China Unveils Yet Another Stealth Jet: Shenyang J-31

[DeltaV]

There's no reason to ever put a pilot in a fighter plane again.

There is, for the next few decades, which is the period when the China issue will be determined, one way or the other.

Schwartz: AF needs manned aircraft despite UAVs

Despite the Air Force’s emphasis on unmanned drones, manned aircraft are not going away, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told reporters on Tuesday.

“Manned aviation will be part of the chemistry because at least for the near term, the Remotely Piloted Aircraft capability is not for contested airspace,” Schwartz said. “It is a benign airspace capability."

The Air Force will continue to need manned aircraft, such as the F-35s, for at least 30 more years to be able to penetrate sophisticated air defense systems, Schwartz said at his final press conference as chief.

We have slugged this out in the past. No need to regurgitate.
viewtopic.php?t=1599&sid=4359fb56d48470 ... 8b96e0335a
viewtopic.php?t=1643&sid=4359fb56d48470 ... 8b96e0335a
viewtopic.php?t=2624&sid=4359fb56d48470 ... 8b96e0335a
viewtopic.php?t=3302&sid=4359fb56d48470 ... 8b96e0335a

The core of the China issue is whether or not 1.3+ billion people will continue to tolerate being undemocratically ruled over by a wealthy, privileged, authoritarian, one-party, militaristic dictatorship.

The vastly-outnumbered Communist Party leaders fear a popular uprising far more than the US. If push comes to shove, they will start a war to keep the populace under control.

[paperburn1]

There's no reason to ever put a pilot in a fighter plane again.

There is, for the next few decades, which is the period when the China issue will be determined, one way or the other.


The core of the China issue is whether or not 1.3+ billion people will continue to tolerate being undemocratically ruled over by a wealthy, privileged, authoritarian, one-party, militaristic dictatorship.

The vastly-outnumbered Communist Party leaders fear a popular uprising far more than the US. If push comes to shove, they will start a war to keep the populace under control.

I believe they are already trying, have you seen the confrontation with the Philippines and after we intervened over there back at it again now with Japans islands.

[GIThruster]

in the 60s they said planes would not need guns any more and then they found their new fangled machine aka AAMs didn't work very well. Their K/D ratio went from 10:1 in Korea to 3:1 in Vietnam.
A-8 Crusader was having more success the F-4 Phantom until they put an external gun pod on the Phantom.

All this to say this nothing beats the human mind and the Mark 1 eyeball on site. The unmanned is great until your enemy figures out a way to render them useless.

And thirdly, war should not be sanitary. If it is perceived as the horror it is, than more effort will be spent to avoid it in the first place.

While I might agree with your sentiments on the issue, we're not making US Defense policy decisions and I can assure you, UCAVS will replace manned fighters. The notion that war should not be sanitary makes sense from an objective position. It does not make any sense from that of the warfighter. It is the commander's job to keep his men as safe as possible, and if in order to do this he needs to build UAV's, then you can expect that's what will be done. To do less would make command guilty of gross negligence in placing soldiers at risk without cause.

Try to keep in mind that this charge that killing should not be made sanitary, was made against the crossbow, against the rifle, against poison gas, against bombs falling from the air, against mines, against laser guided bombs, against laser equipped AC-130 Spookies, and against all other forms of modern precision strike weapons. Fact is though, killing the enemy without killing your people or collateral damage is a noble goal in war. In the face of this one has to expect rational war planners to build drones and irrational war planners to use suicide agents to achieve similar goals.

BTW, the kill rate with the Phantom was not the fault of the Phantom. It was he fault of the missiles. Expect the gun to go missing in the future as well. the designers of the Phantom II were correct, even if a couple decades too early. A gun is not necessary in a modern fighter and takes the place of needed ordinance. Especially now that we want all weapons in interior bays, there's no room to waste on a gun that never needs to be used.

[GIThruster]

[removed double post]

[Stubby]

in the 60s they said planes would not need guns any more and then they found their new fangled machine aka AAMs didn't work very well. Their K/D ratio went from 10:1 in Korea to 3:1 in Vietnam.
A-8 Crusader was having more success the F-4 Phantom until they put an external gun pod on the Phantom.

All this to say this nothing beats the human mind and the Mark 1 eyeball on site. The unmanned is great until your enemy figures out a way to render them useless.

And thirdly, war should not be sanitary. If it is perceived as the horror it is, than more effort will be spent to avoid it in the first place.

While I might agree with your sentiments on the issue, we're not making US Defense policy decisions and I can assure you, UCAVS will replace manned fighters. The notion that war should not be sanitary makes sense from an objective position. It odes not make any sense from that of the warfighter. It is the Commanders's job to bring all him home, and if in order to do this he needs to build UAV's, then you can expect that's what will be done. To do less would make command guilty of gross negligence in placing soldiers at risk without cause.

