Boredofnames
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2013
- Messages
- 11
- Reaction score
- 0
Firstly, regarding Speeder 2's reply , you are not worth my time.
Anyway...
As for applesauce, well at least you can grasp the points I made in my post, and given the nature of your reply agree China has very limited power outside of its immediate sovereign territory and further more you agree China lags behind in terms of technology and supporting capabilities (i.e AEW&C, airborne refueling, battleground surveillance and intelligence gathering).
I disagree that China's need for global reach is not great, China places equal importance on global stability as the British or French and it may be argued that these days China has more foreign interests on a global scale than the British or French. So an air force that is capable of power projection is necessary for China. It is only as a result of lacking capabilities that China is forced to accept a policy whereby it does not intervene overseas. No wonder then China is rapidly overhauling its armed forces to expand its influence beyond its territory.
I strongly believe - given the current situation - that numbers are irrelevant when comparing the air forces of Britain/France and China. For example, geographically Britain is located in a very secure location in Western Europe surrounded by allies, the only potential enemy is Russia who lies several 1,000 kms away. Therefore Britain is in no need for a large air force and currently maintains a more than adequate force to deter and defeat the very unlikely possibility of a Russian assault. It is understandable then that Britain would focus on power projection capabilities. China on the other hand is geographically located in a potentially very hostile environment. China's enemy's are its neighbours, not to mention the United States on the other side of the Pacific. Therefore it is understandable China would maintain a large air force for its defence, and I agree most definitely that the Chinese Air Force is capable of defending its self against any enemy. It is the above understanding that I come to the conclusion that numbers are irrelevant, as both air forces are in strategically different situations and both are scaled to their current regional needs and threats. However, while both air forces are scaled to their current regional needs and threats the British have an advantage in that they posses power projection capabilities. This is why I hold the belief that the Royal Air Force is more capable than the PLAAF. Of-course I don't think for one second that the RAF could enforce a no fly zone over China single-handed, but the RAF is well capable of deploying significant air power to those regions and could contribute to a "coalition" force along side the Americans and other allies (Japan, Australia, France) if ever a major conflict arose with China. China however, is incapable of deploying air power anywhere near Europe - and therefore its size is totally irrelevant against the RAF!!!
I never said the British or French could individually defeat a major air force, in fact on my first post I stated that Russia, Britain and France faced limitations on the types air forces they would be capable of beating. But hey, the RAF could single-handed take on and defeat the Brazilian Air Force (I use Brazil merely as an example)... China wouldn't be able too
British and French military bases dotted around the world are the legacies of their Colonial Empires and it is a major strategic benefit to those nations acting as forward bases around the world. Another legacy the British posses are the extremely close military ties it maintains with former colonies. Us Canadians would have no problem allowing the RAF to operate from Canadian bases if need be... indeed, Britain maintains a military base in Canada already - but our own facilities would be available if need be. Same goes for many middle eastern nations (Saudi Arabia, Oman etc), central American countries (Belize), some African countries and of-course Australia and New Zealand... Brunei yet still remains a puppet state of the British and for military purposes still known in the UK as "the strategic far east reserve".
Returning to the importance of China's global interests - what about those in Africa for example? Where China relies heavily on mined resources. With growing terrorist activity and instability growing in Africa it is a very serious possibility that Chinese interests could be affected. Or lets go even further and hypothetically say that the European Union decides to interfere with Chinese interests in Africa - Europe would undoubtedly use its two pre-eminent military powers (Britain and France) to enforce Europes will. The result is, if China were to EVER find its self in a conflict of interests far from China and military tension escalated, China would be forced to back down and lose. Hell, according to the experts if military tension were to escalate to conflict with Japan over the islands in the East China Sea then Japan would win - and this conflict would be practically on china's door step!
Perhaps the term "more powerful" is too controversial to use, especially as there is theoretically no right or wrong way to measure "power". So I will use the term "more capable" from now on.
To sum it up;
UK can defend its sovereign territory and project significant power around the globe.
France can defend its sovereign territory and project significant power around the globe.
China can defend its sovereign territory, but cannot project power around the globe. It is also arguable whether China can even project air power effectively over a dispute with japan on its own door step.
So in my opinion the RAF and French Air Force are "more capable" than the PLAAF.
My arguments stem from reality, where the capabilities, realities and situations that air forces find themselves are the basis for "ranking" world air forces. Most people on forms tend to rank world air forces based upon a purely unrealistic hypothetical scenario where entire air force A fights entire air force B in some magical air force arena. Remember, this is the real world, not a boxing match!
