China has learned a lot from USAF.

[jhungary]

b

WOW! So easy to hack and just stole and can make a plane? This kind of news is only for layman to absorb. If its so easy to stolen and copy. Every countries like Somalia or Afganistan shall be making UAV and 5th gen fighter?

So easy to hack and stolen, then China shall be already has a US equivalent F119 engine in service mass equip our airforce? Or u probably later want to twist your story suddenly US engine data is unhackable to suit your fantasy story?

Mr Indian, get a life. You all are simply jealous of China military success for able to design and make a 5th gen fighter like J-20 ,J-31 and advance UAV? Your ego gets hurt and the only way to smoothen and heal your inferiority is to smear other success as stolen and copy? Ya, J-20 is stolen design, just get a F-22 design and twisting abit to make it canard design and the plane can work? HAHAHa... So Indian shall also be making a 5th gen and have a decent flying prototype by now? Is it? Very Sorry, NO..

Anybody with aeronautic knowleadge, you can't just stole and think you can make a advance plane without basic neccessity and infrastruture start up , investment and knowleadge.. Do you know why when Indian need to test a small small engine like Kaveri and even needs mother Russian facilities to help you get the testing done?

Ever since 2000, China needs nothing from Russian/foreign help to get any aeronautic related testing done, this more or less show the infrastruture and technology level we have for our aeronautic related field.



WOW? 2400 F-35 able to enter service? When? If I use your theory, I can count in 500 J-20 able to enter service in PLAAF.. So much for your biased explanation.

Mate, Crickey, did you even look at what i reply to before you say anything??

In my post, i only count 35 F-35 actually Produced and physically flying in the "CURRENT" USAF List. The member sino solider ask why i forgot the J-15, J-16, J-20, J-10B about to enter the service.

China does not operate Su-33 and you forgot about the 4.5 generation J-16, J-11B, J-15, J-10B about to enter service. The main gap between PLAAF and USAF is not technology, but rather quantity, training, and overseas reach.

I only say, i already discounted all the fighter plane anyside do not have in their arsenal, the figure on my post before counted ONLY FIGHTER THAT PHYSICAL EXISTED IN RESPECTIVE AIRFORCE ARSENAL otherwise if you count what you will have in the PLAAF, then i also have to count what it will have with the USAF in the future.

2400 F-35 is what they planned and budgeted for. Given the fact that F-35 is ALREADY in production since 2007 and currently there are 67 finished fighter around the world. While J-15 are in flight testing and not yet have an initial production date. J-16 have not yet have flight prototype, J-20 have yet to achieve limited production and still in flight testing and J-31 are still under flight test in prototype stage. There are estimated 4-500 F-35 already been made (Fiurged by Defence budget for 85 per year) before 2017 when the J-20 will enter initial production phase the earilest.

And by the we should have a mock up F-XX and enter flight trial of 6th Generation Fighter.

My comment is not biased. You and Your countrymen's is.

 

[Luffy 500]

The most important thing that china learned is the importance of information tech and quality platforms in warfare and they realized this after IRAQ war. They realized numerical superiority with low quality platforms won't help and closed a 40/50 gap in fighter AC technology in just 15 years. A truly remarkable achievement by china.

 

[UKBengali]

The most important thing that china learned is the importance of information tech and quality platforms in warfare and they realized this after IRAQ war. They realized numerical superiority with low quality platforms won't help and closed a 40/50 gap in fighter AC technology in just 15 years. A truly remarkable achievement by china.

It is true that the PLA did learn some lessons from Gulf War 1 but it is unfair to think that anyone with half a brain in the Chinese military did not understand that high-technology is also important to fight and win battles.

 

[Luffy 500]

It is true that the PLA did learn some lessons from Gulf War 1 but it is unfair to think that anyone with half a brain in the Chinese military did not understand that high-technology is also important to fight and win battles.

Agree. I guess Iraq war acted as a catalyst to speed up the process of development. Also before Iraq war china only considered Air force as supporting units of the ground and naval services rather than a strategic strike force. That also changed after gulf war. There were lots of doctrinal changes in PLA learning from US. Read it in a article/journal by US analysts.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Agree. I guess Iraq war acted as a catalyst to speed up the process of development. Also before Iraq war china only considered Air force as supporting units of the ground and naval services rather than a strategic strike force. That also changed after gulf war. There were lots of doctrinal changes in PLA learning from US. Read it in a article/journal by US analysts.

The catalyst was the First Gulf War. However China was not rich enough to modernize her forces during the early 1990s.

 

[gambit]

It is true that the PLA did learn some lessons from Gulf War 1 but it is unfair to think that anyone with half a brain in the Chinese military did not understand that high-technology is also important to fight and win battles.

