The Chinese have a jet to match F-22

Why would Kadena be unusable?

What would our carriers be 'protecting' against?

 

In this regard, we are merely speculating that PRC will be able to create a blue-water navy. I see no evidence that the PRC is going to capable of creating such a force for at least another ten years, let alone make it operational. Their current aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, was launched for reconstruction in the mid-2000s. It has only become operational a few months ago, and based upon my understanding, the PRC is not looking to purchase and refurbish another used aircraft carrier. Domestically, the PLAN has been working for approximately 15 years on a home-made aircraft carrier, and still are incapable of producing one. The J-15 aircraft carrier fighter jet is still in testing, and the prospective J-20 stealth fighter jet is at least four years away from being introduced, and at most over half a decade. There is ample reason as to why the PRC military capabilities are so integral to the development of a US contingency regarding a future PRC offensive.

Regarding your basic question on where American aircraft would fly from, Kadena is actually a distinct possibility. As I said, PRC is far from having a blue-water navy, and even in the next ten years, they will lack such capabilities. This means the only way PRC will be able to consistency attack US forces is with ballistic missiles. While they may be successful over the short-run, in the long-run, the PRC would falter. US forces would be able to crush the PRC.

 

It is not even a "fighter jet" really, it is a prototype. Like the F-35, it is not in service at this time, there are just prototypes going through testing and initial production run.

With what? China has an insignificant Naval force compared to the US.

Well, I have stated my credentials many times. But here, how about this:



Oh, and the Chinese aircraft carrier not pictured, it is about the same as the Russian one that is.

Need I say any more?

 

Albert was speaking to me, but I digress. In terms of the J-15, I think we can agree that it is, for all intensive purposes, a fighter jet, albeit a prototypical one. Nevertheless, this is an argument over semantics. What are your thoughts on China's military rise?

 

Personally, I think of it as a child trying to buy up toys, but not sure how to use them.

The problem with a lot of this is that they are going after either "not freaking likely" technology like the DF-21D, or buying and refurbishing an old "Aircraft Carrying Guided Missile Cruiser" and shouting that they have a "carrier". A carrier without aircraft, or much of a support fleet.

And that is the kind of thing I really look at. The People's Liberation Army Navy has long been the unwanted bastich step-child of China. They have a weird mix of antiquated and modern ships, have almost no blue water experience, and spend little to no time in active operations. And the ships primarily operate more as a Coast Guard then as a Navy.

Yea, they got a Carrier, I say "big deal". Come back in 15 years and let's see what they have done with it.

Have they created a functioning "Carrier Group", that can operate for months at sea with a combined fleet, conducting UNREP and maintaining their operations for 6 months or more? Can they return to port, then be able to set out to sea again within weeks?

Or will it be like I bet. They will show it off for a few years, but most of it's time will be spent tied up along the warf. Along with the majority of their rusting Navy.

The equipment may be the best in the world, but if they lack the doctrine and experience and training and logistics-strategy to use it efficiently, what use is it? In a conflict, this carrier of theirs might be as effective as the Bismarck.

Frankly, I do not worry much about their "military rise" because I look at their past history. Design a new piece of equipment, praise it to the sky, claiming it is the best ever. Then build a few prototypes. And when it does not work as expected, sell it off or hide it and work on your newest "best ever" prototype. They spend so much time prototyping, they have 20 new projects in the works, and their military primarily uses 40+ year old equipment because they can't settle on anything to start in mass production.

And even their equipment is often full of imported components. Engines, transmissions, electronics, avionics, a lot of key parts are imported from other nations. So in the event of a protracted war, they could not even maintain what they have now.

 

I concur. While I am certain you know much more about the technical aspects of their fleet, geopolitically speaking, I see China's military rise as nothing more than the pursuit of a prestige strategy. In other words, they are attempting to create a blue-water fleet in the name of nationalism. More likely than not, they will monumentally falter. The PLAN would benefit much more from devoting more resources to its guerra de course/access-denial submarine capabilities. At least then they could meddle in the activities of other regional players.

