1. Your figures look pretty reasonable!
2. If ~350 J-20s are in PLAAF service even though over 400 airframes have been produced, then what are 50+ J-20s up to?
PLA strike strategies in westpac HIC
- Thread starter SEAD
- Start date
1. Your figures look pretty reasonable!
2. If ~350 J-20s are in PLAAF service even though over 400 airframes have been produced, then what are 50+ J-20s up to?
The balance would presumably be in the process of delivery. It's normal for there to be a gap between when an aircraft leaves the factory and when it enters service within an operational unit, and not just for the PLAAF.
Some may in fact have already been delivered to ABs for which we have yet to see evidence.
Agreed. In fact, China should be expanding such actions to cover much of the WestPac with even greater effects, in case the US&LC decides to militarily intervene in Operation AR.
Last edited:
Well, yeah, those Flankers are probably all analog cockpit. Since they are 1990s designs.
But Russia did have the Su-27SM with LCD MFDs in the 2000s. China could have just bought the upgrade but they decided to do their own thing. I wonder how hard it would be to retrofit the J-16 cockpit to those aircraft. Anyway it will all be replaced with J-20s.
I'll just reply here, since you brought up this discussion in this thread first.
Heck, if anything - China's 1.5% is actually outperforming the US and her allies' >2% in actual spending efficiency.
That's something which only comes in a package - An all-encompassing package which every other country clearly lacks.
Also, there's this:
If anything - China's comparably lower 1.5% versus all of her opponents' >2% actually means that China has much greater room to expand her defense spending/budget into, compared to all her opponents - All while avoiding eating too much into the GDP such that it negatively affects the spending/budget for the other sectors of the national economy.
Heck, if anything - China's 1.5% is actually outperforming the US and her allies' >2% in actual spending efficiency.
That's something which only comes in a package - An all-encompassing package which every other country clearly lacks.
Also, there's this:
If anything - China's comparably lower 1.5% versus all of her opponents' >2% actually means that China has much greater room to expand her defense spending/budget into, compared to all her opponents - All while avoiding eating too much into the GDP such that it negatively affects the spending/budget for the other sectors of the national economy.
the biggest problem with @tamsen_ikard is, he sees China with the eyes of western world.
this 1.5% of total GDP China spending on defense is actual much more efficient and cost effective and it is actually much bigger because of the Physical size of China's economy.. from raw material to parts manufacturing to electronics and equipment/tools all are sources from domestic suppliers plus the cost and wages. its dirt cheap as compare to western Military industrial complex..
USA with 900+ billion USD budget still struggling with shipbuilding , next gen submarine cost overrun, F-35 production slash down , E-7 AWACS cancelled and no budget for FA-XX as well.. what about next gen destroyer ?? out of 70 submarines only 35 are operational. all ships are rusty and old. so my point is, why US looks incompetent despite spending close to 1 trillion USD on defense.
and if the time comes, China could increase spending with ease but this is not the case with USA coz of monumental debt.
Last edited:
Again, I don't believe China is spending only 1.5% of its GDP on the military.
You do not get superior naval and equivalent aerial military production, plus massive nuclear expansion, while spending 3x less than the USA.
Perhaps the 1.5% military spending refers to the PLA ground forces. Maybe PLAAF spending is classified as science and technology, while PLAN spending is classified as environmental protection (protecting China's waters from external pollution).
You do not get superior naval and equivalent aerial military production, plus massive nuclear expansion, while spending 3x less than the USA.
Perhaps the 1.5% military spending refers to the PLA ground forces. Maybe PLAAF spending is classified as science and technology, while PLAN spending is classified as environmental protection (protecting China's waters from external pollution).
Ngl, I'm surprised by how many people here talk about the 1.5% at face value without caveats
At the very least, there are some differences in how this 1.5% is measured.
Last edited:
No, US is simply so corrupt and inefficient that it is spending more than 3x for same or less.
The constellation frigate is likely to cost MORE than the 055 lol
Just compare car prices in China and the US. Cars with equivalent properties are several times more expensive in the US than in China.