PLAAF vs. USAF

[Laughing_soldier]

USAF has 5,573 aircraft, of which 2,132 are advanced fighters ,450 ICBMs ,32 satellites.

 

[applesauce]

USAF has 5,573 aircraft, of which 2,132 are advanced fighters ,450 ICBMs ,32 satellites.

now go check out the USN air force

 

[desimorty]

The strategic weapons are always the first priority for PLA.

We have refined our nuclear arsenal first, then our conventional weapons.

And make sure there are enough bunker penetrated nukes to blow out the Supervolcano in Yellowstone Park.

no. It is of prime importance. But its not the size of the nuke the Chinese care about.
Its trying to make sure it doesn't get knocked out during a first strike by another nuclear armed nation.
To do this, the Chinese are using nuclear submarines.
Likewise for India.
It is a minimum deferent.
Its basically saying, "look if you nuke us, we have enough nukes to survive the fist strike and hit you back. You may destroy China, but we can still kill your civilians...by the millions.".

 

[desimorty]

The area PLAAF lag USAF the most now is NOT fighters. But large aircraft.

1. Transport, USAF has C-5 Galaxy and C-17 GlobleMaster in the numbers of hundreds!

2. AWAC, USAF has 50+ E-3 and many more E-2.

3. Air Refeuel Tanker, KC-10, KC-135 you name it.

Curently PLAAF has:

1. 30+ H-6 as Air Refeuel tanker and some IL-78 which signiciantly lag USAF.

2. 6 KJ-2000 and around 30 KJ-200 balance beam. Still lag USAF in large number.

3. Transport, this is the weakest area, China has about 120 Y-8 and only 20 IL-76!!!


PLAAF does not lag behind the USAF in terms of technology that much, maybe 10 years!! Because it is already designing J-20, and C919. But the TIME and funding to accquire them!! Funnding too is now not a problem. So only time.

In 10 years this all would change!

technological gap is more than just ten years. ten years is how I would describe europe and russia in comparison to the Americans.
The achievements made by american engineers is large exepcially in the engines area. Today, they are still placing new records with the f-22.
as far as China is concerned.
It lacks the quality, quantity in comparison with the USAF.
This is the reason why large sums off money was spend in purchasing S-300s a decade ago,
and the PLA is still buying more SAMs.
The PLAAF, even though placed of pedestal by many on the forum, lack the quality of the USAF, every one does.
It can be assumed, the USAF will have complete air superiority in weeks if not months, over China.

 

[desimorty]

designing J-20, and C919. But the TIME and funding to accquire them!! Funnding too is now not a problem. So only time.

The j20 isn't finished yet but it can be assumed, that the stealth features on this aircraft were not intented to compete with the likes of t50 or f22.
rather it seems, judging from the size of the aircraft, it was designed to evade surface radars and airborne radars head on.
You don't need absolute stealth, if dealing with surface ships, AWACs or ground based radars.
You only need to get so close as to launch your, AAM, ASM or stand off munition.
The stealth incorperated on aircraft like the t50 and f22 is more on the lines, to evade air to air lock ons from other combat aircraft.
The f22 from speculation has only been caught by AESA radar equiped Hornets within visual range!
This too is taking into consideration the size of j20. A larger aircraft carries more further, and its role is different.
The above i have posted has also been mentioned in avation monthly and a couple of Chinese forums.
That is realism. To aim at something like the F-22 seems to be out of reach for most nations, even Russia, because of unit costs.

 

[below_freezing]

technological gap is more than just ten years. ten years is how I would describe europe and russia in comparison to the Americans.
The achievements made by american engineers is large exepcially in the engines area. Today, they are still placing new records with the f-22.
as far as China is concerned.
It lacks the quality, quantity in comparison with the USAF.
This is the reason why large sums off money was spend in purchasing S-300s a decade ago,
and the PLA is still buying more SAMs.
The PLAAF, even though placed of pedestal by many on the forum, lack the quality of the USAF, every one does.
It can be assumed, the USAF will have complete air superiority in weeks if not months, over China.

Yet in 1960, tiny Vietnam with less SAMs, less AA, less planes, pilots trained by China and a smaller land area downed 3000 US planes and 5000 US helicopters.

