...
It was a USN Sub Hunter. Technically a combat aircraft.
I believe that incident was a result of the Chinese pilots stupidity (for which he paid with his life) more then China thumping it's chest.
Jihadin wrote: Thanks DJ. I couldn't remember if it was like a standard cargo aircraft or an AWAC's aircraft or something. Wait..let's not forget the Russian Mig pilot that downed a SK Airliner to...
I wouldn't to roundly condemn that as a purely Russian thing since a couple years later, the U.S. downed an Indian airliner. Some people I knew that were in India at the time had to claim they were Canadian to avoid being mobbed.
After all those incidents we're not in a shooting war till its One....2nd aircraft....three, four, five......six....seven, eight...well you know. Over a very short period of time
easysauce wrote: yup, either chinas gonna shoot stuff down, or just back away slowly.
or just pretend like their air zone is working... i guess thats always an option.
I would say the thing to do would be thank everyone for their restraint to help everyone save face and possibly cool down, then sit the principles in a room to get this gak settled once and for all before it does turn into a shooting war that no one wins.
Bullockist wrote: Whembly , Americans may like Aussies but it doesn't stop you subsidising farmers and destroying our farmers whilst under a free trade agreement. After that happened I place a lot less value on American agreements.
Everybody always thinks that their poor businesses are being left in the cold and everyone else is getting vast subsidies. The truth is always a lot more complex than that.
Also, a free trade agreement doesn't actually mean that any and all subsidies and tariffs are removed. It just means that the two countries involved have made an agreement that expands free trade in lots of areas, but typically still includes lots of government interference. Our on-going subsidy of electricity production and water supply does not, in fact, breach any of our free trade agreements.
Jihadin wrote: After all those incidents we're not in a shooting war till its One....2nd aircraft....three, four, five......six....seven, eight...well you know. Over a very short period of time
djones520 wrote: I love working with the Aussies. We have an RAAF member in my unit, and his accent just makes my heart melt.
There is nothing worse than going out in to the wide world for the first time, being surrounded by people from all over the world, and then hearing another Australian talk - "we sound like that?!"
This , so much this. I remember coming back home and hearing some Australian speak " Owyougoin ? I'm orf for a bee-a , you comin?" and thinking jesus i knew we had a weird accent, but that just sounds bad.
Whembly , Americans may like Aussies but it doesn't stop you subsidising farmers and destroying our farmers whilst under a free trade agreement. After that happened I place a lot less value on American agreements.
Your right. I'm gonna go slap the first American I see for being such a dick.
"Chinese fighter jets were scrambled and followed US and Japanese planes that had entered the newly-proclaimed Chinese air defense zone in the disputed area of the East China Sea, Xinhua reports.
Two US surveillance aircraft and 10 Japanese F-15 jets were ‘tailed’ by Chinese pilots on Friday.
China ordered an urgent dispatch of its Su-30 and J-10 fighter jets to an area in the East China Sea after the foreign aircraft “invaded” the air defense zone, they said.
The reported intrusions came in defiance of the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ), established by Beijing last week.
China’s move has triggered outrage from several states in the region and critical rhetoric from the US, as the vast zone covers disputed areas, including the islets claimed by both China and Japan.
Earlier on Thursday, the Chinese Air Force conducted its first air patrol flights over the zone, as Japan and South Korea sent their own military aircraft into the zone's airspace in an act of defiance.
China has stressed its decision to enforce the airspace identification zone - which requires all aircraft flying over or near it to identify themselves - follows common international practices and “is a necessary measure in China’s exercise of self-defense rights.”
No international flights will be affected by the setup of the zone, Chinese Air Force spokesman, Shen Jinke, told Xinhua.
Japan and its US ally blasted the decision as “unacceptable” and rejected the “unilateral” declaration, saying it would create dangerous tension. However, Chinese officials gave a reminder that both countries have long had their own ADIZ, and that the Japanese never discussed theirs with their neighbor.
“If they want it revoked, then we would ask that Japan first revoke its own air defense identification zone and China will reconsider it after 44 years,” China’s Defense Ministry spokesman, Yang Yujun, said in a statement posted on the ministry’s website on Thursday.
While possible action against the zone’s infiltrators has been vaguely defined as “defensive emergency measures,” The Global Times, a Chinese state media newspaper, on Friday called for “timely countermeasures without hesitation,” should Tokyo violate the new ADIZ.
At the same time, the paper suggested China could ignore violations by some other states, including the US. Two US military B-52 bombers flew over the area on Monday without prior notice, with a Pentagon spokesman telling Reuters we “have continued to follow our normal procedures.”
if you look at both chinas, and japans zones, they BOTH come close the others physical landmass.
Japan declared theirs unilaterally too... china just didnt have anyone backing them up when they complained.
not that it matters at all, as by the UN-revokable rule of dibs its only the FIRST person to unilaterally declare something is theirs who gets it.
lots of hate between the two countries, the Chinese people have a lot of hard feelings still from WW2, and I cannot say I blame them. From what I can tell the legit anger has been nothing but flamed by both the communist regime, as well as incidents with the Japanese officials stirring up old WW2 grudges.
I would be suprised if china backs down, they seem like they want to make a point that the US isnt the only one who can just "do stuff" anymore.
Regarding Aus in all of this, aren't the current trade deals with China for the minerals coming out of Australian mines worth something like a billion dollars a week?
Regarding this escalating, while this is a wargaming forum that is of course built on foundations of 'what if' scenarios and imagined conflicts which is generally interesting to read, I think the chances of any actual military confrontation (short of the worst kind, that could not possible be ignored) is extremely slim. Read about 'Chimerica', and the way that the economies of the two countries are so closely entwined - it would represent the pinnacle of failure in politics if it did come down to war, and we have to have some faith that the people in charge of great nations have some idea about what they are doing and wouldn't commit such a spectacular own-goal.
Pacific, the economies of various European powers were in many ways more intertwined prior to World War 1 than China and Americas are today, as we all know that wasnt enough to prevent the outbreak of the war, and I doubt that will be the case here, especially in a decade, as domestic manufacturing and re-industrialization are slowly becoming a thing in the US.
chaos0xomega wrote: Pacific, the economies of various European powers were in many ways more intertwined prior to World War 1 than China and Americas are today, as we all know that wasnt enough to prevent the outbreak of the war, and I doubt that will be the case here, especially in a decade, as domestic manufacturing and re-industrialization are slowly becoming a thing in the US.
I like to thing that today world leaders know that wars like WW1 or WW2 were stupid bloodbaths that we should never repeat.
chaos0xomega wrote: Pacific, the economies of various European powers were in many ways more intertwined prior to World War 1 than China and Americas are today, as we all know that wasnt enough to prevent the outbreak of the war, and I doubt that will be the case here, especially in a decade, as domestic manufacturing and re-industrialization are slowly becoming a thing in the US.
I like to thing that today world leaders know that wars like WW1 or WW2 were stupid bloodbaths that we should never repeat.
Looking at our current crop of world leaders, I'm not going to go out on a limb and say their smarter then previous generations.
The counterargument is that wars today are fought in a manner completely unlike either world war, and while they may still be stupid, and bloody, they wont last nearly as long (unless its a counterinsurgency) or claim anywhere near as many lives (barring a nuclear exchange).
Possibly... but, simply put, its difficult to imagine a war fought on the scale of either world war lasting longer than a year, if that long. The very concept of it seems entirely alien to me, like I simply can't fathom what that would look like or how it would work given the capabilities of modern day militaries and technology, etc.It would also clash with the concept of 4th generation warfare, so yeah...
