Eagerly waiting for the first combat engagement of F-35 with current gen Russian/Chinese SAMS or fighters. It could cement lockheeds future for the next 50 years, or put them in hot water.
I might get my wish soon, as the Israelis just lost an F-16I in the Syrian theater and they might start sending F-35s in for better survivability.
Depends on your perspective. From an American perspective, our Fighters are half of the reason our carrier strike groups are so lethal, and our carrier strike groups are lethal enough to topple a small country.
They have to be lethal too. They're not just enforcing American law, they're enforcing International order by keeping shipping lanes open and international waters, well, international. Admittedly this capability is being challenged in the South China Sea right now, but it's important to keep the lifeblood of international trade flowing (shipping!) and America is pretty much the only player on this front.
I took badosu's comment to mean that farseer's comment of "Eagerly waiting for the first combat engagement of F-35 with current gen Russian/Chinese SAMS or fighters" is in bad taste, and that nobody should want for anyone to have to be engaged in (likely lethal) combat.
IMO it's pretty fucked up to be eagerly awaiting killing of others, regardless of reason. It may, in this world, be deemed "necessary" by politicians and generals etc, but to derive pleasure and eagerly wish for it to happen really doesn't sit at all well with me.
To the leadership class of the countries of the world, that kind of engagement is necessary for proving a point. The point being "mine is bigger, faster and stronger than yours".
Soldiers are a sacrifice they are willing to make to prove that point, particularly as war becomes less about the soldiers and more about the equipment the soldiers operate. Actually let me take that back, war has always been about the equipment that soldiers operate, from spears to guns, from trebuchets to tanks, and from ballistae to ICBMs.
The soldiers serve two important roles here: 1. to operate the piece of equipment they are charged with effectively to accomplish their roles within a mission environment and 2. to occupy a piece of dirt with their continued, loyal and obedient, presence until their CO tells them to move along to the next piece of dirt down the road.
Until war is obsolete, so until life comes to an end on Earth basically, there are going to continue to be people eagerly awaiting the next battlefield to prove their points.
>carrier strike groups are lethal enough to topple a small country.
The carriers are deterrents, not weapons. They will be among the first major casualties of any true, open warfare. Carrier-defeating tech has been out for years; therefore they're only ever useful for policing actions - not full, symmetric war.
Even without nuclear weapons, I've got to think that countermeasures are easily overwhelmed, and the cost of a few dozen long-range anti-carrier missiles must be negligible compared to the advantage of incapacitating a carrier (at least for a top-tier adversary like China or Russia), right?
I'm not sure. Throwing a few dozen missiles from long range against a carrier group, complete with airplanes, may not work very well. They'll have a few dozen fighters, multiple Phalanx guns, shipboard missiles, and a lot of electronic counter-attacks. I think they will only be "easily" overwhelmed if they've got an attack method that is hard for the carrier group to counterattack. That is harder than it looks.
I have no idea and I hope you're right, but airplanes and missiles aren't implicitly anti ballistic countermeasures. Certainly there are some anti ballistic missiles and fighters which are equipped with anti-ballistic tech, but I don't have any idea how effective they'd be in a barrage scenario.
It seems like maybe people are already forgetting the Cold War. Full, symmetric war between nuclear powers must be avoided at all costs. How to prevent escalation to a full intercontinental nuclear exchange is not clear. The Shilling point of not killing each others soldiers on purpose is very clear. Once countries are openly killing each others solders, you are at war, and the situation can change very quickly. This is why Syria is so dangerous and highly underrated as a problem by most people. All the foreign policy reporters and think tanks are distracted by the North Korea situation (not to say that is not a big problem), I would guess.
> The carriers are deterrents, not weapons. They will be among the first major casualties of any true, open warfare.
Any country powerful enough to challenge a US carrier strike group in true, open warfare, isn't a country that is fighting a full symmetric conventional war with the United States. They're fighting a nuclear war.
They are weapons, powerful, effective, government-toppling weapons, and that is what makes them such effective deterrents. For the non-Chinas and non-Russias in the world, a carrier strike group is probably sufficient. If one won't do, how would you like two?
I think this quote from a Marine F-35B pilot regarding an exercise pretty well says it all:
"I was leading a four ship of F-35s on a strike against 4th Gen adversaries, F-16s and F/A-18s. We fought our way in, we mapped the target, found the target, dropped JDAMs on the target and turned around and fought our way out. All the targets got hit, nobody got detected, and all the adversaries died. I thought, yes, this works, very, very, very well. Never detected, nobody had any idea we were out there."
The F-35B in particular is an amazing piece of engineering, and a vast improvement over any other STOVL aircraft.
> "against 4th Gen adversaries, F-16s and F/A-18s" is the important part here
Pardon me for my ignorance, why is that important? (My impression was "4th Gen adversaries" characterizes most, if not all, of the F-35's present adversaries.)
I'm not sure, but the idea might be that tests against (current gen) Russian and Chinese fighters are more important than tests against other American fighters. The F-35 has presumably had much more experience with the latter during development.
The claim is that the Chinese J-20 is "ready for mass production" and "combat ready", but the reality is likely different. It's also not at all clear how good are the stealth characteristics of the J-20.
From the Wikipedia article on the J-20:
"In October 2017, Chinese state media reported that the designs of J-20 had been finalized, and is ready for mass production as well as combat-ready."
...however...
"As of March 2017 there are still a series of technical problems that need to be tackled, including the reliability of its WS-15 engines, [the aircraft's flight] control system, stealth coatings and hull materials, and infrared sensor."
The Russian Su-57 is equally questionable:
"In December 2014, the Russian Air Force planned to receive 55 fighters by 2020.[41] Yuri Borisov, Russia's deputy minister of defence for armaments stated in 2015 that the Air Force would slow production and reduce its initial order to 12 fighters and retain large fleets of fourth-generation fighters due to the nation's economy."