Buddy, we'll all be old men, and the US will be still barking about China if it hasn't collapsed already. I'll put my money on collapse though.

 

[gambit]

It can be assumed, the USAF will have complete air superiority in weeks if not months, over China.

Something I learned while I was in the USAF...

Air dominance -- The amount and frequency of air assets that one side, at ANY time, can deploy over a region. It does not automatically equate to victory every time there is a fight, but it does force the inferior side to change tactics and plans for the war.

Air superiority -- The ability of one side to achieve consistent battle victories over an area and whose losses, if any, does NOT affect its ability to achieve the same condition over time, meaning that if this side leave the airspace and return to the same area the next day, it will regain control of that airspace, with or without losses, and those losses will not give the enemy any advantages or even a potential to change the condition.

Air supremacy -- He flies, he dies. Simple as that. Naturally...One should have air supremacy over one's territorial airspace.

In crucial Chinese air spaces, the USAF will achieve air supremacy in days, not even weeks.

 

[below_freezing]

Yet US was unable to do the same against tiny Vietnam. With the kill ratios in Vietnam, if Vietnam had an aircraft carrier back then it would be bombing Los Angelos to the stone age.

 

[gambit]

Yet in 1960, tiny Vietnam with less SAMs, less AA, less planes, pilots trained by China and a smaller land area downed 3000 US planes and 5000 US helicopters.

Buddy, we'll all be old men, and the US will be still barking about China if it hasn't collapsed already. I'll put my money on collapse though.

You are your typical lying and deceitful self for trying to imply that those losses were from air-air combat. Here is the truth about Chinese air training when it mattered the most...

Operation Bolo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the North Vietnamese (and their Soviet allies who supplied the MiG-21 aircraft and helped set up the integrated air defense network), the two reverses forced them to husband their assets by grounding the MiGs for several months for retraining and devising of new tactics.

Half the MIG-21s were shot down. The other half grounded.

 

[below_freezing]

yes, using ground based antiair is "unfair" and "doesn't count". I hope the entire USAF thinks the way you do.

 

[gambit]

yes, using ground based antiair is "unfair" and "doesn't count". I hope the entire USAF thinks the way you do.

The USAF had complete domination of the skies over North Viet Nam regardless of how much you want to lie about the issue. We never had the North Vietnamese Air Force over South Viet Nam, did we?

 

[below_freezing]

The USAF had complete domination of the skies over North Viet Nam regardless of how much you want to lie about the issue. We never had the North Vietnamese Air Force over South Viet Nam, did we?

did i hit a nerve? did i say say something factually inaccurate? did the US lose 3000 fixed wing planes and 5000 helicopters in vietnam, or not?

 

[desimorty]

Yet in 1960, tiny Vietnam with less SAMs, less AA, less planes, pilots trained by China and a smaller land area downed 3000 US planes and 5000 US helicopters.

Buddy, we'll all be old men, and the US will be still barking about China if it hasn't collapsed already. I'll put my money on collapse though.

and who was supplying vietnam's airforce? and even pilots?
but aside from this, that is a different decade. if you notice, the USAF and USN still met objectives, they bombed when needed and more so. that is the aim of air superiority. let it rain iron!
Low flying aircraft of course will be lost in large numbers, be it helecopters, or jet fighters that try low bombing runs!
But this just helps to prove my point.
the PLA is more effective at denying airspace than the PLAAF.

 

[Hawk Eyes]

our army is already superior to the US army. don't be confused by USAF superiority. their air force being 20 years ahead far makes up for their ground forces being worse.

No i think both armies are equal on ground if not USA being superior. Plus in a war Airforce strength is more important than ground forces.

 

[below_freezing]

and who was supplying vietnam's airforce? and even pilots?
but aside from this, that is a different decade. if you notice, the USAF and USN still met objectives, they bombed when needed and more so. that is the aim of air superiority. let it rain iron!
Low flying aircraft of course will be lost in large numbers, be it helecopters, or jet fighters that try low bombing runs!
But this just helps to prove my point.
the PLA is more effective at denying airspace than the PLAAF.

They did not meet the final objective: military victory.

In probable directions of US attack, the US can send 1 plane and lose 1 plane, or it can send 100 planes and lose 100 planes, or it can try 1000 planes, and still lose 1000 planes.