Try to keep in mind that this charge that killing should not be made sanitary, was made against the crossbow, against the rifle, against poison gas, against bombs falling from the air, against mines, against laser guided bombs, against laser equipped AC-130 Spookies, and against all other forms of modern precision strike weapons. Fact is though, killing the enemy without kitting your people or anyone else killed is a noble goal in war. In the face of this one has to expect rational war planners to build drones and irrational war planners to use suicide agents to achieve similar goals.

BTW, the kill rate with the phantom was not the fault of the phantom. It was he fault of the missiles. Expect the gun to go missing in the future as well.

Yes I know it was not the F-4's fault. Great airplane. Just bad missile making companies convincing the airforce that air-to-air gunnery was over. Yay for lobbyists!

I don't know how anyone can make an argument for the weapons/systems you mentioned. In each of those, someone is/can shoot back at you. Maybe the point you make holds with precision weapons like Tomahawks or JDAMs simply because their range is so great that the vulnerable launch vehicle is so far removed from the danger.

[GIThruster]

The F-35 look around (I agree, need to limit public discussion) is amazing.
That and the other kit, makes it a formidable foe. F-22 or 35 in a group fight is going to be practically unbeatable.

F-35 has always been a junk jobs program for a fighter that will be outmatched on the first day it takes the field. We won't build more than a few hundred, and our allies would be well advised to hold out for UCAV's since the F-35 is hopeless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITbGBmaq ... re=related

F/A-XX has all sorts of grandeous goals and perhaps it can be rushed to replace the 20 year mistake that is the F-35, but it won't come in time to make us secure. Right now the only hope I see of a next gen fighter being built in time is an X-47C>F/A-XX.

[GIThruster]

And then you add passive radar into the mix and stealth seems like yesterdays news.

Only first and second generation stealth craft were designed to defeat things like passive radar. The intention of modern stealth craft is to get within weapons lock range without entering into an opponents weapons lock range, fire a missile and be gone before an opponent can get a lock. This is what makes the F-22 the world's most powerful fighter, at least until we get evidence to the contrary of the newer Russian and Chinese fighters, which we have no detailed data on.

[Diogenes]

And thirdly, war should not be sanitary. If it is perceived as the horror it is, than more effort will be spent to avoid it in the first place.

Exactly. That is why after the horrors of trench warfare in World War I, we never had another war.

[djolds1]

Chinese don't have to fight us, just their neighbors. What do their neighbors have? Disputed islands, no military to speak of? Also, weapons are more useful as show, war is expensive and loses customers. For those that think that military expenditures create jobs, one estimate is that for every government job or government contracted job, three are lost in the private sector. But the Chinese seem to be copying the American model in (nearly) all respects.

The Chinese want territorial dominance over WESTPAC out to at least the first island chain, and preferably the second island chain. Just as the Caribbean and Western Atlantic is an American Lake thanks to the Monroe Doctrine and enduring American power, the Chinese want to carve out a similar preserve in precedent and reality. To do that, the Chinese need to establish a credible force to suppress American Carrier Battle Groups in those waters. They don't ever need to sink one, but they need the capability to do so on hand at all times. The point is to intimidate America and the USN into acquiescence, not to obtain via main force - much as the USN's Great White Fleet buildup was intended vs the RN over a century ago.

Thus recent Chinese focus on the J-20 (stealth strikes on CBGs), Antiship ballistic missiles, their own carrier aviation as a way to enforce their will beyond the desired island chain reserve into the Indian Ocean, and so on.

[Skipjack]

I am convinced that UAVs will be a perfect is put together with manned fighters. E.g. they can act as decoys and first waves against passive radar guided anti aicraft batteries. Send small stealthy UAVs ahead of your manned fighters to scout for their defenses. It opens a whole new range of tactics that are not possible if you have to worry about brining your pilots home savely.
Let me add that I do not regard China as a thread. I think that they are more interested in selling their new stealth planes to enemies of the US than they are in using them against the US.

[ladajo]

Chinese don't have to fight us, just their neighbors. What do their neighbors have? Disputed islands, no military to speak of? Also, weapons are more useful as show, war is expensive and loses customers. For those that think that military expenditures create jobs, one estimate is that for every government job or government contracted job, three are lost in the private sector. But the Chinese seem to be copying the American model in (nearly) all respects.

The Chinese want territorial dominance over WESTPAC out to at least the first island chain, and preferably the second island chain. Just as the Caribbean and Western Atlantic is an American Lake thanks to the Monroe Doctrine and enduring American power, the Chinese want to carve out a similar preserve in precedent and reality. To do that, the Chinese need to establish a credible force to suppress American Carrier Battle Groups in those waters. They don't ever need to sink one, but they need the capability to do so on hand at all times. The point is to intimidate America and the USN into acquiescence, not to obtain via main force - much as the USN's Great White Fleet buildup was intended vs the RN over a century ago.