Both China and Russia are almost entirely dependent on their 4th Gen fighters at this point, and I expect the F-22 and F-35 will easily handle the J-20 if necessary. Regardless, 99.99% of potential adversaries are 4th Gen.
"At least six J-20s are in active service, with tail numbers 78271-78276 identified. Another six were believed ready to be delivered by end of Dec 2016.[86] On 9 March 2017, Chinese officials confirmed that the J-20 had entered service in the Chinese air force.
In September 2017, the J-20 officially entered military service with PLAAF, making China the second country in the world after United States wielding fifth-generation stealth aircraft, and the first in Asia.[87][87][88][16]
In January 2018, Chinese media reports that J-20 is in full operation-ready deployment.[89]"
"in two years’ time, if not before, America is likely to lose its monopoly of radar-beating stealth combat aircraft with the introduction into service of China’s Chengdu J-20. This has a much longer range than America’s new F-35 fighter and will be a serious threat to American warships in the Pacific."
"Another system, yet to be named, would provide China with an ability to knock out targets as far away as 400km, a far greater range than any other air-to-air weapon in service. It would threaten aircraft that currently operate safely from a considerable distance, such as tankers and planes used for airborne surveillance and control. "
'At least six J-20s are in active service, with tail numbers 78271-78276 identified. Another six were believed ready to be delivered by end of Dec 2016.[86] On 9 March 2017, Chinese officials confirmed that the J-20 had entered service in the Chinese air force.
In September 2017, the J-20 officially entered military service with PLAAF, making China the second country in the world after United States wielding fifth-generation stealth aircraft, and the first in Asia.[87][87][88][16]
In January 2018, Chinese media reports that J-20 is in full operation-ready deployment.'
Yeah, that all sounds great as propaganda. It's clear to any knowledgeable observer that the J-20 likely still has significant issues. As I mentioned before, it's also not at all clear how stealthy it is as well. There's a reason no other stealth aircraft has canards...
"in two years’ time, if not before, America is likely to lose its monopoly of radar-beating stealth combat aircraft with the introduction into service of China’s Chengdu J-20. This has a much longer range than America’s new F-35 fighter and will be a serious threat to American warships in the Pacific."
Carrier based F-35s will be in service soon (or already are in the case of the F-35B), countering the range advantage. All that said, the F-22 is the true counterpart to the J-20 and will likely mop the floor with it if necessary.
It's worth noting that for strike aircraft like the F-35, the main goal is avoiding detection to bomb targets. Stealth aircraft have no advantage over any other aircraft at detecting other stealth aircraft - making the J-20 no more of a threat than any Gen 4 aircraft.
"Another system, yet to be named, would provide China with an ability to knock out targets as far away as 400km, a far greater range than any other air-to-air weapon in service. It would threaten aircraft that currently operate safely from a considerable distance, such as tankers and planes used for airborne surveillance and control. "
Yep, that's interesting. I wonder how our jammers, anti-missile missiles, and directed energy weapons will fare against it...
"The short-range PL-10, which was introduced in 2015, is regarded by military analysts as comparable in performance to Western equivalents, such as the Sidewinder II. This year, the PL-15, a radar-guided “beyond visual range” missile (BVRAAM), should enter service. Carried by a J-20, the PL-15 can destroy an aircraft 50km away that is trying to evade it. “The Military Balance” believes that a version of the missile is in the works that will have a cruise speed of Mach 3. It is similar in design to the European Meteor, the best BVRAAM in the West’s inventory, which is only just entering service."
As you say J-20 will be used to deter aircraft carriers and warships.
"A 2015 RAND report noted the J-20’s “combination of forward stealth and long range could hold U.S. Navy surface assets at risk, and that a long-range maritime strike capability may be a cause for greater concern than a short-range air-superiority fighter like the F-22.” The J-20’s size and weapons configuration may, however, preclude it from functioning as an effective strike fighter in either context. Importantly, the mission types Chinese pilots are trained for may determine how the J-20 is eventually utilized."
"The U.S. Naval War College suggests that the J-20 could be an “effective surface-attack platform for out to several hundred nautical miles at sea.” Air Power Australia notes that the J-20 would be a suitable choice of aircraft for operating within China’s “first island chain” and “second island chain.” Should China integrate aerial refueling aircraft with the J-20, the stealth fighter’s operational range would extend even further across the Asia-Pacific."
This all assumes that the aircraft even leave the ground. First strike to cripple combat capability will most certainly be utilized among other things. The deck will be stacked, so to speak, for overall victory. Don't assume there will be a classic force on force engagement.
Why do people talk about the F35 program like it is in question? the US is committed, many NATO countries are committed...one way or another the F35 is going to play a major role in NATO deterrence models.
It's not just air forces that are committed...both the US and UK navies have new carriers for which the F35 is the only realistic future option
If there are bugs, they will have to be ironed out. The costs are insane, but developing a new competitor at this stage would be even more outrageous
Keep in mind that unlike Russia, NATO can deploy planes in volume, staff the support, keep a parts supply chain, keep training with them regardless of costs. People will compare the F35 to a Russian jet on a 1-1 basis but the reality is a Russian fighter has a lower chance of even being combat ready, and if it did, it would be outnumbered by NATO fighters probably 5-1. I question if the Russian air Force can even realistically secure it's own borders
Until china/Russia start selling to terrorists or rogue states (or an Iraq-like situation happens again), we will probably never get a chance to find out what is better.
More to the point, many of the capabilities and their effectiveness of each fighters on both sides are probably shroud in secrecy. Engagement would reveal a lot of secrets between both sides, so they are likely to avoid it unless absolutely necessary.
The F35 has already been used in theater by the Israeli's as for the F16I downing it seems that they just assumed that they would not be fired upon they were flying at high altitude exactly in the sweet spot of the Iranian and Syrian AA deployed in the region which is what happens when you fly for nearly 30 years with impunity.
