China's huge military advantages against US

[Martian2]

lol, face palm



Yeah, except you forgot in real life, your J-20 will need to "Vectored" to the non-stealth that fueling the -22 in some 500 nm away, you are saying your J-20 can shoot down any non-stealth before being vectored to target either.

J-20 is uber quick, which can cover 500 nautical mile in 10 second to get in range to engage the non-stealth.
J-20 have uber long range missile, which can shoot down an aircraft that long range
You assume the non stealth US fueller refuel on or near your J20 airfield.

Another face palm, yeah, even if the refuelling happening in US east coast, J-20 can simply shoot down the refueller because they are non-stealth, lol



lol, you know that? How? Then explain to me why all Navy Aircraft and even PLAAF uses probe and drogue refuelling technique?



Are you for real??

You do know you can launch a V-22 and F-18 at the moment before the F-22 need them, and they can be brought back to the carrier after they are done. Not to mention the purpose of refuelling is to allow the aircraft to have the range "TO REACH THE ENEMY" you don't refuel within enemy territories, and again, unless your J-20 can reach the refuelling 500 to 1000 nm away in time to attack the refuelling duo. What you say is simply, dumb.



lol, face palm..........I cannot even imagine how stupid you are.

@gambit

Look, you're crazy. You can't point to a single reputable citation to back up your stupid ideas.

I don't have the time to waste on your Looney Tune proposals.

1. Aircraft carriers cannot get close to China's coast.
2. Hence, V-22s and F-18s cannot be positioned to refuel F-22s enroute from Guam to China.
3. The fuel demands will rise exponentially as V-22s and F-18s consume fuel.
4. The time requirement would be extremely onerous. The time required to fuel a fleet of V-22s and F-18s would be enormous. Also, the amount of fuel is extremely limited on a carrier. An island base with massive fuel storage tanks doesn't have this problem.

The list of problems is too extensive. No one has advocated your crazy idea.

 

[VCheng]

You have 100% of your military at the battlefield. The US is on the opposite side of the planet. What is your post supposed to prove???

You are stating the obvious.

If you don't think you have the obvious advantage you are nutz.

The OP assumes that the KC-135s will be undefended (and those are not the only types of tankers in the air). What follows that erroneous assumption is 100% crap.

 

[313baberali]

Look at the map. China has at least 40 airbases. The US only has seven.

American Innovation: The Future of America's Eagles Part II

"United States airbases in proximity to China. Red aircraft icons represent PLAAF bases. Image credit: RAND, 2008."
----------

As I had mentioned previously, China has 41 underground airbases. The US has none. This means US oil tanks can be easily destroyed. You can't fight a war without access to jet fuel, munition supplies, or repair facilities.
Source: Assessing PLA Underground Air Basing Capability

Let's just assume the US has access to jet fuel. How does the US intend to refuel F-22s in the air? China can easily shoot down the KC-135 tankers. Without air refueling, the short-legged F-22 (with a combat radius of 400 nautical miles) will never reach the battlefield.

The United States needs 63 KC-135 tankers that fly 86 sorties per day. Squadrons of Chinese J-20 stealth fighters (with a combat radius of 1,200 nautical miles) can easily shoot down the KC-135 tankers. Without tankers, the war is over for the F-22s.

American Innovation: The Uncertain Future of America's Raptors - Part I Introduction

"Raptor sortie generation rates from Andersen. Image Credit: RAND, 2008."

lol so what all allies bases china will use to attack us?..lol guess what japan will give bases to china to attack american bases in japan ......and america will use only 7 basis to defend it self and its allies lol

 

[jhungary]

Look, you're crazy. You can't point to a single reputable citation to back up your stupid ideas.

I don't have the time to waste on your Looney Tune proposals.

1. Aircraft carriers cannot get close to China's coast.
2. Hence, V-22s and F-18s cannot be positioned to refuel F-22s enroute from Guam to China.
3. The fuel demands will rise exponentially as V-22s and F-18s consume fuel.
4. The time requirement would be extremely onerous. The time required to fuel a fleet of V-22s and F-18s would be enormous. Also, the amount of fuel is extremely limited on a carrier. An island base with massive fuel storage tanks doesn't have this problem.

The list of problems is too extensive. No one has advocated your crazy idea.

OMG..........

1.) You WON'T NEED A REFUELLER if the F-22 is already in Chinese Coast. Ergo, You need a refueller 1000km + before reaching Chinese Coast. Ergo, you need a refueller to position between your aircraft and mid point to your destination, once you reach your destination, why the hack you would refuel there?

2.) V-22 and F-18 DO NOT need to get in to Chinese coast. I

3.) No, because they will be taking on "External Storage"

4.) LOL, I don't even know where to begin, for example, an Aircraft carrier carries 90 days provision on combat operation, hence 90 days of food, and Aviation Fuel.

I laugh at your ignorant.

 

[Martian2]

The OP assumes that the KC-135s will be undefended (and those are not the only types of tankers in the air). What follows that erroneous assumption is 100% crap.

How do you defend a big fat target against a long range air-to-air missile? You can't.

Unless you can provide a reputable citation to show that KC-135 tankers are survivable near China's coast, I suggest you agree with the overwhelming consensus that refueling operations near China are impossible.

 

[VCheng]

How do you defend a big fat target against a long range air-to-air missile? You can't.

Unless you can provide a reputable citation to show that KC-135 tankers are survivable near China's coast, I suggest you agree with the overwhelming consensus that refueling operations near China are impossible.