Im sorry if you felt the last sentence of my previous post was racist, but I assure you it was meant only as provocative banter!
Anyway...
while chinese interests are indeed now going global, its need for military might with a real global reach is not yet great, its primary concerns remain in its "near seas" and its current and planned future capabilities are good enough or in excess of its near seas needs with the only power matching china being japan(US aside of course) but that is changing rapidly as china continues to modernize, even the USN/USAF is finding that it will painful to interveen in any near seas senario and only more so as time passes. thus with that in mind the chinese airforce is adequate for its currently needs(yes this includes the H-6 and its range). if you think china cannot somehow build a b-52 type bomber you must be joking, the fact that it has not choosen to is a different story. and sure PLAAF,PLAN cannot send a meaningful force to europe but no single european country can expect to send forces to in china's near seas in war and survive either. and certainly not operate in said near seas at will. so if you wanna talk global reach of course france, britain have greater reach, but that greater reach does not directly translate into automatically being better than the PLAAF when we consider all things.
First, as my first argument states, china is not in any immediate need of global reach for its AF, its main concerns are by and large, regional and its AF is perfectly capable of taking on those pressing challenges. and while its true that china's AF is general lower tech than those of the other top AF's its best aircraft is most definitely not watered down su-30 and su-27's, perhaps u have not followed the news(less likely), or willfully ignore them(more likely) for a while but china has been producing the j-11b, j-16 and so on, which while being based on the su-27/30 it is decicisely better than those aircrafts in addition to the j-10, and i do not account for soon to be operational projects like j-10b, j-20, j-31 etc. and u can rofl all you want but chinese mock combat reports indicate that j-10 routinly crushes the j-11(ie su-27) and the PLAAF would be able to win an airwar over taiwan long enough to land significant forces on the island whether or not the US interveens. so while u may laugh, actual commanders of the likes of the JSDF, USAF,USN account for and take those planes, and the capabilities of PLAAF overall, seriously.
fully capable of, is a loaded statement. capable of what and against whom? the french and british can send planes long distances only because they have bases and aircraft carrier/s. but again those arnt everything, the small numbers they field mean that indivisually, they pose no threat to countries like china, russia, india(lol if u think britain can impose a no fly zone over china) etc. and china is also fielding its first carrier and oh about large AEW&C aircraft , lol even china has 12+ of those(kj-2000 and kj-200), more than britain(news to you, i know), relativly few for a nation the size of china but more is still more. in fact, did you know that PLAAF has more tankers than the RAF? lower tech, yes but the numbers are still there and will only grow quantivly and qualitivly. so the question is really, relativly few asssets but higher tech and overseas bases vs relativly large but lower tech and more limited in global opertions. and frankly the whole global operations thing isnt about capabilities, its about national priorities, china has things to settle in its neighborhood, europe has settled its immediate neighborhood. im 100% sure china can, if it chooses build some more support aircraft, or tankers or aew and press and gain at least some bases it has all the reasources to do so(only exception is large transport which is now being recified by the Y-20), even if those assets will be of a lower tech level than american or european standards.
yes, but again only advantage is those bases, which due to the non-intervention policy, china has not pursued, this means relativly little in a direct 1 to 1 comparason of airforces, we are not comparing who can pummle 3rd world nations the fastest. you have to consider other things like for instance size.
fan boy much? the only japanese planes with any real staying power(due to distance, go check a map ur self if u dont believe) without tanker support in a air fight over the diaoyutai islands are those f-15J's but they would be fighting many hundreds of chinese fighters and hundreds of those being 4th gen which are in fact a match for the f-15s(over two third of the f-15j fleet is of the older varient built in the 80s and 90s) and because the islands much closer to chinese airbases, the chinese planes will have much better sortie rates and loiter times. the tankers are easy targets(not manurvarable and not stealthy), especially in a war that close with any near peer. so no they would not dominate, and certainly not with ease, in fact its far more likely that china will have upper hand in an airwar over the diaoyutai islands due to the close proximity to chinese bases compared to the distance to japanese bases meaning the only really plane to worry about is the 70 or so F-15J Kai or modernized F-15J these will faced the modernized J-11B/J-10A combo.
this part is racist and for this i will report your post
As for applesauce, well at least you can grasp the points I made in my post, and given the nature of your reply agree China has very limited power outside of its immediate sovereign territory and further more you agree China lags behind in terms of technology and supporting capabilities (i.e AEW&C, airborne refueling, battleground surveillance and intelligence gathering).
