Someone said what i was thinking.
I am no war expert but have been watching what's going on since last decade.
I don't get this theory that you need to match the number of adversary platforms to win "a war" . Considering the geography, i am wondering who is willing to go to war against China? Japan is 60 years old grandpa in wheelchair who will never recover from such a conflict. South Korea is more focused on North than anything else. Even if they buy 100s of F35 from US , i dont see what difference it makes given thy share border with China & they will be toast in case of any misadventure.
Which essentially leaves The US. They couldn't go to war with Russia after they took Crimea. They can't do anything against NoKo . Flying F-22 over Syria or dropping bombs from F-35 over Iraq doesn't exactly scream "superbbb" for me.
I also don't get the scenario where US will be sending it's "armada" to drop bombs on China & China is going to send it's own armada to retaliate by matching the numbers. If US targets Chinese mainland, China should be targeting US mainland, for that i guess 1 long range strategic bomber should be enough.
I was surprised by this report that China is developing 2 stealth fighters & 2 stealth bombers. Unless China wants to get into big ticket arms exports, this makes no sense to me.
You are talking about platforms that are so costly it would be near about impossible for those to be expendable.
Cheap , cost effective, disposable solution has worked for China . TBH in this era of missiles, ucavs, developing/producing massive numbers of costly platforms make no sense.
Only costly platform i find worth putting money into is submarine.
Additionally i wanted to ask, is there any plan for China to develop intercontinental range hyper sonic missiles that is conventionally armed? Normally conventionally armed ICBM concept isn't cost effective.
But if it's armed with hgv, could this make some difference?
China should really avoid getting into that fetish of "super army armed with super weapons", because trust me, that is a dead end. USSR is gone, now US is going USSR too. "Conceptual war" has no end in imaginary world.
I think it's just misunderstanding due to terminology. Look closely at the report, this new "small stealth bomber" is coded as JH-XX. “JH” stands for 歼轰, which means 歼击轰炸机 （fighter-bomber, or Fighter-Attacker）. This I think is a likely a functional successor to JH-7A.
Many of us would think that J-16 is a successor to JH-7A. However, I would think that J-16 is gear more towards air superiority. It is similar to Russian Airforce procuring both the Su-30SM and Su-30M2. One for air superiority role, the other for anti-ship/anti-surface/ground attack. (Some sources says that Su-30M2 is for training mostly).
In this case, I would think that the current J-16 is a balanced platform not optimized for particular role like the Russians did. But one the JH-XX enters services, it will form a high-low combination J/H (fighter-bomber) with J-16. I also believe that J-11D project is still alive, and will eventually come to fruition with a 3D TVC engine, forming a high-low Air superiority with J-20. Of course, there is also the possibility that J-11D will give way to a 3D TVC equipped J-16, optimized for air superiority.
I think the US forces is essentially the same. F-22 fills is the Air-superiority role. F-35A fills the stealthy fighter/bomber role for the air force. F-35C fills the stealthy naval fighter/bomber role. For China, the J-20 fills the Air-superiority role, JH-XX fills the stealthy fighter/bomber role for the PLAAF. J-35 fills the naval stealthy fighter/bomber role.