Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 NEXT

mustang22 4/27/2009 9:38:49 PM

Chinese Navy Requires Supercruising Fighter

Apr 27, 2009

#content td div img { padding-right:10px; padding-bottom:2px } html.ie6 #content td div img { padding-right:10px; padding-bottom:0px; } div.storyContent p { margin-top: 2px; margin-bottom: 14px; } html.ie6 div.storyContent p { margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; } #mainNav { margin-top:0px; } div.storyContent td { float:left; font-size:10pt; padding:6px 6px 6px 7px; } html.ie6 div.storyContent td { float:left; font-size:10pt; padding:6px 6px 6px 17px; }

By Bradley Perrett

A supercruising combat aircraft is a high priority of the Chinese navy, the country?s top admiral says in a revealing official interview that gives strong clues of perceived shortcomings and future directions for the maritime force.

Adm. Wu Shengli also says China must step up work on precision missiles that can overcome enemy defenses, and the nation should move faster in developing large combat surface ships—probably meaning the aircraft carrier program that looks increasingly imminent (AW&ST Jan. 5, p. 22).

Wu?s demand for supercruise—supersonic flight without afterburner—hints that such performance will be available from the next Chinese fighter, sometimes called the J-XX.

?One possibility is that the J-XX is being designed for supercruise and that Wu is trying to build support for a naval version of the aircraft,? says Richard Bitzinger, a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore.

The design of the J-XX is unknown. It could be a new aircraft or quite possibly a development of the J-10, a fighter now entering service.

The J-10?s configuration is similar to that of the Eurofighter Typhoon, which the manufacturer says can supercruise at Mach 1.5, although it is likely to be somewhat slower with a useful external load.

For the Chinese navy, one advantage of supercruising would be the ability to cover a large defensive area in less time—quite useful if the imagined target is a U.S. carrier group at long range.

Importantly, Wu lists a supercruising fighter among a series of technological demands that all look quite achievable for the Chinese navy over the next decade or so, suggesting that he does not regard such flight performance as a pie in the sky.

?Sophisticated equipment is the key material basis for winning a regional naval war,? says the admiral, evidently referring to the possibility of a confrontation in the Taiwan Strait. ?We must accelerate and promote steps to work on key weapons.

?We must develop new-generation weapons such as large surface combat ships, stealthy long-endurance submarines, supercruising combat aircraft, precision long-range missiles that can penetrate defenses, as well as deep-diving, fast and intelligent torpedoes, and electronic combat equipment offering compatibility and commonality.?

DA,

Not to keep telling you I told you so, but when do we get to stop pretending that the PRC is not going to be a legitimate threat to the entire PAC Rim and possibly the world? How come the only things making news are the programs designed specifically to counter American forces? You don't ever here about them preparing for low intensity wars against inferior opponents, this is Cold War II for all those who don't get it.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 4/27/2009 10:00:50 PM

Chinese Navy Requires Supercruising Fighter

Apr 27, 2009

#content td div img {
padding-right:10px;
padding-bottom:2px
}
html.ie6 #content td div img {
padding-right:10px;
padding-bottom:0px;
}
div.storyContent p {
margin-top: 2px;
margin-bottom: 14px;
}
html.ie6 div.storyContent p {
margin-top: 0px;
margin-bottom: 10px;
}
#mainNav {
margin-top:0px;
}
div.storyContent td {
float:left;
font-size:10pt;
padding:6px 6px 6px 7px;
}
html.ie6 div.storyContent td {
float:left;
font-size:10pt;
padding:6px 6px 6px 17px;
}

DA,

LOL told me so? I don't think so. I told you. So in 10-12 years, like I stated earlier, when they get one IOC, considering they can barely manufacture engine technology they stole from the Russians, we can discuss it then when they are in a 1500+ 5th Gen fighter deficit. Just in case you forgot...

