China's Carrier Killer

[RN7]

I couldn't tell you what publication it was but I was thumbing through a British aviation mag at the local Barnes & Noble and there was an article about China's ongoing attempts at modernizing it's combat air fleet. In the article, a Chinese official announced that China was 10 years or so from fielding its own, home-grown gen-5 fighter aircraft. There was a photo of a mock-up and it looked suspiciously like the Northrup F-23.

Raellus take a look at the following links to see what the Chinese air force is currently flying.

http://www.scramble.nl/cn.htm
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/default.asp
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...laaf-equip.htm

The best combat aircaft they have is the Russian Su-27SK/Su-30. Barely 20%of their combat airforce would be capable of taking on front-line USAF/USN/USMC fighters, let alone achieving air superiority. How are they going to put a 5th generation aircraft in service within 10 years on their own?

As I said before, the Chinese are building their military for large-scale conventional conflicts, while the U.S. is not.

What was the Gulf war, the Invasion of Iraq and ongoing fight against the Taleban in Afghanistan? The US is better prepared than any country for a conventional war.

Who will be better prepared for a war in the East Asian theatre in 10-20 years? If current trends continue, I'd put my money on the Chinese.

East Asia is China's back yard, its not America's, so the Chinese have the natural advantage of being there in the first place. However America more than any country is and will be able to send air, sea and land forces to that reason to deter Chinese aggression against countries friendly to America like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan etc.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by RN7

America more than any country is and will be able to send air, sea and land forces to that reason to deter Chinese aggression against countries friendly to America like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan etc.

Unless of course the American economy continues it's downward spiral into the toilet and they can't afford to maintain what they've already got...
Who knows what will happen in 10-20 years? All I know is that it takes money, lots and lots of money to field and maintain the nice hi-tech equipment.
The Chinese economy is growing. The American economy is in a little difficulty.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by RN7

The best combat aircaft they have is the Russian Su-27SK/Su-30. Barely 20%of their combat airforce would be capable of taking on front-line USAF/USN/USMC fighters, let alone achieving air superiority. How are they going to put a 5th generation aircraft in service within 10 years on their own?

I didn't make the claim, the Chinese did. I'm sure that they are overestimating a bit but I don't doubt that they intend to do it. Given their recent successes at modernization, they probably will. Their AF is far more capable today than it was 20 years ago. In another 20, they will have further closed the technological gap on us.

And there's something to be said for sheer numbers and interior lines of supply. If the U.S. and China went to war in east Asia, the U.S. forces would be at the end of a very long lines of supply while the Chinese would be fighting essentially in their own backyard.

Originally Posted by RN7

What was the Gulf war, the Invasion of Iraq and ongoing fight against the Taleban in Afghanistan? The US is better prepared than any country for a conventional war.

You are right about the Desert Storm and OIF. You could not be more wrong about the war in Afghanistan. It is the epitome of a guerilla/counterinsurgency war. No NATO ground force commander would call what's going on over there a conventional war. (If you mean "non-nuclear" you are correct, but that would be putting words in your mouth). This fundamental slip actually supports my point that the Chinese are not to be taken lightly. Despite our massive technological superiority over the Taliban, including complete air supremacy, the U.S. and its allies have not been able to defeat them strategically after 9 years of combat operations. And you are claiming that the U.S can defeat a country of 1.3 billion people, with the world's largest military, fighting on home soil (or close to it)? You are failing to see the forrest for the trees.

[Abbott Shaull]

As far as Afghanistan goes, the Soviets were there for almost 10 years and they had superior technology and couldn't win the war. The locals are only doing what I would suspect, people would do when some foreign army moves in. They are fighting back. Much like the French did during WWII, and numerous other places since.

There are many countries in Asia and Africa that remain nation in name only where very little beyond the Capital is under the control of the "Central Goverment".

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

As far as Afghanistan goes, the Soviets were there for almost 10 years and they had superior technology and couldn't win the war. The locals are only doing what I would suspect, people would do when some foreign army moves in. They are fighting back. Much like the French did during WWII, and numerous other places since.

There are many countries in Asia and Africa that remain nation in name only where very little beyond the Capital is under the control of the "Central Goverment".

The French were not the best exemple you could come up with. French freedom fighters were active but they were far from being fighting all the way back. Yougoslavia, Poland, Netherland and even Germany were much better exemples. 2 million germans were killed during ww2 fighting Nazi. They were the most active freedom fighter and could not count on any ally support.

In Afghanistan, I can see only two ways of winning the war: Genocide of most of the Afghan population (perfectly inacceptable for US) and paying warlords/talibans (increasingly bearable). It was the same for the Soviets. As long as they remained in Afghanistan they were on the losing side. From 1988 to 1991, the communist government of Afghanistan reverted to victory. It would have achieved it if soviet backing (3 billion US$/year) had not stopped in 1991. Something else about Afghanistan, NATO has soldiers, they have warriors.