The F16I was shot down over Israel not over Syria despite Syria having the capability to shoot down aircraft over the entire territory of Israel pretty much except for it's most southern parts it was always assumed that they would never fire at Israeli jets inside Israel's territory.
Last time when Syria fired at Israeli jets within Syrian territory Israel has uses it's missile defense system to shoot down the Syrian AA missiles however it seems that this time it didn't happen, likely due to the positioning of the jets within Israel.
So for the most part what would happen is that Israel would start taking evasive measures when flying combat sorties even in it's territory, likely go back to the same path it used to take which is fly low over the med then cross into Syria from it's coastline or through Lebanon via the Baalbek valley.
Israel would also likely push more ABM/AM batteries into it's northern parts to provide additional cover to it's air assets as well as potentially start using it's ground based standoff weapons rather than relying solely on air deployed munitions.
The Israeli media reported that the IAF finished their investigation and blamed the crash on the pilot prioritizing target destruction over survivability, and that a different decision by the pilot would have prevented the loss of the plane.
>>Eagerly waiting for the first combat engagement of F-35 with current gen Russian/Chinese SAMS or fighters. It could cement lockheeds future for the next 50 years, or put them in hot water.
Its equally disturbing to those of us who detest war, and war machines, and their 'glorious application' towards inhuman goals.
Honestly, its repulsive to have to deal with the notion of 'shiny death machines being pit against each other for fun and profit', and not let a protest be said, in kind.
For the cost of a single death machine, the will for war could be bought: you just use it to deliver books and medicine and food, instead of death and mayhem and misery.
Just think, in the future, these shiny war machines will be fully autonomous. Their only remaining purpose is to kill enemy shiny war machines, destroy the ability to make more shiny war machines, and to kill civilians either inadvertently or intentionally.
Of course they will be much more efficient shiny war machines because they won't have the same human limits of G-forces, heat, oxygen, etc.
"For the cost of a single death machine, the will for war could be bought: you just use it to deliver books and medicine and food, instead of death and mayhem and misery."
We've done that for decades with North Korea, and you see the result: North Korea armed with thermonuclear weapons and delivery systems that can reach most of the world.
Human nature, and competition for resources, guarantee war for the foreseeable future. Sorry to say, a strong deterrent is the only way to preserve the peace.
We certainly have done that in North Korea. We've given NK billions in aid in the expectation that the quest for nuclear weapons would end and NK would turn towards prosperity.
No one said, "we'll just kill them". The good thing is that NK is unlikely to kill us, since if it tries it won't survive as a political entity.
Completely ignoring the fact that we contributed to the current situation by killing 20% of their population during the Korean War. Wonder if not doing that would have been a more effective deterrence?
I have trouble countenancing people using the Korean War as justification for North Korean belligerence today. Yes, many North Koreans died during that war, but many South Koreans did as well... and those at the hands of their North Korean brothers.
Not only was North Korea the aggressor in the Korean War, it was not the United States acting unilaterally that opposed it but the United Nations. This was one of the only times in history that the United Nations declared war on a nation acting as a clear aggressor. Had the United Nations not intervened, then we would see an entire Korean peninsula run as foolishly and cruelly as the North is.
The DPRK's mythologizing of the war has done nothing but dig the North Korean people in general and the Kim regime in particular, into an ideological hole that they can't really get out of.
Bill Clinton reached a deal with North Korea to supply them with oil, and normalize relations in exchange for them stopping their nuclear program. They did.
Congress then reneged on the deal. Three years later, Bush gave his famous axis of evil speech, and invaded one of the countries on the list.
Unsurprisingly, having taken one look at what happened to Saddam Hussein, and because it's not ran by suicidal morons, North Korea resumed their nuclear program.
Have we all collectively forgotten the past 19 years?
Major reasons for the breakdown of the Agreed Framework was that DPRK was never abiding by it to begin with. I mean it really shouldn't be up to the United States to bribe DPRK into not pursuing nuclear weapons; North Korea should just respect its preexisting agreements with South Korea and rely on its relationships with China and Russia for nuclear deterrence the same as South Korea relies on the United States. It's no coincidence that talks broke down at around the same time that the North Korean famine started to subside.
That speech by Bush, foolish as it was, was not given in a void. It was a response to decades of belligerence by the DPRK. The reason Saddam got invaded was because he deliberately mislead people about his weapons programs. If North Korea was a less belligerent entity, they would be having a much easier time dealing with the United States.
> I mean it really shouldn't be up to the United States to bribe DPRK into not pursuing nuclear weapons
The United States also should not be making demands of the DPRK at gunpoint. If some agreement could not be reached, it would have bombed the Yongbyon reactor.
The NNPT is a voluntary agreement - one that its key signatories are arguably in violation of.
> That speech by Bush, foolish as it was, was not given in a void. It was a response to decades of belligerence by the DPRK.
The belligerence was not in a void. The country underwent a devastating war, and was subjected to decades of economic and political marginalisation, with the constant threat of another war hanging over it.
If the United States was less belligirent towards North Korea, they would also have a much easier time dealing with them. This is, of course, not a notion that is even entertained by the Department of State.
Pretty much everyone involved in this cesspool is smeared in shit. No-one comes out looking good.
"The country underwent a devastating war, and was subjected to decades of economic and political marginalisation, with the constant threat of another war hanging over it."
If by 'decades of economic and political marginalisation' you mean it was on the Soviet side in the Cold War, then you are correct. But during that time DPRK had a strong alliance with the Soviet Union which provided them with enormous resources. Their economy was almost on par with the South. It wasn't until the collapse of the Soviet Union, in the 90s, that this changed and it was Korean belligerence in the 90s and 2000s that lead to the current state of affairs.
"The country underwent a devastating war"
Using the Korean war as justification for current North Korean foreign and domestic policies is as morally bankrupt as using the First World War as justification for Hitler's foreign and domestic policies. The DPRK has been the aggressor from the beginning.
