PLAAF vs. USAF

[desimorty]

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

GPS is to find the battlefield.
Not the target, its a way of navigation, and one that is not as redundant as the proven navigator.

 

[gambit]

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

The PLAN will be panned -- to the bottom. The PLAAF will be poofed -- out of the skies. And the PLA can only watch helplessly.

 

[tanlixiang28776]

The PLAN will be panned -- to the bottom. The PLAAF will be poofed -- out of the skies. And the PLA can only watch helplessly.

Finish the Libyan air force first before you talk of anything else.

 

[gambit]

Finish the Libyan air force first before you talk of anything else.

What is that? Daffy's spewing spittle from his mouth?

 

[tanlixiang28776]

What is that? Daffy's spewing spittle from his mouth?

You seem to get less coherent by the day.

 

[applesauce]

Anyone else see something wrong in this picture?

aside from the zero that is apparently bombing the airfield?

 

[desimorty]

The PLAN will be panned -- to the bottom. The PLAAF will be poofed -- out of the skies. And the PLA can only watch helplessly.

if in such a unlikely moment,
the PLA wouldn't care. They are not suppose to protect the PLA, PLAAF, rather their job is to China. The PLAN PLAAF are there only to support the PLA.
That being said. There is nothing the PLA can not do on its own. Cross a river or mountain and fight the US Army in China.
Everything about the PLA is defence.
Take for instance the QBZ-95. Looks advanced but look closer and you'll realize that this is a simple, cost effective rifle (or at least use to be). A rifles a rifle, but this is a bull pup. Not because the PLA life timers wanted that, but because their top brass, conculded what the Korean military did.
The bullpup can be used by a conscript with relative ease, and little training, while maintaining a great first shot. (there are only a few ways to hold this rifle wrong)
It has shortcomings like the fire selecter being located at a real annoying area of the butt, but that aside, the first shot is a gem and its light weight.
a perfect rifle for the odd millions of conscripts of the PLA.
The full timers ofcourse would want the best. The QBZ-95 only with a pigmy rail has caught their attention.
Ofcourse this doesn't mean they will get it.
Rather I have seen pictures of another prototype.
I can't find a picture, but it was a further development of the ak in a way. Sharing its advantages, and few of its weaknesses. a rifle for the battlefield. no bling bling just function. I can forsee the PLA trying to replace somethine like the QBZ-95 with something more battlefield. THe bullpup while a great design just doesn't feel like a rifle you want when everything is hell. The conventional design like fin fal or ak just works in trench.
all that aside, the QBZ-95 was a rifle to make the conscripts effective, rather than have them go full auto with a AK-47 from the waist.
Ill leave it to you to wonder what the Korean military and PLA were thinking about when they set the standards for these rifles.


In the end the PLA will still have China, the US may declare victory but they are not going into China. So the PLA by no means failed.
Rather they did at first fail to prevent a war.

 

[mil-avia]

F-22 and Su-33 fighters : simulation only :

1280 x 1044

 

[akinkhoo]

we are assuming both side would face off each other with the bulk of their forces, but that is unlikely, US will kept a big presense in europe and middle east while China will keep force in the southwest. it would be a command vs command then a service vs service match up. which if the fight occurs in China's backyard, China will have the advantage of ground defences. now the ground defence doesn't win war, but the fact that they are there would mean strike sorties have to be committed or mission will have to fly around them. this means the USAF will not have the superiority in number of 4/5 gen fighter as assumed. USN is probably able to control the seas, but it probably couldn't challenge PLANAF to an air battle, the attrition rate would not be favourable, even if US win, its airwing would be so depleted that it would lose it's status as a superpower.

we can debate plane vs plane and sqn vs sqn, but the total commitment of a service to a battle that is beyond it's replenishment rate is not a rational decision; it's pretty much is like Japan attacking the Allies, they can win but it leads to their own destruction eventually. it's about the economic, and China could pretty much out-mobilize the US if US attack them and the same for US. defending is always cheaper than attacking, a big part of the defence budget is: logistic.

 

[below_freezing]

Correct, and we reserve the right to nuke the US back to the stone age if we start losing anyways.

Hopefully Canada and Mexico will be spared from radiation, as they are also victims of US imperialism.

 

[desimorty]

Correct, and we reserve the right to nuke the US back to the stone age if we start losing anyways.

Hopefully Canada and Mexico will be spared from radiation, as they are also victims of US imperialism.

Chinas nuclear arsenal, is at a defensive posture. It was designed to get hit, survive and nuke the enemy.

 

[anon45]

we are assuming both side would face off each other with the bulk of their forces, but that is unlikely, US will kept a big presense in europe and middle east while China will keep force in the southwest. it would be a command vs command then a service vs service match up. which if the fight occurs in China's backyard, China will have the advantage of ground defences. now the ground defence doesn't win war, but the fact that they are there would mean strike sorties have to be committed or mission will have to fly around them. this means the USAF will not have the superiority in number of 4/5 gen fighter as assumed. USN is probably able to control the seas, but it probably couldn't challenge PLANAF to an air battle, the attrition rate would not be favourable, even if US win, its airwing would be so depleted that it would lose it's status as a superpower.

we can debate plane vs plane and sqn vs sqn, but the total commitment of a service to a battle that is beyond it's replenishment rate is not a rational decision; it's pretty much is like Japan attacking the Allies, they can win but it leads to their own destruction eventually. it's about the economic, and China could pretty much out-mobilize the US if US attack them and the same for US. defending is always cheaper than attacking, a big part of the defence budget is: logistic.

What objective would there be beyond control of the seas?

 

[iPakMan]

Correct, and we reserve the right to nuke the US back to the stone age if we start losing anyways.

Hopefully Canada and Mexico will be spared from radiation, as they are also victims of US imperialism.

Ever heard of MAD? Means if one nukes, you both will be destroyed.

 

[below_freezing]

Ever heard of MAD? Means if one nukes, you both will be destroyed.

Since we have no offensive air force, if we start losing the air war against the US and US troops start landing in China, we've already lost, so might as well nuke them and take them down with us.

 

[blackops]

Since we have no offensive air force, if we start losing the air war against the US and US troops start landing in China, we've already lost, so might as well nuke them and take them down with us.

what only usa and china wont be going down they will take a lot of countries down to due to the nuclear radiation