The Chinese are not preparing for Cold War II. What do you expect? You think the PLAAF is going to fly J-7E forever and will never modernize its platforms or doctrine? Imagine how they feel when we are talking about F-X. Reality Check

-DA

Quote Reply

mustang22 4/28/2009 9:44:45 AM

Do you honestly believe that at over 100 million per plane that we will purchasing them at a rate of 130 per year to achieve the 1500? We cant scale back enough to pay for 20 Raptors a year, what are they going to give up to buy 130 F-35's a year? And I have been arguing for years the need to move forward with the Raptor due to potential enemies upgrading their technologies and capabilities on the basis they would be able to defeat our legacy platforms. All I keep hearing is how F-15's are capable of dealing with any potential threat and there is no need for a Cold War relic such as the F-22.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 4/28/2009 10:41:35 AM

Sigh...YES. First, you are asking a leading question with bad numbers. An F-35 is ~80 mil. Second, the USAF IS SCALING BACK with the not pending 13 billion on Raptors it says it doesn't need. Buying more Raptors isn't moving forward, it's backsliding into the same type of inappropriate defense spending the brought up to where we are now. The enemy you need to be worried about does care about upgrading technology. Rather they use skill and strategy to avoid your technological strength. The near peer enemies you are thinking of wont have any 5th generation fighters IOC until the middle to end of next decade AT BEST. They aren't just sitting back with holding some ubber fighter. They are barely struggling to make things like AESA and advanced jet engines. The PINNACLE of their defense aviation capability is the late model Flanker which is INFERIOR to a late model F-15. Even if the F-35 was purchased at half the planned rate, we would still have a significant numerical advantage in 5th Gen fighters. The F-15 is capable of dealing with any threat today. Thats why you are still seeing new builds rolling off production lines and the newer modifications such as the F-15SE. That's why 1st Class Air Forces in the line of fire such as South Korea and Singapore continue to be interested in the design because it has the size, power, multirole versatility and growth potential to remain viable long into the future. And we will have 187 F-22's. By contrast Russian can even get the Su-35BM, an F-15 equivalent, into service! Think about that.

When Russia went charging into Georgia in 2008, a nation they share common borders with, they mustered a paltry ~300 aircraft. 164 of which were Mig-29 and Su-27. Most of those aren't the latest standard. By contrast, 10 years prior, when we led Allied force, we sent in 3 times that number with about 700 of them being US aircraft and we sustained it from the other side of the planet. You have to look at the right things and not focus on just platforms Mustang. "Near Peer" is misleading because in no way are the Russians and Chinese anywhere near being close to duplication the kind of persistent sustained combat power we can. You don't trade off sustained combat power for niche capabilities that are not applicable across the full spectrum of conflict.

The USAF isn't going to arbitrarily cut the F-35 buys without a reason. It didn't do that for F-22. The F-22 has been under serious threat of cancellation since 2002 because as far back as then it was clear that the need for it did not justify the numbers that the USAF was asking for. Generals are human. They rise up in their careers fixed on specific types of threat and as they rise they develop a special attachment to the career path that defined them. Often times, they are so narrowly focused that they miss the changes that happen in the world as threats evolve. This is why had such a hard time with this. The ability to recognize and adapt to change is a crucial quality in a leader and military service. China, is not preparing for offensive wars of aggression against the United States or a Cold War. China, is a modernizing industrial power with a growing global economy TOTALLY dependent on its SLOC. It needs to be able to protect those SLOC with modern weapons actually capable of doing the job. The PRC military growth is proportional to those DEFENSIVE needs. Failure by them to do so would make the PRC vulnerable to being cut off from the outside world which would cause an internal economic calamity. The kind of calamity that would require them to use draconian military methods to fix and it could prompt them to seek external solutions or make them reliant on nuclear weapons to ensure a means to prevent this. It's the same thing we saw the Russians do when their conventional war fighting capability broke down. They turned to nuclear weapons and external proxy wars/subversion to secure their interest.

