J20 Shock to PLAAF

[gambit]

Guess what, because thats more realistic

Of course you have to say that about Marty and his...errr...'analyses'...

He is here. The PLA generals and admirals who produced that embarrassing Desert Storm analysis are no longer in service. But never mind that the PLA had their own sources and intelligent people working for them and they still turned out mega-wrong, Marty has only -- himself. And he is 'realistic'.

Bottom line is this...None of you dare to challenge Marty, not because he knows what he is talking about, he does not, but because you guys are TERRIFIED of disagreeing with a fellow Chinese, and that is what Marty is counting on.

I tell you what an scenario that could remote close to worst case will look like:

(1) China sink all major US navy assert in first 15 mins of the shooting war, (2)and take out most of the US fighters in airport with cruise missiles and ballastic missiles. (3) China take full advantage of F-22's range issue, and therefore there is no "F-22 wall" in RAND case.

And I can say this...

The American B-1s and B-2s took out all the major PLAAF bases. Airspace penetration high and low. B-52s jams all the major EM freqs. The entire SCS region is isolated from mainland China from the air, leaving the US Navy supreme on the surface and below.

As for the Iraq war, I remebered a PLA general critized Iraq army's strategy, they think it is unbelievable that Saddam had not launch a major invasion to Sandi Arabia before the US army become ready months later.

And he maybe wrong.

The Saudis would resist. They can even tactically withdraw and lure Iraqi forces deeper into the Saudi deserts, leaving Iraq vulnerable from the Med. Further, Iraq had to mind Iran at the same time. How many other scenarios do you want to go?

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

I don't think these exercises are particularly important. They are very limited in scope.

In a real battle, China's Chengdu J-20 stealth fighter works within a system.
China has a wide range of ground-based anti-stealth radars (L-band, VHF, UHF, and passive detection of enemy electromagnetic emissions).
China has sea-based anti-stealth radars. VHF on Type 052C and later generation destroyers.
China has air-based anti-stealth radars. AWACs (L-band) and drones (VHF and UHF).
China has infrared satellites to look for enemy aircraft exhaust plumes.

The anti-stealth radar coverage around China's borders is very extensive.

----------

The Chengdu J-20 probably will never face the F-22, due to the F-22's short combat radius.

Missiles can destroy the runways that the F-22 needs. With limited airbases in Asia, the US is at a huge disadvantage.
Missiles can easily destroy the fuel depots for the F-22. Without fuel, the F-22 cannot fly.
Missiles can also easily destroy the air refueling tankers meant to extend the combat radius of the F-22.
If the F-22 tries to carry external fuel tanks, it compromises its stealth and maneuverability. This makes the F-22 a much easier target to shoot down.
The F-22's fragile stealth coating means it needs temperature and humidity controlled hangars to reapply its stealth coatings. Chinese missiles can target the F-22 special hangars. If the special hangars are destroyed, there is no way to reapply the F-22 stealth coatings.
----------

In a real battle, China should have the advantages.

The ground-based, sea-based, air-based, and probably satellite-based anti-stealth radar systems allow China to clearly see American stealth fighters.

The J-20 has a combat radius of 1,200 miles. This means the J-20 can freely roam the battlespace to attack enemy AWACs and refueling tankers.

In contrast, the F-22 is always in danger of running out of fuel.

In Asia, China has countless airbases. Against US fighters based in South Korea or Japan, China can fire "endless" missiles with multiple warheads until those US bases in South Korea and Japan are destroyed. Without major air bases, the US cannot mount large air operations in Asia.

The US cannot rely on its aircraft carriers. Those carriers are vulnerable to Chinese anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs), anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs), and torpedoes.

The US faces the same problem with its carriers that it faces with its land bases in Asia. China can fire "endless" missiles at US carriers. US carriers have a limited supply of weaponry (including those on supply ships). Once the last defensive missile has been fired, there is nothing to stop incoming Chinese missiles.

Also, the US needs a 100% success rate against incoming missiles. Of course, this is impossible. This means US carriers and destroyers can probably be sunk pretty quickly.
----------

So...do we really care about these very artificial and contrived scenarios for the Chengdu J-20? Not really.

