PLAAF vs. USAF

[gambit]

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?

You do not have to be factually inaccurate to be a liar. By the deliberate omission of related factors and equally relevant to the topic, which is air combat, you deceive the readers by those omissions. So when the readers found out that US air losses in Viet Nam were because of ground based air defense instead of actual air-air combat, they will know that it is true that the US had complete air supremacy over North Viet Nam. Operation Bolo and related facts are rubbing YOUR nerves raw.

 

[gambit]

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.

Probable? More like your wet dream. When people compare the actual combat records between the US military and the PLA, not even London's betting houses will take odds.

 

[desimorty]

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.

what?
100 planes, JDAMs and their goes your SAM sites, and if anything of the PLAAF goes up in the sky, it comes down.
thats reality.
how are you going to shoot down a b2 or b52 bombing your cities or bases, if it flies to high? SAMs?
well those SAMs are a hinderance, but thats why SEAD exists.
they will have air superiority.
and what final objective?
to destroy China? possible given the amount of bombs the USAF has, all major cities will go back 50 years.
destroy the CCP? possible, given that people will eventually bring them down or the PLA may enforce military rule
capture and hold China? not possible or far to expensive. thanks to the PLA
stop China from attacking Taiwan? very possible.

those are objectives.
to resist a attack from the United States, China needs the PLA not the PLAAF.

 

[desimorty]

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.

where?
the US military is geared up for offensive and power projection. they could pull off another 5 Iraqs!
the PLA can't even get to Iraq!
they are not equal,
rather the PLA can do what it needs to do. Protect Chinese terriotories, be it Russia, India, or USA.

 

[mil-avia]

Only one side canard deflected by J-10 (post # 1563) :

1067 x 1600

Originally posted by Houshanghai

 

[mil-avia]

Only one side tailplane and an opposite side nozzle deflected by Su-30 :

 

[mil-avia]

Only one side tailplane deflected by F-22 (1600 x 1143) :

 

[Jigs]

A more accurate comparison would be the U.S. Navies Air Wing to total Chinese air capability. As the Navy currently operates some 700 F-18s. Chinese air force is still 3rd generation in the majority of aircraft that it currently has in service.

 

[below_freezing]

The problem with that is USN ships won't get within strike range before being blown out of the water.

 

[desimorty]

The problem with that is USN ships won't get within strike range before being blown out of the water.

why do you say that?
The Carriers unlike airfields, are mobile!
Tracking them at see the soviets spent more resources than anything else!
constantly tracking all of them during the cold war!
If however the Chinese managed to spot a carrier, they have more choices than ballistic missiles and that is the danger to the USN.
Problem for the Chinese is, how do you find a needle in a haystack! The haystack being the Pacific Ocean!
The Pakistanis encountered the same problem, which is why the maritime patrol aircraft! and thats just one aircraft carrier!
If the USN spots Chinas patrol units, lets say in the air, they get dropped from the sky.
If the PLANs air wing manages to get the relevant location of the USN, they only have a limited time to act accordingly.
I will admit, the chances of sub sonic cruise missiles, breaking a Carrier group defence is low. A ballistic missile could, by the USN doesn't stand still, neither at night even for landings!
To counter this the USSR developed supersonic cruise missiles, that can reach the battlefield and hit something, may not be the carrier but the success will be higher.
They had these missiles airlaunched from Backfires! from nuclear submarines, whose sole purpose of existance was to get close enough to launch supersonic cruise missiles!

 

[rcrmj]

its evident PLAAF is inferior to USAAF in terms of training, equipment, experiences, number and fund.
it is going to be at least 20-30 years for China to even catch-up with USAAF. but in terms of experience depends how the politics play out in the near future.

the thing worries PLA the most is the C4SI systems, until China has completed Beidou globale navigation satellite systems and other military surveillance satellite systems then it can be called indigenous Chinese C4SI system...... intelligence is the key in future warfare no matter its on the ground or in the sky. it cant be bought!

 

[desimorty]

its evident PLAAF is inferior to USAAF in terms of training, equipment, experiences, number and fund.
it is going to be at least 20-30 years for China to even catch-up with USAAF. but in terms of experience depends how the politics play out in the near future.

the thing worries PLA the most is the C4SI systems, until China has completed Beidou globale navigation satellite systems and other military surveillance satellite systems then it can be called indigenous Chinese C4SI system...... intelligence is the key in future warfare no matter its on the ground or in the sky. it cant be bought!

Combat experience is not needed but nice to have.
Experience in terms of training is another thing. Military excerises will cover the PLAAF's purpose.
What is the PLAAF's purpose?
It is air denial! They don't need to fly half way across the world. Currently as i've said the PLA and its arms have limited offensive capability. They don't want a war half way across the world. Even a war in Taiwan is logistical nightmare for the PLA.
PLAAF's goal is simple. Stop the enemy air force from supporting their ground troops. In the case of nations like Vietnam, the PLAAF may take the offensive pending on the condition of their air denial assets.
Think about some of the other things.
The PLAAF have some odd 400 airfields, some combat, some helicopter landing pads. But they have 4000 aircraft! and 400 000 PLAAF staff!
thats huge! (keep in mind these numbers are from the back of my head)
this just leads us to assume that they intend on supporting and not moving. It is not a very effercescent air force, it is however large with a purpose.
In contrast a similar airforce, is the IAF.
Its airbases are odd 400 and considerably less aircraft and a third of the staff.
Thats an airforce, that wants to move where necessary. Although currently around Pakistan.
This difference may have been the result of combat experience with Pakistan. The Indo Pak conflicts were quick and highly sophisticated conflicts, using all the arms of the military, navy air force etc...
Then the IAF and PAF have international exercises that keep them in the know and loop. Allow them to learn and advance their tactics, to their machines.
Its reasonable to assume, the PLAAF in terms of operational capability, want what the IAF currently have, both interms of technology and the tactics that complement the advanced weaponry.
Trying to get where the USAF/USN right now, is far to expensive and does not meet their needs.
Unless the PLAAF and PLAN want to fight a USSR and wars in the middle east and Africa.

 

[desimorty]

the thing worries PLA the most is the C4SI systems, until China has completed Beidou globale navigation satellite systems and other military surveillance satellite systems then it can be called indigenous Chinese C4SI system...... intelligence is the key in future warfare no matter its on the ground or in the sky. it cant be bought!

GPS is not sureliance, rather it is when it comes to command, reccon not at all neccesary but nice to have. Pakistan used its arms in unison against India. They did not have GPS or advanced EW equipment.
It requires a command shift more so than anything. A mobile but centralized brain. That HQ in modern warfare does need intellegence and plenty of inputs, from satalietes, and signal corps etc...

 

[rcrmj]

GPS is not sureliance, rather it is when it comes to command, reccon not at all neccesary but nice to have. Pakistan used its arms in unison against India. They did not have GPS or advanced EW equipment.
It requires a command shift more so than anything. A mobile but centralized brain. That HQ in modern warfare does need intellegence and plenty of inputs, from satalietes, and signal corps etc...

i never mentioned GPS was surveillance system, but GPS is so vital that without it then the C4SIR is not going to be complete`

 

[tanlixiang28776]

Only one side tailplane deflected by F-22 (1600 x 1143) :

Anyone else see something wrong in this picture?