 

In my opinion aircraft carriers are of little use against peer powers. In the western Pacific the PRC is a peer power.

The last paragraph of your post is very incisive. China's ballistic missile strategy works for the short term. The Han are patient and will gradually build a blue water navy over the next two decades. But by 2020 the US is likely to lose an air war against the Han in the western Pacific through pure attrition. It would be like them trying to sail into the Caribbean against American wishes.

Ten years from now America will be substantially weaker militarily in the western Pacific. America can't afford to maintain a policy of up close in your face containment indefinitely. America will find itself in the same position as the Western Romans when they voluntarily decided to abandon Britannia.

 

You are suggesting that the Chinese Communists are repeating the mistakes of the Imperial Germans. They are not.

All of their forces are concentrated. The Imperial Germans dispersed their forces including, but not limited to, creation of a high seas fleet.

 

We are in a transitional era of history. The order is changing in East Asia. What is now will not long continue in its present form. What happens in the western Pacific all depends on the circumstances, probabilities, and the unforeseen. The usability of Kadena depends on how the Chinese calculate the need for preemption.

Under some circumstances it makes sense to strike Kadena and render it unusable on a continuous basis. That forces Americans to use carriers because South Korea will not allow American aircraft to fly from ROK airbases. America has no bases in the PI or elsewhere. That means America must use carriers or the aircraft will be forced to fly further. In that case the aircraft will need tanker support. So if the Chinese have a numerical aircraft advantage of a couple of orders they can play attrition against US fighters and send other aircraft to bring down the tankers.

That leaves carrier aircraft. If carriers are worried about force protection they won't have as much time to plan offensive operations. The existence of layered threats complicates the USN's planning. This isn't going to get better it is going to get much worse. So much worse that America's position in the western Pacific becomes untenable.

 

Actually, I doubt that they even care about having a blue water navy. They could have done that even without a carrier. I think they saw that India had one, and the UK, France, Russia, and decided they had to have one too. But the issue with fleet operations and blue water experience is something they should have started doing a decade ago if they were really serious about having that kind of capability.

Personally, I doubt they can keep a fleet supplied and operational more then 3-4 months. They have not experienced any of the logistics required to do that.

As for subs, not a good choice. Their diesel boats are quiet, but that is true of all diesel boats. Their nukes are loud clunky things based upon a Soviet design that even the Russians have almost entirely retired.

Sorry, don't buy any of that. And one of the things that has to exist for China to be a "peer power" is the ability to project power. This is an ability that China almost totally lacks.

 

The interesting aspect about China's blue water naval development is that they did start development over a decade ago. The real problem is PLAN's bureaucratic lags. There is too much division regarding approaches to military development. However, currently speaking, there is pressure from civil society and defense officials, where nationalism is afoot, to build an aircraft carrier fleet as an essential component of a blue-water navy.

Regarding your response to possible guerra de course/access-denial submarine capabilities, the technical prowess relative to other countries is irrelevant. As I said, all that is necessary is developing an ability to meddle, not hinder, but meddle in the activities of other regional players.

 

We don't agree on the meaning of "peer power." A state does not need to have full spectrum political/military/economic power everywhere on earth in order to be a peer power in a specific theater.

 

China is not even close to being a theater-based peer power. It cannot project military power in the Asian Pacific for more than 72 hours. Reaction to its use of soft power in the region are increasingly negative. Outside of its influence on North Korea, its projection of political power is basically non-existent. Its only successful projection of power is in the form of economic might, and only if analyzing each actor in the region as an isolated and individual part. Relative to US influence in the Asian Pacific, China is still way behind the curve. I have no problem classifying the PRC as an emerging global actor, but in no way is it a global power in any sense of the phrase.

 

Time is not on America's side. Each year the Han become stronger and the US becomes more insolvent. The US can't afford to maintain an up front in China's face force posture in East Asia and the Westen Pacific. If America wasn't afraid of China's anti-access area denial defense doctrine it wouldn't be developing the X-47B UAV as a standoff weapon. A standoff weapon is needed because the carriers are at risk within a thousand miles of the Chinese coast.