In a real war, we already know how it should play out. It won't be a few J-20s against an incoming force.

It will be the entire Chinese defense system against the US expeditionary force. As I have explained above, I don't see how China can lose a war in Asia. China has all of the advantages, such as "endless" missiles because it can keep manufacturing more every day.

The last time they met each other, the USA had all the latest gadgets, and the Chinese were on rudimentary equipment with half fed and ill clad soldiers - yet, their onslaught couldn't be fully repelled even by 5-star general Donald McArthur...

 

[gambit]

The last time they met each other, the USA had all the latest gadgets, and the Chinese were on rudimentary equipment with half fed and ill clad soldiers - yet, their onslaught couldn't be fully repelled even by 5-star general Donald McArthur...

I will ask you this: Does TR trains its army with tactics that predate the machine gun?

The point is that with every technological change in warfare, strategies and tactics inevitably changed to take advantage of the technology. The countries that contributes to the evolution of warfare usually win the next wars where those new technologies are employed. China have not been an active contributor to the evolution of warfare for at least 300 yrs. The stalemate in Korea is the result of politics, not technology.

 

[52051]

Yankees are paper tiger on the land.

They are paper bird in the air as well, note the fact they lost more aircrafts after WW2 than the rest world combined,actually about 13,000 aircrafts and helicopters in the two misadvendure in Asia along

 

[yantong1980]

And I can say this...

The American B-1s and B-2s took out all the major PLAAF bases. Airspace penetration high and low. B-52s jams all the major EM freqs. The entire SCS region is isolated from mainland China from the air, leaving the US Navy supreme on the surface and below.

Question: why you people didn't do right now? All you can say no more come out from your guts, your superego, nothing more and less. Fact is a fact, B-1 and B-52 jamming? OMG, really it's your superego dude. Till THIS day your superduper American still 'hiding' behind their 'proxies' to do their dirty job, why? Where your super duper army go? Reality doesn't fit with your superego maniac logic, Mr. GI! Strategic mean doesn't belong from military might only, but had other FACTOR play, you know that. Basically what Martian say is was his argument, every poster has their own views, this is free forum, no ONE was expert, only their argument, it's funny to see you like grumpy old lady complaining everyone argument here, your comment and your attitude here was not gold, deal with it! B-52 jamming? That's new! Can this bird doing sommersault or pugachev cobra too?

 

[UKBengali]

If you want to call all the major powers, including China, as 'idiots', that is fine with me. After all, all of them thought Iraq could inflict major casualties on the US and allies. The PLA said something like Vietnam War level of casualties.

Whoever made that prediction is a complete moron and that includes PLA top brass. They should have been immediately fired.

Just imagine Turkey's 200 F-16s went up against the USAAF's nearly 200 F-22s - it would have a total slaughter of the Turkish air-force. This is what happened in 1991 Gulf War when Iraqi Air-force 3rd generation fighters(minus 29 downgraded Mig-29s that had no AWACs support) went up against USAAF 4th generation aircraft with AWACs support

I know this is wiki but let us take a look when F-15C met downgraded Iraqi Mig-29:

"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_engagements_of_the_Gulf_War#RSAF_F-15C_vs._IRAF_Mirage_F1s"