-DA

Quote Reply

mustang22 4/28/2009 1:44:16 PM

The PINNACLE of their defense aviation capability is the late model Flanker which is INFERIOR to a late model F-15. Even if the F-35 was purchased at half the planned rate, we would still have a significant numerical advantage in 5th Gen fighters. The F-15 is capable of dealing with any threat today. Thats why you are still seeing new builds rolling off production lines and the newer modifications such as the F-15SE. That's why 1st Class Air Forces in the line of fire such as South Korea and Singapore continue to be interested in the design because it has the size, power, multirole versatility and growth potential to remain viable long into the future.

I disagree, the Flanker is a very formidable platform capable of matching the F-15. AESA radar may offer some advantage as does AWACS but from strictly a platform comparison I feel they are very evenly matched. Training and battlespace management would likely decide the outcome. The reason you also have other countries purchasing the F-15 is because it is available now and suits their needs. Perhaps they are not ready to jump on the JSF bandwagon until it has been procured in sufficient numbers. Are you going to tell me that if the U.S. allowed the F-22 to be exported that SOME nations would not choose it over the F-15? But yet any and all can buy the F-35 which is far superior to anything else flying or is it? There is obviously something about the F-22 that makes it incredibly vital to U.S. interests that its secrets remain protected otherwise Japan and Australia would be flying them and not F-4's, F-15's and 18's. The entire premise for which the JSF was based upon was an affordable, LO multirole aircraft in the 30 million dollar range. Anyone who bought into that was a fool. Major weapons systems always seem to become more capable but never cheaper. Current multirole and their respective costs are F-16 block 60 for 80 million, F-18E/F 55 million and F-15SG or derivative 100 million. Current esitmate in 2009 dollars for a JSF is 83 million and its still years away from IOC and I will put money on it that we end up with half the amount currently proposed.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 4/28/2009 2:24:15 PM

I disagree, the Flanker is a very formidable platform capable of matching the F-15.

In some ways yes. The ways that are most often shown to the public on Brochures. Like an F-15, the Flanker can fly. It can maneuver, it has long range and its fast. It also carries a big radar and a significant payload. But beyond that, things start to break down. The Radar and Weapons systems on a Flanker do not hold a candle to what the weapons and radar on an Eagle do. The Flanker doesn't operate within a system that takes as much advantage of NCW concepts. Flankers more often than not do not benefit from the support systems and logistics F-15s have such as tankers, AWACS and forward basing. So if I'm in an F-15 squadron and I have to face off against my opponent in a Flanker, he is probably not as situationally aware and he is probably fighting a defensive doctrine while my force is closing in on him from all angles. ie, he is getting shot at first because F-15 benefitted from an AWACS assisted intercept, if he lives. His Fuel Farm and ASP/Bunker have probably been bombed. In fact he may be bombed on the ground soon after landing by TLAM or manned platform. The Flanker is ALWAYS in the jaws of death while the Eagle Driven realistically spends a few minutes or an hour or so at most exposed.

AESA radar may offer some advantage as does AWACS but from strictly a platform comparison I feel they are very evenly matched. Training and battlespace management would likely decide the outcome.

Some advantages? Its all the difference in the world even more so than any platform specific comparison. Do you think North Korea would fare any better if all their Mig-29's were replaced by F-22s? NO. We would just adjust our tactics and blow them up the same as we do everyone else because platform specifics only matter over the long term when you are fighting a peer and can't get a decisive advantage. Then it's an issue of attrition. Mig-29 is roughly just as fast, probably more maneuverable and has decent weapons and radar yet Serb Mig-29s got slaughtered by F-15s. Thats because they were not competitive at the systems level. You can't just google spec sheets and say "Look See, a Flanker goes M2.x too!" It's more than that. The physics that govern flight are well understood by both Russia and China. They can look and "see" what an Eagle can do performance wise just based on the design. Its the things you can't see. The Avionics and Systems that support the platform you need to look at. Thats why FS says things like Su-27 and Mig-29 pilots are mere targets. It is a bit cavalier, bit its not far from the truth at all as we have seen time and time again.