Ever heard of buddy-to-buddy refueling?

 

[jhungary]

The OP assumes that the KC-135s will be undefended (and those are not the only types of tankers in the air). What follows that erroneous assumption is 100% crap.

And he assume the tanker refuel "Within" Chinese Coast........This is the most face palm thing I ever heard lol

I meant, if you reach Chinese Coast, you have reach your destination already, why do you need to refuel?

 

[VCheng]

And he assume the tanker refuel "Within" Chinese Coast........This is the most face palm thing I ever heard lol

The first threes letters in such assumptions make the point better.

 

[Martian2]

And he assume the tanker refuel "Within" Chinese Coast........This is the most face palm thing I ever heard lol

Look, the rules of discussion are not that hard.

When you propose a crazy idea and I demand that you provide a reputable citation to back it up, you either put up or go away.

Since you cannot provide a single reputable citation to support your far-fetched idea, there is no need to waste time on it.

See how that works?

Go find a reputable citation to back up your suggestion or go start your own crazy thread.

I only discuss serious ideas in my threads.

 

[jhungary]

The first threes letters in such assumptions make the point better.

lol, maybe China had developed quantum drive which can make J-20 materialize out of thin air.......Otherwise I don't know how they could have shot the tanker down. Without even reaching them....

Look, the rules of discussion are not that hard.

When you propose a crazy idea and I demand that you provide a reputable citation to back it up, you either put up or go away.

Since you cannot provide a single reputable citation to support your far-fetched idea, there is no need to waste time on it.

See how that works?

Go find a reputable citation to back up your suggestion or go start your own crazy thread.

I only discuss serious ideas in my threads.

lol, you have this conclusion and you call me far fetch??

LOL....

Do you even know how Mid-Air Refuelling works? You refuel BEFORE you reach your enemy, so you would have fuel to reach your enemy, you don't do it after you have reach Enemy Territories.

 

[Martian2]

The point of this thread is very simple.

1. The US only has seven bases in the Pacific. Six of them can be easily destroyed by ballistic and cruise missiles.
2. For the sake of argument, we're going to assume that Guam, its runways, and fuel storage tanks are undamaged. The reality is that China's DF-26 can destroy those assets, but we're assuming the runways can be repaired quickly. Also, we're assuming fuel is available somehow on Guam.
3. The original post shows that the fuel needed is in the millions of gallons.
4. A fleet of KC-135 tankers will be required to fly tens of sorties per day.
5. Given the onerous fuel requirements and vulnerability of KC-135 tankers, the idea of maintaining F-22 combat capability near China is pretty remote.

The original post is based on an analysis by RAND and the illustrations were created by RAND.

Given RAND's analysis, it is my conclusion that China has a major logistical advantage in a potential Pacific war.

 

[jhungary]

The point to this thread is quite simple.

• J-20 can destroy anything non stealth
• One single J-20 can destroy 400 F-16 and 100 F-18 because they are non-stealth
• F-35 is no match to anything in PLAAF inventory
• US Aircraft only refuel mid air above Chinese Coast.
• Mighty DF-26 destroy all. \

Basically, nuff said, all hail Chinese Military Might

Good Day All

 

[Nike]

The op never heard jsow, jsom, taurus kepd, and other stand off misiles.


Notwithstanding with reality, US and her allies is capable to launch a conventional decapited surgical strike against china without the latter capable to retaliate properly. Hence the PLAAF is in need to build such a preventive measures like building underground bunker to prevent their fleets to be obliterated at first minute of shooting works.

Fortunately the guys in charge in PLA is mostly rational and knowing their own capability unlike some fanboys who acknowledge himself as achair general. LoL

The point to this thread is quite simple.

• J-20 can destroy anything non stealth
• One single J-20 can destroy 400 F-16 and 100 F-18 because they are non-stealth
• F-35 is no match to anything in PLAAF inventory
• US Aircraft only refuel mid air above Chinese Coast.
• Mighty DF-26 destroy all. \

Basically, nuff said, all hail Chinese Military Might

Good Day All

Its very true,

No one can dare the mighty China. OMG we all is afraid of them

But in reality is dictate otherwise

China is yet to show her stand off capability. The Russian has proven themselves to the world for acquiring this capability.

Second Chinese navy is still lacking in the face of joint US-JMSDF for air defence umbrella and long range engagement. Not to mention other US ally who will eagerly to joint the fray to test their newly acquired capability like Royal Navy and French Navy

Third. India and Vietnam factor

 

[terranMarine]

India and Vietnam involved in Taiwan crisis? The only one who wants to meddle between Mainland and Taiwan is the US, other SEA neighbors including Japan do not want to get involved.

 

[anon45]

Same as SKorea or Japan will not allow a single US warplane launched from their soil or US military airbase to involve in any military conflict with China. It will mean their land is open to any retaliation from China missile.

How would they stop US planes from taking off? Shoot them down?

Frankly you can argue it leaves them open to retaliation but at the end of the day its in the US interest to bring in other countries against China and China's interest to prevent that.

Also unrelated, if we are including J-20 in this discussion we really have to include the F-35, as it is farther along in development.

Its sensor fusion capabilities could do wonders at enhancing the effectiveness of legacy jets and F-22's in Taiwanese airspace.

Having an integrated view of the battlespace is very important.

Plus if they are travelling with legacy fighters wouldn't pilots tend to focus on the higher rcs F-18 they can see vs the F-35 or F-22 they cant?