 

The X-47B UAV will be used for reconnaissance, not as a standoff weapon. As of right now, the PRC's only effective anti-access/area denial capabilities are its ballistic missiles, and less than half are built for theatre-based warfare. Furthermore, as Mushroom and I have reasoned, the PLAN is far from being able to create a blue-water navy. Its optimal maritime strategy encompassing development of a guerra de course/access-denial submarine capability will at most meddle in the Pacific affairs of the US. And even if the PRC develops a blue-water navy, due to bureaucratic lags, technological deficiencies, and the reliance upon nationalism, it will be suboptimal, and even if the US fails to modernize its own Navy, China would be fighting in an asymmetric conflict.

 

The X-47B is designed as a combat aircraft that can fly without a pilot in order to give it a greater range and payload. The greater range is needed because the US Navy takes the Chinese DF-21D ballistic missile and China's new system of low earth orbit satellites seriously.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121218-stealth-drone-targets-life-at-sea

[SIZE],


Counselor, you have just admitted that China has the ability AS OF RIGHT NOW. The ability to control the seas off of her coast will become greater as time passes. This is the greatest arms buildup since German rearmament. China is moving on a full spectrum basis.

Have you been following Chinese expansion of the jurisdiction of the police on Hainan Island? The jurisdiction now covers virtually the entire South China Sea. China is already testing obama's pivot to asia. Look at their rough treatment of the Vietnamese, Japanese, and Filipinos.

Don't cite Mushroom as a source. If he wishes to enter the discussion let him do so. You don't need anyone to supplement your discourse with me.

America has no interests in the Pacific west of Hawaii that it will be able to successfully defend in ten years. Look for Guam to become like Fort Apache.

China sees America in deep decline. America can't maintain its force posture. America must cut its military to the bone. The Chinese have other fish to fry in the coming decades. China must control the sea lanes from East Africa to the South China Sea if chaos is to be avoided. Nothing is worse than chaos to the Chinese. The Indian Ocean will be the great geopolitical theater of the first half of this century.

 

Yes, and the nature of its combat role is primarily in terms of penetrating surveillance and penetrating strike. It is certainly conducive to Pacific theatre strikes, but not against PRC ballistic missiles. Only a credible missile defense system can combat the force of China's ballistic missiles.

Yes I did. I also said the PRC's ballistic missiles capability is an effective area denial/anti-access capability, yet you should know from earlier posts that this capability provides short-term military power in the event of a armed clash in the Asian Pacific. For China to be successful in a conflict against US forces, it must have a comparable blue-water navy to the United States.

Yes. China is expanding its police force's jurisdiction, yet the actual presence of the police forces, at least of what I am aware of, are on Nansha Island and Hainan Island. In the SCS, jurisdiction usually lacks full spectrum physical control, and is more symbolic than anything else.

I beg to differ. If US decline occurs, it will be relative, meaning as US works to maintain global hegemony, emerging powers will surpass them.

Most officials in China see America in decline. That is true. The extent to which they see the US on a downward path is uncertain. Defense officials are still very much paranoid about US hegemony in the Asian Pacific. Civil society officials are equally superstitious. Foreign Ministry and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials, however, are divergent in their views, with the majority seeing significant decline imminent, yet not an absolute road to ruin. These individuals are the least inclined to nationalism, and as a result, are actually more likely to favor a more modest and optimal area-denial/anti-access strategy, not the grand prestige strategy so many in the Chinese media, civil society, and even defense apparatus support.

 

Again- why would Kadena be unusable? How would China 'take out Kadena'?

What are the options?

Balistic missiles? There is no way to distinguish between nuclear balistic missiles and conventional- and China knows this. A launch of any true ballistic missile barrage from China comes with the very real possibility that the United States will view the launches as a nuclear attack against Japan or the United States and order retaliatory nuclear strikes. I do not believe China's leadership would gamble with nuclear war.

That leaves air strikes- which would have to penetrate Japan's air defenses.