The reason you also have other countries purchasing the F-15 is because it is available now and suits their needs. Perhaps they are not ready to jump on the JSF bandwagon until it has been procured in sufficient numbers. Are you going to tell me that if the U.S. allowed the F-22 to be exported that SOME nations would not choose it over the F-15? But yet any and all can buy the F-35 which is far superior to anything else flying or is it? There is obviously something about the F-22 that makes it incredibly vital to U.S. interests that its secrets remain protected otherwise Japan and Australia would be flying them and not F-4's, F-15's and 18's.

How many times does it have to be said over and over and over that Aus has made it clear they werent interested in the F-22? Just because a plane flies fast or looks cool or is newer than another type DOES NOT MEAN it meets the actual requirement of the potential operator. Sometimes you protect nation specific capabilities to preserve and maintain an advantage or to create a dependency. Lets see, why might the USA want to carefully control what kind of technology it proliferates to an economic and technological superpower like Japan with a history of waging OFFENSIVE warfare near and abroad? This comes to mind...

And don't forget how the Chinese and South Koreans would view it as well.

The entire premise for which the JSF was based upon was an affordable, LO multirole aircraft in the 30 million dollar range. Anyone who bought into that was a fool. Major weapons systems always seem to become more capable but never cheaper. Current multirole and their respective costs are F-16 block 60 for 80 million, F-18E/F 55 million and F-15SG or derivative 100 million. Current esitmate in 2009 dollars for a JSF is 83 million and its still years away from IOC and I will put money on it that we end up with half the amount currently proposed.

The F-35 is a bargain when you consider it's capability. For 83 million, you get the F-117, F/A-18, F-16, AV-8 and RC-1.xx all roled into a single platform. Do you realize how much cost is saved with that? Look at Operation Eldorado Canyon. F-35s, just a flight of 4 to 8 with PGMs. Or Osiak. You have to consider what 83 million is buying you.

-DA

Quote Reply

LB Just One Fact 4/28/2009 2:38:50 PM

The statement was made below that an F-35 costs around $80 million. I'd like to suggest this entire thread could perhaps reach some consensus on one single fact.

The F-35s purchased this year cost $200+ million. There is a document floating around that states the if the USAF buys all 1,763 F-35s at the projected rate that they will end up costing around $83 million. I'd like to suggest this is total fiction for 3 reasons:

1) Nobody believes the USAF will get that number on that delivery schedule and in fact most believe the USAF will get less than that number stretched out over a longer period of time. Thus the cost will rise significantly from that number.

2) The projection does not take into account current cost escalations that has been driving the cost higher since the program began. Just a few years ago the F-35 was supposed to cost $40 million in 2002 adjusted dollars. Furthermore, later blocks are supposed to contain more capability. More capability by definition will cost more not less.

3) The projections for the USN/USMC F-35s within the FY2009 budget show those aircraft cost $115 million, again they cost $200+ million in the current budget. Firstly the projection will rise in cost based on historical trends. Secondly, the F-35 program can't be broken down into costs for F-35A's, B's, and C's given the cost of each type is directly related to total production. Thus if one concludes the projected costs here are just as unrealistic then this will reflect a lower or stretched total buy and thus the F-35As will of course cost more.

It's a rather conservative position to state the F-35 will cost more than $100 million per plane (fly away). To state the F-35 will cost around $80 million based on a Feb 2008 projection given the history of cost escalations within the program and everything else known is not supported by the facts and indeed any facts- a public year old projection not being anything akin to a fact.

So on this one single point, nothing else, please prove an F-35 will cost around $80 million or please retract that statement.

Sigh...YES. First, you are asking a leading question with bad numbers. An F-35 is ~80 mil.