"The NNPT is a voluntary agreement - one that its key signatories are arguably in violation of."
"The United States also should not be making demands of the DPRK at gunpoint."
That strongly depends on the kind of demand being made. If the United States was demanding economic concessions, you'd be right, but that's the situation. The situation is that North Korea is making demands at gunpoint and is attempting to make even more devastating threats. In these negotiations, the United States has never threatened to attack North Korea's civilian population, nor has it threatened to use nuclear weapons. North Korea however, has done exactly the opposite.
There is no parity between North Korea's and the United States' actions here.
If we had this news announced in 1946 then I don't think that everyone at the United Nations would think this was in keeping with what had been agreed.
North Korea is not what you think it is or how people in North Korea see things. The goal for both Koreas is the same as it was for 'both Germanies' - unification. However, North Korea sees the war as very much imposed by America. The USA is the country seen as keeping the two Koreas apart. The arrangement sought by North Korea in this united kingdom is very much like how the deal goes for Scotland in the UK - devolution of sorts, albeit 'Juche' flavoured.
The leadership gig in North Korea is very much like what the Japanese imposed with a holy emperor type of person having absolute god like authority. This was the model for the Kim dynasty to follow.
So what is wrong with a united Korea?
In a matter of a generation a united Korea would be a GDP powerhouse with ample natural resources and great people. Korea would be unstoppable to become bigger than everyone except one or two others when it comes to global clout. Really there would be no excuses for not giving Korea a seat at the UN, plus their currency could be up there with the Euro as a currency to trade in.
So it serves the interests of everyone else on the UN to have Korea divided. And occupied in the South by good old 'global policeman' Uncle Sam.
We live in a Western world of Full Spectrum Dominance, discussion of North Korea is skewed so that we imagine these hordes from the North flattening all those big cities in the south with their cruddy armaments and dirty bombs. However, any understanding of the North Korean position and any appreciation of their goals puts out of mind these silly Western fears. It is just propaganda, a shaping of Western minds, a filter bubble that has been going on for 75 or so years, inescapable.
Anyone in the West that attempts to read the words of the North and try to understand their position is to be scapegoated and regarded with suspicion. In the West our views have to be suckled from the teat of the TV news, there is no scope for listening to the other side. We have our news journalists to not do that for us so we don't have to either.
You think the Kims genuinely want to unify Korea under a single, democratic government? That they would give up power to a unified Korean government elected by the people? I just don't understand how the Kims could keep their god-emperor status and unify Korea, except if they conquered the South. And I don't see the Kims willingly giving up absolute power.
I also think you're kind of glossing over the fact that the DPRK is a profoundly brutal totalitarian regime that holds hundreds of thousands of political prisoners in concentration camps, along with numerous other human rights violations. You don't think that might be the reason the country is hated globally? Or at least contribute to it?
> We live in a Western world of Full Spectrum Dominance, discussion of North Korea is skewed so that we imagine these hordes from the North flattening all those big cities in the south with their cruddy armaments and dirty bombs.
Have you read up on the DPRK military? They have thousands of artillery positions throughout the country, most of which are capable of reaching Seoul, along with key military installations. It's crappy artillery, but there's a lot of it and they can really make it rain down on civilians. Studies have suggested that even if the US devoted the entirety of its air power in the Pacific to destroying those artillery positions, it would take a week to remove all of them. During which time they could fire indiscriminately at population centers. Even an Iron Dome-like defense system wouldn't be able to handle that volume of artillery.
North Korea wouldn't win any war with the US, but they could take a lot of South Koreans down with them.
> In a matter of a generation a united Korea would be a GDP powerhouse with ample natural resources and great people. Korea would be unstoppable to become bigger than everyone except one or two others when it comes to global clout
[citation needed]
> Really there would be no excuses for not giving Korea a seat at the UN
North Korea has been a full member of the UN since 1991
> In the West our views have to be suckled from the teat of the TV news, there is no scope for listening to the other side. We have our news journalists to not do that for us so we don't have to either.
This sort of ad hominem attack on the abstract concept of "the West" really doesn't add anything to your argument.
> We've done that for decades with North Korea, and you see the result: North Korea armed with thermonuclear weapons and delivery systems that can reach most of the world.
I mean, at the same time we convinced Gaddafi to quit his nuclear weapons program and then pounced on him as soon as we could without international backlash. We sent a clear signal that we only respect the sovereignty of nuclear powers.
NATO planes enforced a UN resolution for the enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya during its civil war because the Libyan government forces were attacking civilian targets. Both Russia and China had unilateral veto power over that order and declined to do so. UN Security Council Resolution 1970 (condemning Libya for war crimes, creating sanctions, and referring them to the ICC) passed unanimously, and UNSC R 1973 (establishing the no-fly zone) passed with 10 votes for and 5 votes abstaining.
In the first link, the Qataris were arming the rebels with their own money, the US just wasn't stopping them. Though I take your point that the US, to a certain extent, favored the rebels. The second link is a hypothetical: reporting that some members of government are considering funding the rebels.
as long as we're "hope"-ing... I hope they all get a heroic dose of the sorts of psychedelics that are good for putting an end to warmongering.
fuck the motherfuckers who think any of this is good, and fuck what they stand for. murder subjugation and all the rest of the shit is what humans have been up to forever, and I think we should stop.
alternatively, somebody comes up with a valid reason why it's good for us... then maybe we all agree to start doing it intentionally, and vigorously, and ceaselessly... and we achieve the final solution for all humanity.
Before you drop that bomb, would you like to subscribe to the weekly Lockheed Martin newsletter? We promise we won't spam you. Also, make sure to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
"in two years’ time, if not before, America is likely to lose its monopoly of radar-beating stealth combat aircraft with the introduction into service of China’s Chengdu J-20. This has a much longer range than America’s new F-35 fighter and will be a serious threat to American warships in the Pacific."