I disagree that China's need for global reach is not great, China places equal importance on global stability as the British or French and it may be argued that these days China has more foreign interests on a global scale than the British or French. So an air force that is capable of power projection is necessary for China. It is only as a result of lacking capabilities that China is forced to accept a policy whereby it does not intervene overseas. No wonder then China is rapidly overhauling its armed forces to expand its influence beyond its territory.
I strongly believe - given the current situation - that numbers are irrelevant when comparing the air forces of Britain/France and China. For example, geographically Britain is located in a very secure location in Western Europe surrounded by allies, the only potential enemy is Russia who lies several 1,000 kms away. Therefore Britain is in no need for a large air force and currently maintains a more than adequate force to deter and defeat the very unlikely possibility of a Russian assault. It is understandable then that Britain would focus on power projection capabilities. China on the other hand is geographically located in a potentially very hostile environment. China's enemy's are its neighbours, not to mention the United States on the other side of the Pacific. Therefore it is understandable China would maintain a large air force for its defence, and I agree most definitely that the Chinese Air Force is capable of defending its self against any enemy. It is the above understanding that I come to the conclusion that numbers are irrelevant, as both air forces are in strategically different situations and both are scaled to their current regional needs and threats. However, while both air forces are scaled to their current regional needs and threats the British have an advantage in that they posses power projection capabilities. This is why I hold the belief that the Royal Air Force is more capable than the PLAAF. Of-course I don't think for one second that the RAF could enforce a no fly zone over China single-handed, but the RAF is well capable of deploying significant air power to those regions and could contribute to a "coalition" force along side the Americans and other allies (Japan, Australia, France) if ever a major conflict arose with China. China however, is incapable of deploying air power anywhere near Europe - and therefore its size is totally irrelevant against the RAF!!!
I never said the British or French could individually defeat a major air force, in fact on my first post I stated that Russia, Britain and France faced limitations on the types air forces they would be capable of beating. But hey, the RAF could single-handed take on and defeat the Brazilian Air Force (I use Brazil merely as an example)... China wouldn't be able too
British and French military bases dotted around the world are the legacies of their Colonial Empires and it is a major strategic benefit to those nations acting as forward bases around the world. Another legacy the British posses are the extremely close military ties it maintains with former colonies. Us Canadians would have no problem allowing the RAF to operate from Canadian bases if need be... indeed, Britain maintains a military base in Canada already - but our own facilities would be available if need be. Same goes for many middle eastern nations (Saudi Arabia, Oman etc), central American countries (Belize), some African countries and of-course Australia and New Zealand... Brunei yet still remains a puppet state of the British and for military purposes still known in the UK as "the strategic far east reserve".
Returning to the importance of China's global interests - what about those in Africa for example? Where China relies heavily on mined resources. With growing terrorist activity and instability growing in Africa it is a very serious possibility that Chinese interests could be affected. Or lets go even further and hypothetically say that the European Union decides to interfere with Chinese interests in Africa - Europe would undoubtedly use its two pre-eminent military powers (Britain and France) to enforce Europes will. The result is, if China were to EVER find its self in a conflict of interests far from China and military tension escalated, China would be forced to back down and lose. Hell, according to the experts if military tension were to escalate to conflict with Japan over the islands in the East China Sea then Japan would win - and this conflict would be practically on china's door step!
Perhaps the term "more powerful" is too controversial to use, especially as there is theoretically no right or wrong way to measure "power". So I will use the term "more capable" from now on.
To sum it up;
UK can defend its sovereign territory and project significant power around the globe.
France can defend its sovereign territory and project significant power around the globe.
China can defend its sovereign territory, but cannot project power around the globe. It is also arguable whether China can even project air power effectively over a dispute with japan on its own door step.
So in my opinion the RAF and French Air Force are "more capable" than the PLAAF.
My arguments stem from reality, where the capabilities, realities and situations that air forces find themselves are the basis for "ranking" world air forces. Most people on forms tend to rank world air forces based upon a purely unrealistic hypothetical scenario where entire air force A fights entire air force B in some magical air force arena. Remember, this is the real world, not a boxing match!
Im sorry if you felt the last sentence of my previous post was racist, but I assure you it was meant only as provocative banter!