Quote Reply

sentinel28a 4/28/2009 3:02:00 PM

I have another question. Actually, I've asked it before, but never gotten a straight answer from the Obama Cheering Section on SP.

To adequately fund a F-22 buy would've cost a mere 4% of Porkulus. In other words, if we had eliminated only four percent of the pork from the so-called "stimulus," there wouldn't be a discussion. Now DA and others can say "Oh, we don't need it right now" or "It's a bad economy." Sure, maybe. But apparently Congress and Obama are perfectly fine with eliminating the F-22, which even its detractors here admit would be nifty to have, and several thousand jobs in an industry already hurting...but they're dead-set against eliminating one of their pet projects, such as snowblowers in Duluth.

So okay, the Raptor's gone except for our silver bullet force. But given the hostility to the F-22, which is an American product built by Americans for Americans, what makes you think the Democrats won't decide down the road, "Well, the Air Force doesn't need the F-35 either, because the F-16 is working just fine." Or perhaps the V-22 will be next. Or some other weapon system.

DA will argue against this, but I'm sorry. I don't think this is the end of the budget cuts. I think it's the beginning. Once the price of universal health care starts climbing, and the costs of the $9 trillion deficit starts hitting, then the Democrats are going to start look for other things to cut...and their first target will be their favorite emergency piggy bank.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica No LB and Sentinel 4/28/2009 3:30:13 PM

LOL I'm not going to debate speculation. Sure the F-35 cost cold rise above the factual production cost of 83 million. Sure the program can get cut or delayed. But there is no evidence or hint of that from any of the decision makers in that chain to indicate that. So no, I'm not going to facilitate a speculative question until the facts change to support it.

F-35=~83 million for 2443 units.

When a hint of any change to that comes, we can discuss it.

-DA

Quote Reply

VelocityVector Sentinel 4/28/2009 4:39:14 PM

Perhaps if Republicans would have enforced our border laws and kept out the army of illegal aliens that has aggressively invaded us and displaced American workers for twenty plus years instead of accepting money from donors who exploit said illegals while whistling dixie at the undereducated American I may have been more understanding of the need to shift money for snowblowers in the Midwest in favor of increased F-22. But as we here already pay the transferred health care, prison, insurance and bilingual education costs of illegals so Republicans can have cheap beef and green golf courses, we'll keep our percent of Porkulus and cap F-22 thank you very much Senator McCain. Our greatest threat is already inside the walls and F-22 and F-35 won't address it.

v^2

Quote Reply

sentinel28a 4/28/2009 4:45:55 PM

I'm with you, V2...but do you actually think the Democrats will alienate millions of potential voters by, you know, enforcing immigration laws?

The fact that the GOP sucked at this too doesn't make it all better. If money was being diverted from F-22 production to a border fence, I could see it. It's not, though--it's being diverted into Democrat back pockets for more Monuments to Me and ACORN funding.

Quote Reply

Herald12345 The poster was shot down. 4/28/2009 7:32:09 PM

Just to clarify some things on Brahmos - because it's earning some mythology that is undeserved.

Brahmos was mentioned to illustrate a trend in cruise missile capability. Specifically high supersonic speeds and short flight times. It was not to say the Brahmos itself is Su-27 or SSK/SSN capable yet although the intent is clearly there. I mentioned Brahmos as an example only. SOme chose to run with it and spun it into me saying that the Brahmos itself is the threat when in fact I was quite clear it merely represented a "type" of CM threat that no realistic amount of F-22 coverage and especially not 50 is capable of dealing with should a "missile with performance LIKE BRAHMOS" actually showed up.

Not only that, but older supersonic cruise missiles of the Soviet era still exist and pose a proliferation risk. Several nations that most would consider possible threats have the capability to modify such missiles for their purpose. There is plenty of discussion of this in the missile defense community. But it doesn't matter. Your standard subsonic primitive generic Silkworm type missile properly employed would pose enough of a threat as is. A lesson we learned in a much smaller battlespace under much tighter scrutiny and with more liberal ROE more than once.