"At least as worrying for American commanders in the region is the dramatic upgrading of China’s inventory of air-to-air missiles (AAMs). The short-range PL-10, which was introduced in 2015, is regarded by military analysts as comparable in performance to Western equivalents, such as the Sidewinder II. This year, the PL-15, a radar-guided “beyond visual range” missile (BVRAAM), should enter service. Carried by a J-20, the PL-15 can destroy an aircraft 50km away that is trying to evade it. “The Military Balance” believes that a version of the missile is in the works that will have a cruise speed of Mach 3. "
Imagine what could have happened had we awarded $10,000 to 100,000,000 American citizens instead, or $100,000 to only 10,000,000, or ... You get the idea.
Defending Taiwan (and Japan) is one area where the US would do exceptionally well in any war. They have no rival on the sea (which is why they are continuously able to conduct their 'freedom of navigation' exercises right on Chinas door step).
Conversely, any land war in North Korea I feel would end disastrously for them - as it arguably did the first time around.
Today, probably yes for Taiwan, certainly yes for Japan. But the pace at which the Chinese Air Force is improving you have to wonder if they could eventually develop air superiority over the South China Sea and prevent US surface ships from getting too close. If so, would the Taiwanese fight bitterly, or would they give in? Fifteen years ago a scenario like that seemed like a fantasy. 'And Afghanistan was a mess.
> Defending Taiwan (and Japan) is one area where the US would do exceptionally well in any war.
According to a former US State department official (I heard on a recent podcast interview), China never cared to take Taiwan. If they wanted to, all they need to do is cut off access to fresh water from the Chinese mainland.
The US might be able to prevent a ground invasion or counter-attack missile batteries, but the island will fall quickly if China put it's mind to the task.
If you have indications that something untoward is happening, contact the mods directly using the Contact link in the footer. They take this seriously. Likewise, please follow the guidelines with respect to commenting on shillage and astroturfing:
> "Please don't impute astroturfing or shillage. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about it, email us and we'll look at the data."
Stealth is just a tool. It can be defeated. It doesn't matter who has superior weapons. The question is if those weapons can be combined with the implementation of specific tactics to gain some kind of strategic goal.
This has a much longer range than America’s new F-35 fighter and will be a serious threat to American warships in the Pacific."
In the 21st century, serious threats to warships abound. However, when it comes to China, the real question for the US is how well the US can keep China contained, curtailing China's projection of power towards Taiwan, Japan, and other parts of the region. Superior weapons can help, but distance and logistics are still huge factors, which can work to China's advantage sometimes, and against it other times.
In other words, the issue is a lot more complex than who has the "best" stealth fighter.
Ohh no, the PL-10 is no match to any other 5th gen missile. Sapphire domes made it quite easy to spot the propaganda, they really should have that seeker covered during presentations and airshows. The effectiveness of a 5th gen missile depends heavily on its seeker; it doesn't really matter the other performance metrics when it consistently breaks lock due to countermeasures.
94 comments
[ 5.5 ms ] story [ 164 ms ] threadI might get my wish soon, as the Israelis just lost an F-16I in the Syrian theater and they might start sending F-35s in for better survivability.
> I might get my wish soon, as the Israelis just lost an F-16I in the Syrian theater and they might start sending F-35s in for better survivability.
I am very fond of military technology, as it usually pushes a lot of boundaries, but I'd rather having it as a deterrent instead of put to use.
They have to be lethal too. They're not just enforcing American law, they're enforcing International order by keeping shipping lanes open and international waters, well, international. Admittedly this capability is being challenged in the South China Sea right now, but it's important to keep the lifeblood of international trade flowing (shipping!) and America is pretty much the only player on this front.
IMO it's pretty fucked up to be eagerly awaiting killing of others, regardless of reason. It may, in this world, be deemed "necessary" by politicians and generals etc, but to derive pleasure and eagerly wish for it to happen really doesn't sit at all well with me.
Soldiers are a sacrifice they are willing to make to prove that point, particularly as war becomes less about the soldiers and more about the equipment the soldiers operate. Actually let me take that back, war has always been about the equipment that soldiers operate, from spears to guns, from trebuchets to tanks, and from ballistae to ICBMs.
The soldiers serve two important roles here: 1. to operate the piece of equipment they are charged with effectively to accomplish their roles within a mission environment and 2. to occupy a piece of dirt with their continued, loyal and obedient, presence until their CO tells them to move along to the next piece of dirt down the road.
Until war is obsolete, so until life comes to an end on Earth basically, there are going to continue to be people eagerly awaiting the next battlefield to prove their points.
The carriers are deterrents, not weapons. They will be among the first major casualties of any true, open warfare. Carrier-defeating tech has been out for years; therefore they're only ever useful for policing actions - not full, symmetric war.
Or ASMs [1] if carrier air or seaspace is breached, carriers are heavily escorted though.
If nuclear deterrence (god forbid) is broken, then I guess aircraft carriers are pretty much sitting ducks.
0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_ballistic_missile
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_missile
If its not a weapon, it can't work as a deterrent, either.
Any country powerful enough to challenge a US carrier strike group in true, open warfare, isn't a country that is fighting a full symmetric conventional war with the United States. They're fighting a nuclear war.
They are weapons, powerful, effective, government-toppling weapons, and that is what makes them such effective deterrents. For the non-Chinas and non-Russias in the world, a carrier strike group is probably sufficient. If one won't do, how would you like two?
https://theaviationist.com/2016/12/08/four-of-the-most-exper...
I think this quote from a Marine F-35B pilot regarding an exercise pretty well says it all:
"I was leading a four ship of F-35s on a strike against 4th Gen adversaries, F-16s and F/A-18s. We fought our way in, we mapped the target, found the target, dropped JDAMs on the target and turned around and fought our way out. All the targets got hit, nobody got detected, and all the adversaries died. I thought, yes, this works, very, very, very well. Never detected, nobody had any idea we were out there."