The problem was that those with half of a brain used to run the PLA. They were the ones who produced the paper to the Politburo that said even though victory by the US-led alliance was inevitable in Iraq, the allies would suffer casualties close to the same scale as the Vietnam War. For decades, these half-brained leaders kept the PLA backwards.

Then once Desert Storm showed the US military was more in danger of fratricide than of actual facing death from the Iraqi military, the Politburo finally wised up and retired these half-brained idjits and promoted their younger the full-brained subordinates, many of whom were educated in the West. The result is the modernization of the PLA we see today.

 

[Sanchez]

The problem was that those with half of a brain used to run the PLA. They were the ones who produced the paper to the Politburo that said even though victory by the US-led alliance was inevitable in Iraq, the allies would suffer casualties close to the same scale as the Vietnam War. For decades, these half-brained leaders kept the PLA backwards.

Then once Desert Storm showed the US military was more in danger of fratricide than of actual facing death from the Iraqi military, the Politburo finally wised up and retired these half-brained idjits and promoted their younger the full-brained subordinates, many of whom were educated in the West. The result is the modernization of the PLA we see today.

Since when you became a historian and CCP insider? China's military modernization started from 1996 by those "half-brained" leaders after Taiwan strait crisis. Existence of US pressure has kept speeding up of the process.

 

[gambit]

Since when you became a historian and CCP insider?

I have a spy inside the PLA's top leadership.

 

[SQ8]

The problem was that those with half of a brain used to run the PLA. They were the ones who produced the paper to the Politburo that said even though victory by the US-led alliance was inevitable in Iraq, the allies would suffer casualties close to the same scale as the Vietnam War. For decades, these half-brained leaders kept the PLA backwards.

Then once Desert Storm showed the US military was more in danger of fratricide than of actual facing death from the Iraqi military, the Politburo finally wised up and retired these half-brained idjits and promoted their younger the full-brained subordinates, many of whom were educated in the West. The result is the modernization of the PLA we see today.

There has also been a change in combat philosophy. PLA is less and less going by the rigid Warsaw-Pact based GCI doctrine.
Force integration, Opfor simulation etc.

There was a massive drive(on-going) by the PLA leadership to evolve fighting concepts based on whatever they can glean out of the US forces. Even alternative concepts that were abandoned due to costs or inflexibility are explored. So the USAF may end up facing its alter-ego when it comes to strategy and combat philosophy.. albiet its Alter-ego from a few years ago.

 

[Sanchez]

I have a spy inside the PLA's top leadership.

Oh........

 

[Sanchez]

There has also been a change in combat philosophy. PLA is less and less going by the rigid Warsaw-Pact based GCI doctrine.
Force integration, Opfor simulation etc.

There was a massive drive(on-going) by the PLA leadership to evolve fighting concepts based on whatever they can glean out of the US forces. Even alternative concepts that were abandoned due to costs or inflexibility are explored. So the USAF may end up facing its alter-ego when it comes to strategy and combat philosophy.. albiet its Alter-ego from a few years ago.

Chinese are good learners in the history. We learn from the strong ones like the US and also from the weak losers like Vietnamese.

 

[j20blackdragon]

USAF currently operate 2000+ fighter/attacker aircraft, including 300+ F-15E, 200+ F-15 Legacy Eagle, 1000+ F-16 Fighting Falcon, 190 F-22 and 35 F-35. In all USAF have 1000+ 4/4.5 gen Fighter, 200+ 5 Gen Fighter

Easily countered by taking out the limited number of USAF bases in East Asia.

Related links.

Iran: We Can Hit 35 US Bases in 'Minutes' - ABC News

North Korea Threatens U.S. Military Bases in the Pacific

 

[jhungary]

Easily countered by taking out the limited number of USAF bases in East Asia.

Related links.

Iran: We Can Hit 35 US Bases in 'Minutes' - ABC News

North Korea Threatens U.S. Military Bases in the Pacific

Airbase Range is discounted in the 21st Century After one of these enter the frame

and this

Today, airbase range is just an empty talk, you can literally have an aircraft take off anywhere in the world to strike any part of the world. When i was in IRaq, we called Air support that flew directly from Italy via aerial refueling.

Plus, i don't reckon China have the mean to strike all US airbase IN ASIA at one strike. While China more focus on fighter aircraft, and mid-long range missile is hit and misses. It's absurd to claim you can simustanously strike different airbases across different country in the same time.

Finally, what Chinese can do, US can replicate. You have your Bomber and Ballistic missile. We also do. Plus we have 4 Carrier Group on call and that's another 200 some fighter for China to deal with.