-DA

By someone else besides me who knows the weapon. The poster is discredited. ON THAT subject.

Herald.

Quote Reply

Herald12345 Follow up on the Mach 2 Russian AShM missile proliferations 4/28/2009 7:56:43 PM

None of those missiles was cheap or easy to build, nor did they work well as evidenced by our own Navy's experience with Russian missiles they purchased for tests as targets.

KH-3/ MA-31

Its the best they have now, because we FIXED it for them.

Thank you, Bill Clinton, and Boing!

BrahMos shows every indication of being similarly defective.

Anyway, you have this to remind you of the judgment of the incompetents. making the call about the F-22 Raptor.

Air Farce One.

Photo Op Panic: 911 Calls Reveal Terror during NYC Air Force One Flyover

Air Force Estimates Photo Op Cost at Over $328,000

By MEGAN CHUCHMACH and LUIS MARTINEZ
April 28, 2009

911 calls just released by a New Jersey emergency office communicate chilling on-the-ground scenes of the panic and terror that besieged many eyewitnesses of yesterday's botched Air Force One promotional photo op over Lower Manhattan.

In this image taken with a cell phone by Jason McLane, the primary presidential aircraft, a Boeing...

(Jason McLane/AP Photo)
More Photos

"Oh my god," one caller says again and again, later telling the operator, "They are following an aircraft, a big aircraft coming like the 9-11."

Also this afternoon, the Air Force released an estimate of the cost of the NYC flyover - $328,835. The estimate includes fuel, personnel costs and maintenance and was calculated over the life of the aircraft and did not necessarily occur yesterday.

911 Calls

Click here to hear some of the 911 calls released.

One woman in Jersey City, NJ says in a call, "we don't know what's going on because there's like planes going inside the building so everybody's outside going crazy."

The 911 operator responds, asking, "There's what?"

The caller repeats, "It looks like planes are trying to go in the building. And everybody's outside going crazy." She said no one knew what was going on and ran out of their office building and "went their own separate ways." Later in the call, the plane's engine can be heard overhead.

ZING!

What;s the point?

Goes directly to the JUDGEMENT of the incompetent decision makers involved.

And yes that is POLITICAL in the sense as in assessing the military competency of the leadership that approved that stupid decision as well as many others including this F-22 decision under discussion..

Maybe the poster understands now where he stands in that competency assessment?

Herald

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 4/28/2009 8:13:31 PM

AGAIN, ANOTHER BASELESS FLAME/TROLL POST FROM A PERSON OUT TO VOICE A GRUDGE IN A PUBLIC FORUM OVER A DIFFERENCE IN POLITICAL VIEWS.

Herald, maybe you might want to read more closely so that you don't miss that fact that I was referring to specific types of cruise missile performance and Brahmos is only an example. But it's obvious you aren't here to actually contribute any meaningful dialogue. Get over it dude. You are making yourself look very immature, petty and small.

-DA

Quote Reply

LB Total Fiction 4/29/2009 1:15:17 AM

"Factual production cost of 83 million" is a ridiculous statement without foundation.

Prove it.

The current actual cost in the DOD FY2009 budget is $200+ million. That document has 680 USN/USMC F-35s costing an average of $115 million. These are of course projections. The stated projections on F-35 costs rise every single year. The chief of the USAF is on record as saying the USAF can not afford the projected buy every year and that he's trying to get the full number. Buying less means the cost will rise. There are dozens of facts available in the public record to support costs rising. There is no evidence whatsoever that you number is credible.

To state that an old projection is "factual" is without merit, to be kind.

F-35=~83 million for 2443 units.

When a hint of any change to that comes, we can discuss it.

-DA

Quote Reply

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 NEXT

	News As History - November 24, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us