The F-35B in particular is an amazing piece of engineering, and a vast improvement over any other STOVL aircraft.
Pardon me for my ignorance, why is that important? (My impression was "4th Gen adversaries" characterizes most, if not all, of the F-35's present adversaries.)
From the Wikipedia article on the J-20:
"In October 2017, Chinese state media reported that the designs of J-20 had been finalized, and is ready for mass production as well as combat-ready."
...however...
"As of March 2017 there are still a series of technical problems that need to be tackled, including the reliability of its WS-15 engines, [the aircraft's flight] control system, stealth coatings and hull materials, and infrared sensor."
The Russian Su-57 is equally questionable:
"In December 2014, the Russian Air Force planned to receive 55 fighters by 2020.[41] Yuri Borisov, Russia's deputy minister of defence for armaments stated in 2015 that the Air Force would slow production and reduce its initial order to 12 fighters and retain large fleets of fourth-generation fighters due to the nation's economy."
Both China and Russia are almost entirely dependent on their 4th Gen fighters at this point, and I expect the F-22 and F-35 will easily handle the J-20 if necessary. Regardless, 99.99% of potential adversaries are 4th Gen.
"At least six J-20s are in active service, with tail numbers 78271-78276 identified. Another six were believed ready to be delivered by end of Dec 2016.[86] On 9 March 2017, Chinese officials confirmed that the J-20 had entered service in the Chinese air force.
In September 2017, the J-20 officially entered military service with PLAAF, making China the second country in the world after United States wielding fifth-generation stealth aircraft, and the first in Asia.[87][87][88][16]
In January 2018, Chinese media reports that J-20 is in full operation-ready deployment.[89]"
https://www.economist.com/news/china/21737074-some-technolog...
"in two years’ time, if not before, America is likely to lose its monopoly of radar-beating stealth combat aircraft with the introduction into service of China’s Chengdu J-20. This has a much longer range than America’s new F-35 fighter and will be a serious threat to American warships in the Pacific."
"Another system, yet to be named, would provide China with an ability to knock out targets as far away as 400km, a far greater range than any other air-to-air weapon in service. It would threaten aircraft that currently operate safely from a considerable distance, such as tankers and planes used for airborne surveillance and control. "
In September 2017, the J-20 officially entered military service with PLAAF, making China the second country in the world after United States wielding fifth-generation stealth aircraft, and the first in Asia.[87][87][88][16]
In January 2018, Chinese media reports that J-20 is in full operation-ready deployment.'
Yeah, that all sounds great as propaganda. It's clear to any knowledgeable observer that the J-20 likely still has significant issues. As I mentioned before, it's also not at all clear how stealthy it is as well. There's a reason no other stealth aircraft has canards...
"in two years’ time, if not before, America is likely to lose its monopoly of radar-beating stealth combat aircraft with the introduction into service of China’s Chengdu J-20. This has a much longer range than America’s new F-35 fighter and will be a serious threat to American warships in the Pacific."
Carrier based F-35s will be in service soon (or already are in the case of the F-35B), countering the range advantage. All that said, the F-22 is the true counterpart to the J-20 and will likely mop the floor with it if necessary.
It's worth noting that for strike aircraft like the F-35, the main goal is avoiding detection to bomb targets. Stealth aircraft have no advantage over any other aircraft at detecting other stealth aircraft - making the J-20 no more of a threat than any Gen 4 aircraft.
"Another system, yet to be named, would provide China with an ability to knock out targets as far away as 400km, a far greater range than any other air-to-air weapon in service. It would threaten aircraft that currently operate safely from a considerable distance, such as tankers and planes used for airborne surveillance and control. "
Yep, that's interesting. I wonder how our jammers, anti-missile missiles, and directed energy weapons will fare against it...
https://chinapower.csis.org/china-chengdu-j-20/
This will handle Air combat quite fine.
"The short-range PL-10, which was introduced in 2015, is regarded by military analysts as comparable in performance to Western equivalents, such as the Sidewinder II. This year, the PL-15, a radar-guided “beyond visual range” missile (BVRAAM), should enter service. Carried by a J-20, the PL-15 can destroy an aircraft 50km away that is trying to evade it. “The Military Balance” believes that a version of the missile is in the works that will have a cruise speed of Mach 3. It is similar in design to the European Meteor, the best BVRAAM in the West’s inventory, which is only just entering service."
As you say J-20 will be used to deter aircraft carriers and warships.
"A 2015 RAND report noted the J-20’s “combination of forward stealth and long range could hold U.S. Navy surface assets at risk, and that a long-range maritime strike capability may be a cause for greater concern than a short-range air-superiority fighter like the F-22.” The J-20’s size and weapons configuration may, however, preclude it from functioning as an effective strike fighter in either context. Importantly, the mission types Chinese pilots are trained for may determine how the J-20 is eventually utilized."
"The U.S. Naval War College suggests that the J-20 could be an “effective surface-attack platform for out to several hundred nautical miles at sea.” Air Power Australia notes that the J-20 would be a suitable choice of aircraft for operating within China’s “first island chain” and “second island chain.” Should China integrate aerial refueling aircraft with the J-20, the stealth fighter’s operational range would extend even further across the Asia-Pacific."
Also note China is expected to deploy hypersonic weapons that are excellent for first strikes against naval forces.
It's not just air forces that are committed...both the US and UK navies have new carriers for which the F35 is the only realistic future option
If there are bugs, they will have to be ironed out. The costs are insane, but developing a new competitor at this stage would be even more outrageous
Keep in mind that unlike Russia, NATO can deploy planes in volume, staff the support, keep a parts supply chain, keep training with them regardless of costs. People will compare the F35 to a Russian jet on a 1-1 basis but the reality is a Russian fighter has a lower chance of even being combat ready, and if it did, it would be outnumbered by NATO fighters probably 5-1. I question if the Russian air Force can even realistically secure it's own borders
More to the point, many of the capabilities and their effectiveness of each fighters on both sides are probably shroud in secrecy. Engagement would reveal a lot of secrets between both sides, so they are likely to avoid it unless absolutely necessary.
