J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

Discussion in 'Air Force' started by siegecrossbow, Sep 4, 2017.

  1. localizer
    Offline

    localizer New Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2018
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    47
    If China's doctrine is defensive, what's the advantage of shooting a BVRAAM from an aircraft over waiting for the aircraft to get close to land and use S-400? Isn't it less risky to not have to use jets? Is it more economical/effective to shoot from the air?
     
  2. latenlazy
    Online

    latenlazy Colonel

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,081
    Likes Received:
    3,145
    In military parlance offense refers to a force invading a territory and defense refers to a force fending off invaders from a territory. It has nothing to do with whether you chase down a potential target or whether you wait for it to come to you.
     
    N00813, PanAsian, Hyperwarp and 2 others like this.
  3. PikeCowboy
    Offline

    PikeCowboy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    53
    added layer of defense, by the time you're firing the s-400 the enemy's going to be over your head soon/they're already in range to release their lacm
     
    Air Force Brat and PanAsian like this.
  4. localizer
    Offline

    localizer New Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2018
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    47
    I guess I'm referring to the defender's advantage of hidden SAM sites? Or are SAM sites considered to be 2nd line of defense after your fighters are exhausted?

    I just can't imagine cruise missiles being able to eliminate enough mobile/hidden SAM sites to make it worth sending in F35's.

    That said, if US actually bombs Chinese mainland we'll have much more to worry about.
     
    antiterror13 likes this.
  5. latenlazy
    Online

    latenlazy Colonel

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,081
    Likes Received:
    3,145
    All militaries build their capabilities towards worse case scenarios. If you think a country might invade you destroying their forces before they get to your territory is preferable to apprehending them after. Similarly, if you show that you can destroy a potential adversary’s invading forced before they can get to your territory you might be able to deter them from thinking an invasion is a good idea.
     
    AleDucat, Air Force Brat and PanAsian like this.
  6. Bltizo
    Offline

    Bltizo Lieutenant General

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    11,626
    Likes Received:
    13,677
    In terms of high intensity systems of systems warfare between nations, SAMs form an important part of a nation's IADS in terms of defending yourself from air or missile attacks.

    However, relying on SAMs alone is a poor decision if one has money for robust air superiority capability and/or offensive strike weapons, because it cedes the ability to "shoot the archer" against opfor strikes (the "archer" in this case being opfor strike fighters, opfor bombers, opfor surface ships and submarines, opfor regional bases). Adopting a "SAM only" IADS approach means your SAMs will essentially be forced to take on the full brunt of an enemy's strike aerial strike package after they are launched, without the ability to deny the enemy the ability to reach the launch zone, or deny the enemy the ability to carry out sorties from their bases in the first place. And this is ignoring the range of aircraft that can operate at stand off ranges from ground based SAM sites that will act in support of strike packages (EW, AEW&C, tankers etc), which SAMs will be unable to strike at.
    At the end of the day aircraft are much more mobile than ground based SAMs, and it is likely that between two equally technologically capable military forces with similar expenditure, the side that spends most of their money on SAMs against a foe with a mobile and modern military aviation capability will eventually end up losing.

    However, having air superiority fighter aircraft to contest the air to deny the enemy the ability to launch attacks against you, and having your own strike aircraft and bombers and long range conventional missile systems to strike at the enemy's staging areas, means you're essentially able to "thin out" the attacks that the enemy is capable of launching at you, as well as denying the enemy the support aircraft necessary to conduct larger scale and more complex strike packages. The overall result of that, is your ground based SAMs have a much easier job to do.


    This isn't to say that SAMs are unimportant, or that there may be nations for which investing the most of their money into SAMs may be the most cost effective.

    However, considering the PLA's requirements today and going forwards, as well as the PLA's past, present and future funding situation, it makes sense to have a very capable military aviation force that can contest or seize air superiority, as well as an overall very capable conventional long range strike capability in the form of long range missiles and strike fighters and bombers, while still retaining a capable SAM component to support the overall IADS.
     
  7. localizer
    Offline

    localizer New Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2018
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    47
    I see, I just hear a lot about how China can make it too expensive for US to mount an attack.
    Being able to send j20s to take down high value targets is just as important as good defence.
     
  8. Bltizo
    Offline

    Bltizo Lieutenant General

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    11,626
    Likes Received:
    13,677
    In terms of a large scale, strategic air war, there are a number of aims that each side would like to preferably achieve in terms of their ability to destroy opposing combat effectiveness.

    From "most preferable" to "least preferable," it may look something like this:
    1: destroy, deny or disrupt the opfor from deploying their aviation assets at the staging areas from which they will be based to conduct their missions
    2: destroy, deny or disrupt the opfor the ability to generate effective sorties (in both quality and quantity) from their staging areas (i.e.: the opfor have already deployed their assets to the staging are)
    3: destroy, deny or disrupt the opfor's aviation capability to conduct their mission before they reach the "area of operation" in the air (i.e.: payload deployment range)
    4: destroy, deny or disrupt the opfor's aviation capability from conducting their mission/deploying their payloads once they are in the "area of operation"
    5: destroy, deny or disrupt the opfor's payload from reaching their target after the payload has been launched

    Those numbers form a "layered" air war concept, where the overall goal is to deny the enemy the ability to attack your own targets while maximizing the ability for you to attack the enemy's targets.
    There's been a quote long passed around, that goes something like this "the best place to destroy an enemy fighter is when it is on the ground".


    In terms of hardware, the assets required for each of the points may be as follows:
    1: ability to contest air superiority at long range to enable robust ISR capability, to enable robust EW capability, and to enable long range strike weapons (missiles, bombers -- although some long range strike capability in terms of IRBMs, LACMs and stand off range missiles may not require as robust of air superiority)
    2: similar to 1, but would occur at a later "stage" of a conflict when the opponent had already managed to deploy aviation assets to their staging area
    3: long range air superiority fighters, force multipliers (AEW&C, EW, tankers) -- basically contesting air superiority
    4: similar to 3, but closer in geographic proximity to your target that you are trying to defend -- will likely involve shorter range fighters and be less dependent on tankers, and may also involve long range SAMs + land based early warning sensors + airborne early warning sensors + defensive EW
    5: a combination of long range SAMs + short range SAMs + point defense weapons/C-RAM like systems + decoys + short range fighters + defensive EW


    In terms of cost, the hardware and training that is required for 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 -- doing only 5 is the cheapest, whereas doing 1 is the most expensive.

    Most nations might only have the funds to achieve only point 5 and point 4, whereas some nations might have a capability to do 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 but on smaller scale (for example, involving 100 fighters instead of 1000), whereas a few nations may have the funds to do 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 in very high tech, truly strategic scale operations that involve thousands of combat aircraft, dozens or hundreds of force multiplier aircraft, hundreds or thousands of long range missiles etc.
     
  9. antiterror13
    Offline

    antiterror13 Major

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Messages:
    3,795
    Likes Received:
    4,081
    I agree, perhaps with the 3rd SAM facing backward (?) ... should be doable
     
  10. antiterror13
    Offline

    antiterror13 Major

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Messages:
    3,795
    Likes Received:
    4,081
    Hi @Deino ... you may have mentioned it .... but what do serial number 78232 and 78233 mean ?
     
Loading...

Share This Page