Thus recent Chinese focus on the J-20 (stealth strikes on CBGs), Antiship ballistic missiles, their own carrier aviation as a way to enforce their will beyond the desired island chain reserve into the Indian Ocean, and so on.

You are attempting to talk about the difference between Sea Control and Sea Denial, as well as Air Sea Battle and Anti-Access/Access Denial issues. You really need to study up on what you are trying to talk about.

China is not 10 feet tall, and they know it. I would also say that they think the US is 10 feet tall.

[djolds1]

The Chinese want territorial dominance over WESTPAC out to at least the first island chain, and preferably the second island chain. Just as the Caribbean and Western Atlantic is an American Lake thanks to the Monroe Doctrine and enduring American power, the Chinese want to carve out a similar preserve in precedent and reality. To do that, the Chinese need to establish a credible force to suppress American Carrier Battle Groups in those waters. They don't ever need to sink one, but they need the capability to do so on hand at all times. The point is to intimidate America and the USN into acquiescence, not to obtain via main force - much as the USN's Great White Fleet buildup was intended vs the RN over a century ago.

Thus recent Chinese focus on the J-20 (stealth strikes on CBGs), Antiship ballistic missiles, their own carrier aviation as a way to enforce their will beyond the desired island chain reserve into the Indian Ocean, and so on.

You are attempting to talk about the difference between Sea Control and Sea Denial, as well as Air Sea Battle and Anti-Access/Access Denial issues. You really need to study up on what you are trying to talk about.

China is not 10 feet tall, and they know it. I would also say that they think the US is 10 feet tall.

The USN and DoD basing structure/ Combatant Commands are to today what the RN was to a century ago - master of the world's seaways and commerce. Just like the UK on the Continent back in the day, the US tries to constrain would-be regional hegemons through alliance structures and balances of power. The Chinese are trying to break that model in their near-abroad, which will give them a firm base region from which to extend influence. I don't think the Chinese want the "Global Policeman" job, but they do want a regional seaborne buffer zone and sphere of influence the borders of which they can test and probe.

The American military may be ten feet tall, but it has to spread itself thin. Contra, China sees itself as the eternal Middle Kingdom - traditional and proper master of East Asia. In typical Confucian fashion, the lesser powers should submit to China just as a younger brothers accede to the older brother. India is the regional wild card, but its modernization has been slower and less smooth than that of China. If China moves fast, it can solidify a lead the Indians won't be able to challenge for a century, minimum.

Assuming they can secure their Island Chain buffer, the Chinese look set to expand into the Indian Ocean. Chinese resource expansion in East Africa looks like a modernized and multi-pronged version of the East India Company, and appears to be a great place to send the bare branches for families, wealth and status without needing to resort to the traditional "male surplus population disposal" method of war.

[DeltaV]

India is the regional wild card, but its modernization has been slower and less smooth than that of China. If China moves fast, it can solidify a lead the Indians won't be able to challenge for a century, minimum.

India is hindered by a lack of cultural uniformity (tribal squabbles), but it also has a much younger (= energetic) population.

China is faced with a rapidly aging population and has only a few decades to achieve any serious expansion, hence the rush. Just look at how fast their space program is progressing.

[David_Jay]

There's no reason to ever put a pilot in a fighter plane again.

There is, for the next few decades, which is the period when the China issue will be determined, one way or the other.


The core of the China issue is whether or not 1.3+ billion people will continue to tolerate being undemocratically ruled over by a wealthy, privileged, authoritarian, one-party, militaristic dictatorship.

The vastly-outnumbered Communist Party leaders fear a popular uprising far more than the US. If push comes to shove, they will start a war to keep the populace under control.

I believe they are already trying, have you seen the confrontation with the Philippines and after we intervened over there back at it again now with Japans islands.

And as a frequent traveler to the Middle Kingdom for a dozen years, I have observed that the leadership ramps up the foreign devil rhetoric (most commonly Japan or Taiwan) every time they want to distract from internal problems. I suspect they have some enormous economic/financial system problems at the moment with the fleet of fishing vessels visiting the Japanese islands and large demonstrations against Japanese firms. My spidey sense tells me something's up...

[ladajo]

There is a strong argument about the current behavior of the Chinese Regime being driven by internal concerns.

If you wish to explore some, one of the leading advocates of this view, is Dr. Robert Ross from Boston College.

The ideas have some merit, especially when coupled with an understanding of internal Chinese System Disconnects.

Ross aruges that China, since 2008/09 especially, has faced an unprecendented (in its own perception) internal control crisis.
One of Ross's supporting arguments invovles a comparison of internal police and national police type spending compared to military spending. Ironically, I was just talking to him about this stuff the day before yesterday.