The F16I was shot down over Israel not over Syria despite Syria having the capability to shoot down aircraft over the entire territory of Israel pretty much except for it's most southern parts it was always assumed that they would never fire at Israeli jets inside Israel's territory.
Last time when Syria fired at Israeli jets within Syrian territory Israel has uses it's missile defense system to shoot down the Syrian AA missiles however it seems that this time it didn't happen, likely due to the positioning of the jets within Israel.
So for the most part what would happen is that Israel would start taking evasive measures when flying combat sorties even in it's territory, likely go back to the same path it used to take which is fly low over the med then cross into Syria from it's coastline or through Lebanon via the Baalbek valley.
Israel would also likely push more ABM/AM batteries into it's northern parts to provide additional cover to it's air assets as well as potentially start using it's ground based standoff weapons rather than relying solely on air deployed munitions.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/misjudgment-not-negligence-beh...
That's not a decision which implies a tactical switch to the F-35 for that sort of mission.
Its equally disturbing to those of us who detest war, and war machines, and their 'glorious application' towards inhuman goals.
Honestly, its repulsive to have to deal with the notion of 'shiny death machines being pit against each other for fun and profit', and not let a protest be said, in kind.
For the cost of a single death machine, the will for war could be bought: you just use it to deliver books and medicine and food, instead of death and mayhem and misery.
Of course they will be much more efficient shiny war machines because they won't have the same human limits of G-forces, heat, oxygen, etc.
We've done that for decades with North Korea, and you see the result: North Korea armed with thermonuclear weapons and delivery systems that can reach most of the world.
Human nature, and competition for resources, guarantee war for the foreseeable future. Sorry to say, a strong deterrent is the only way to preserve the peace.
The argument "food doesn't work, so we'll just kill them" is heinous. Not gonna bother with your other points for that reason.
No one said, "we'll just kill them". The good thing is that NK is unlikely to kill us, since if it tries it won't survive as a political entity.
That is called "deterrence".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War
Perhaps NK shouldn't have been the aggressor and gotten a bunch of citizens killed... How many South Koreans do you suppose would rather NK had won?
Not only was North Korea the aggressor in the Korean War, it was not the United States acting unilaterally that opposed it but the United Nations. This was one of the only times in history that the United Nations declared war on a nation acting as a clear aggressor. Had the United Nations not intervened, then we would see an entire Korean peninsula run as foolishly and cruelly as the North is.
The DPRK's mythologizing of the war has done nothing but dig the North Korean people in general and the Kim regime in particular, into an ideological hole that they can't really get out of.
Congress then reneged on the deal. Three years later, Bush gave his famous axis of evil speech, and invaded one of the countries on the list.
Unsurprisingly, having taken one look at what happened to Saddam Hussein, and because it's not ran by suicidal morons, North Korea resumed their nuclear program.
Have we all collectively forgotten the past 19 years?
Major reasons for the breakdown of the Agreed Framework was that DPRK was never abiding by it to begin with. I mean it really shouldn't be up to the United States to bribe DPRK into not pursuing nuclear weapons; North Korea should just respect its preexisting agreements with South Korea and rely on its relationships with China and Russia for nuclear deterrence the same as South Korea relies on the United States. It's no coincidence that talks broke down at around the same time that the North Korean famine started to subside.
That speech by Bush, foolish as it was, was not given in a void. It was a response to decades of belligerence by the DPRK. The reason Saddam got invaded was because he deliberately mislead people about his weapons programs. If North Korea was a less belligerent entity, they would be having a much easier time dealing with the United States.
The United States also should not be making demands of the DPRK at gunpoint. If some agreement could not be reached, it would have bombed the Yongbyon reactor.
The NNPT is a voluntary agreement - one that its key signatories are arguably in violation of.
> That speech by Bush, foolish as it was, was not given in a void. It was a response to decades of belligerence by the DPRK.
The belligerence was not in a void. The country underwent a devastating war, and was subjected to decades of economic and political marginalisation, with the constant threat of another war hanging over it.
If the United States was less belligirent towards North Korea, they would also have a much easier time dealing with them. This is, of course, not a notion that is even entertained by the Department of State.
Pretty much everyone involved in this cesspool is smeared in shit. No-one comes out looking good.
If by 'decades of economic and political marginalisation' you mean it was on the Soviet side in the Cold War, then you are correct. But during that time DPRK had a strong alliance with the Soviet Union which provided them with enormous resources. Their economy was almost on par with the South. It wasn't until the collapse of the Soviet Union, in the 90s, that this changed and it was Korean belligerence in the 90s and 2000s that lead to the current state of affairs.
"The country underwent a devastating war"
Using the Korean war as justification for current North Korean foreign and domestic policies is as morally bankrupt as using the First World War as justification for Hitler's foreign and domestic policies. The DPRK has been the aggressor from the beginning.
"The NNPT is a voluntary agreement - one that its key signatories are arguably in violation of."
They signed other agreements... https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/KR%2...
"The United States also should not be making demands of the DPRK at gunpoint."
That strongly depends on the kind of demand being made. If the United States was demanding economic concessions, you'd be right, but that's the situation. The situation is that North Korea is making demands at gunpoint and is attempting to make even more devastating threats. In these negotiations, the United States has never threatened to attack North Korea's civilian population, nor has it threatened to use nuclear weapons. North Korea however, has done exactly the opposite.
There is no parity between North Korea's and the United States' actions here.
North Korea is not what you think it is or how people in North Korea see things. The goal for both Koreas is the same as it was for 'both Germanies' - unification. However, North Korea sees the war as very much imposed by America. The USA is the country seen as keeping the two Koreas apart. The arrangement sought by North Korea in this united kingdom is very much like how the deal goes for Scotland in the UK - devolution of sorts, albeit 'Juche' flavoured.