And if Japan were to ally itself with the U.S. as this scenario envisions- all Japan's air bases and civilian airports would be available for use by the U.S.

American carrier craft could indeed operate either beyond or at the limit of Chinese air power. Americans have lots of experience with this, and have tankers which operate from the carriers.

If China developes air strike capabilities that have range beyond American carrier craft, then this might be an issue but assuming that both sides air power has similar range, American carriers can operate at the outer range and still launch strike craft that can be refueled half way to targets, protected by American naval missile platforms.

 

Who said anything about 2 countries away from their own nation?

China lacks the kind of sealift and airlift capability to be a threat to anybody other then nations that share their borders.

Yea, it can attack nations like South Korea when North Korea gives them permission to pass through their territory, and Vietnam and Russia and India. But they can't even be a serious threat to countries they do not share land borders with, like Taiwan, Thailand or Bangladesh.

They can threaten, beat their chests, but that is really about it. Because the major thing they lack is the capability to move their forces any distance in any way other then by land.

That is why they are not a "peer power", or even a "regional power". They are basically a "potential threat to their next-door neighbors", and that is about it.

*laugh*

The X-47B is not a weapon at all. It is a concept test platform, nothing more. Since UAVs have never really been used on carriers before, this is simply a test-bed to help develp the next generation of drones for operation abord carriers. This is not intended to become any kind of "weapon", it is just an experimental research project.

And the full name is the X-47B Demonstrator, part of the Navy's UCAS-D Program (Unmanned Combat Air System - Demonstration). Basically this is a prototype of a prototype.

And you need to read your own references a bit more carefully.

Now re-read your reference. It says nothing like what you claim it does.

And the DF-21D is a humbug, as I have discussed in detail many times before.

 

That is why the US-USSR signed the INF Treaty way back in 1987, in addition to other treaties like those forbidding the use of conventional ballistic missiles, and nuclear armed cruise missiles. Both sides realized the danger of confusing a conventional weapon with a nuclear one, so wisely classified which weapons would be nuclear (ballistic missiles), and which conventional ("Air Breathers", ie Cruise Missiles).

The only other countries that have used conventional ballistic missiles have been non-nuclear nations (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc). But if China did launch a ballistic missile I would bet dollars to doughnuts that the US would respond as if it was nuclear.

This is one of the largest reasons I say the DF-21D is nonsense. The entire system is based on the DF-21C, a Chinese Medium Range Nuclear Missile. MIRV capable, with up to 5 warheads.

 

I do not expect Drones will be able to take over tomorrow.

A drone could easily be built to carry "that much ordinance" should one wish to build such a drone and these are on the way.

A couple of decades is a very short period of time. When these drones are available .. manned vehicles (planes, ships and so on) will be at a huge disadvantage.

 

Pictures of the F-22 are well known worldwide. The aspect would be easy enough to duplicate, the coatings would have to be internally developed.

Most of the research on aspect was unclassified in the 1980's, as all the microwave trade rags were publishing a plethora of articles on radar aspect of this kind. Anyone with access to a Library that has an archive of them in the stacks would have access to most all information (and misinformation) available.

Don't be so quick to state that it was stolen.

I wouldn't be that concerned about this. Our dumbass commitment to the F-35 has allowed Russia to get way ahead with their Sukhoi T-50. Based on the demonstrations, it may be the most agile manned fighter ever made. I wouldn't be surprised if they could pull an upright corkscrew around a F-22 as it overtakes and passes one. That vectored thrust on the T-50 is nice.

I hear the F-35 MIGHT come in under a Trillion dollars.......We should have cancelled it like Bush and Congress did the A-12.... Same factory... Same bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

What about the F-35C and F-35B, they are miles ahead of any Russian carrier aircraft. I would scrap the F-35A and just build carrier aircraft.

 

I think you may be wrong about the quality issue.
After all, US military aircraft fly fine when using Chinese parts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18155293

 

Maybe a few carrier planes, but I'd rather we spend that kind of money on several classes of attack and fighter drones.

Including for carriers (imagine now many of those per carrier)!