The leadership gig in North Korea is very much like what the Japanese imposed with a holy emperor type of person having absolute god like authority. This was the model for the Kim dynasty to follow.
So what is wrong with a united Korea?
In a matter of a generation a united Korea would be a GDP powerhouse with ample natural resources and great people. Korea would be unstoppable to become bigger than everyone except one or two others when it comes to global clout. Really there would be no excuses for not giving Korea a seat at the UN, plus their currency could be up there with the Euro as a currency to trade in.
So it serves the interests of everyone else on the UN to have Korea divided. And occupied in the South by good old 'global policeman' Uncle Sam.
We live in a Western world of Full Spectrum Dominance, discussion of North Korea is skewed so that we imagine these hordes from the North flattening all those big cities in the south with their cruddy armaments and dirty bombs. However, any understanding of the North Korean position and any appreciation of their goals puts out of mind these silly Western fears. It is just propaganda, a shaping of Western minds, a filter bubble that has been going on for 75 or so years, inescapable.
Anyone in the West that attempts to read the words of the North and try to understand their position is to be scapegoated and regarded with suspicion. In the West our views have to be suckled from the teat of the TV news, there is no scope for listening to the other side. We have our news journalists to not do that for us so we don't have to either.
I also think you're kind of glossing over the fact that the DPRK is a profoundly brutal totalitarian regime that holds hundreds of thousands of political prisoners in concentration camps, along with numerous other human rights violations. You don't think that might be the reason the country is hated globally? Or at least contribute to it?
> We live in a Western world of Full Spectrum Dominance, discussion of North Korea is skewed so that we imagine these hordes from the North flattening all those big cities in the south with their cruddy armaments and dirty bombs.
Have you read up on the DPRK military? They have thousands of artillery positions throughout the country, most of which are capable of reaching Seoul, along with key military installations. It's crappy artillery, but there's a lot of it and they can really make it rain down on civilians. Studies have suggested that even if the US devoted the entirety of its air power in the Pacific to destroying those artillery positions, it would take a week to remove all of them. During which time they could fire indiscriminately at population centers. Even an Iron Dome-like defense system wouldn't be able to handle that volume of artillery.
North Korea wouldn't win any war with the US, but they could take a lot of South Koreans down with them.
> In a matter of a generation a united Korea would be a GDP powerhouse with ample natural resources and great people. Korea would be unstoppable to become bigger than everyone except one or two others when it comes to global clout
[citation needed]
> Really there would be no excuses for not giving Korea a seat at the UN
North Korea has been a full member of the UN since 1991
> In the West our views have to be suckled from the teat of the TV news, there is no scope for listening to the other side. We have our news journalists to not do that for us so we don't have to either.
This sort of ad hominem attack on the abstract concept of "the West" really doesn't add anything to your argument.
I mean, at the same time we convinced Gaddafi to quit his nuclear weapons program and then pounced on him as soon as we could without international backlash. We sent a clear signal that we only respect the sovereignty of nuclear powers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-...
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/03/in...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-usa-order/exclusive...
fuck the motherfuckers who think any of this is good, and fuck what they stand for. murder subjugation and all the rest of the shit is what humans have been up to forever, and I think we should stop.
alternatively, somebody comes up with a valid reason why it's good for us... then maybe we all agree to start doing it intentionally, and vigorously, and ceaselessly... and we achieve the final solution for all humanity.
http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/security/spy-f35s-s...
In some technologies, it has surpassed it"
https://www.economist.com/news/china/21737074-some-technolog...
"in two years’ time, if not before, America is likely to lose its monopoly of radar-beating stealth combat aircraft with the introduction into service of China’s Chengdu J-20. This has a much longer range than America’s new F-35 fighter and will be a serious threat to American warships in the Pacific."
"At least as worrying for American commanders in the region is the dramatic upgrading of China’s inventory of air-to-air missiles (AAMs). The short-range PL-10, which was introduced in 2015, is regarded by military analysts as comparable in performance to Western equivalents, such as the Sidewinder II. This year, the PL-15, a radar-guided “beyond visual range” missile (BVRAAM), should enter service. Carried by a J-20, the PL-15 can destroy an aircraft 50km away that is trying to evade it. “The Military Balance” believes that a version of the missile is in the works that will have a cruise speed of Mach 3. "
*https://www.thebalance.com/cost-of-afghanistan-war-timeline-...
https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-military-budget-components-ch...
For a fraction of that I'm pretty sure we could be well under way of self-sustaining colonization of other Solar System bodies.
- department of energy ($24B)
- department of education ($45B)
- department of transportation ($73B)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_execut...
Conversely, any land war in North Korea I feel would end disastrously for them - as it arguably did the first time around.
Well other than the 'carrier killer' missiles like the DF-21D.
According to a former US State department official (I heard on a recent podcast interview), China never cared to take Taiwan. If they wanted to, all they need to do is cut off access to fresh water from the Chinese mainland.
The US might be able to prevent a ground invasion or counter-attack missile batteries, but the island will fall quickly if China put it's mind to the task.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party
They've made 3 posts here, all of which are quoting pro-chinese military articles with minimal contributions of their own.
https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=wrg91237
Not the first time I've seen stuff like this.
> "Please don't impute astroturfing or shillage. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about it, email us and we'll look at the data."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
This has a much longer range than America’s new F-35 fighter and will be a serious threat to American warships in the Pacific."
In the 21st century, serious threats to warships abound. However, when it comes to China, the real question for the US is how well the US can keep China contained, curtailing China's projection of power towards Taiwan, Japan, and other parts of the region. Superior weapons can help, but distance and logistics are still huge factors, which can work to China's advantage sometimes, and against it other times.
In other words, the issue is a lot more complex than who has the "best" stealth fighter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals
One should be a little skeptical of these kinds of deals and how they are made given their past skeeziness.