"USAF F-15Cs vs. IRAF MiG-29s

Two F-15Cs, piloted by Captains Craig Underhill and Cesar Rodriguez gave chase to a pair of MiG-29s detected by AWACS. The Iraqi aircraft, one piloted by Captain Jameel Sayhood, promptly turned and engaged the two American fighters, and one of the most dramatic dogfights of the Arab Gulf War ensued. The two MiGs and F-15s flew straight at each other, each attempting to visually identify the other. Underhill was facing Sayhood's wingman, while Sayhood himself was facing Rodriguez. Underhill fired an AIM-7 at Sayhood's wingman, scoring a head-on hit and killing the opposing pilot instantly. Simultaneously, Sayhood gained a lock on Rodriguez, throwing him onto the defensive. Rodriguez dove to low altitude in order to clutter Sayhood's radar and break the lock-on, and dropped flares to counter his adversary's infra-red search-and-track. However, after seeing his wingman shot down, Sayhood disengaged and fled to the north. Considering the engagement over, Rodriguez and Underhill turned south to rendezvous with a KC-135 tanker in order to refuel, but Sayhood reversed course and set off after them, prompting them to reengage. With the now lone MiG-29 closing head-on with the pair of F-15s, Underhill gained radar lock-on, but did not fire due to a glitch in his IFF interrogator system keeping him from being certain he wasn't about to shoot down a Coalition aircraft. Underhill initially thought he shot down an allied aircraft. Sayhood sliced into the American formation, causing a classic merge. Underhill kept Sayhood locked-on and climbed, while Rodriguez committed to the merge in order to visually identify the opposing aircraft as hostile. As they passed head-on, Rodriguez identified it as an Iraqi, and each pilot turned left to engage the other. Sayhood believed in his MiG's better turning radius and tried to get into a firing position on Rodriguez' tail but failed. Rodriguez outmaneuvered the Mig, managed to get firing position on him and successfully acquired a missile lock. Both aircraft lost altitude through the sustained hard turning, bringing them perilously close to the ground. Fearing that Rodriguez would obtain infra-red lock-on and shoot him down with an AIM-9, Sayhood attempted to disengage using a split-s. Rodriguez didn't follow Sayhood's manoeuver, and observed him eject just prior to his MiG impacting the ground - he'd commenced his escape maneuver too low. It was reported years later by Iraqi sources that the Captain was rescued by some farmers after he broke his leg and evacuated to a local hospital.[2][3][5][6]"

The F-15C had AWACs support, whereas the Iraqi Mig-29 may or may not have been helped by Iraqi ground radar.

The below is very important:

"Simultaneously, Sayhood gained a lock on Rodriguez, throwing him onto the defensive. Rodriguez dove to low altitude in order to clutter Sayhood's radar and break the lock-on, and dropped flares to counter his adversary's infra-red search-and-track"


The US pilot flew low to try to avoid the lock of the Iraqi export-model Mig-29 radar. If the Iraqis had the Soviet Mig-29 model that had a better radar, there was every chance that the Mig-29 would have shot down the USAAF F-15C.

Imagine that Iraq had a force of say 250-300 Soviet Model Mig-29 with AWACs support, then potentially hundreds of USAAF F-16 and F-15 would have been shot down.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

And I can say this...

The American B-1s and B-2s took out all the major PLAAF bases. Airspace penetration high and low. B-52s jams all the major EM freqs. The entire SCS region is isolated from mainland China from the air, leaving the US Navy supreme on the surface and below.

What are you talking about? Put the crack pipe down. You cowards won't even dare attack North Korea because it has a couple of oversized bottle rockets, and you think you can take on China? My sides!
Let me tell you what happens: You attack Chinese airbases? DF-41. You blockade China? DF-41. A hedge fund launches a speculative attack on the RMB? DF-41. A talking-head disrespects China on FOX? DF-41.

 

[ohmrlobalobayeh]

I don't think these exercises are particularly important. They are very limited in scope.

In a real battle, China's Chengdu J-20 stealth fighter works within a system.
China has a wide range of ground-based anti-stealth radars (L-band, VHF, UHF, and passive detection of enemy electromagnetic emissions).
China has sea-based anti-stealth radars. VHF on Type 052C and later generation destroyers.
China has air-based anti-stealth radars. AWACs (L-band) and drones (VHF and UHF).
China has infrared satellites to look for enemy aircraft exhaust plumes.

The anti-stealth radar coverage around China's borders is very extensive.

----------

The Chengdu J-20 probably will never face the F-22, due to the F-22's short combat radius.

Missiles can destroy the runways that the F-22 needs. With limited airbases in Asia, the US is at a huge disadvantage.
Missiles can easily destroy the fuel depots for the F-22. Without fuel, the F-22 cannot fly.
Missiles can also easily destroy the air refueling tankers meant to extend the combat radius of the F-22.
If the F-22 tries to carry external fuel tanks, it compromises its stealth and maneuverability. This makes the F-22 a much easier target to shoot down.
The F-22's fragile stealth coating means it needs temperature and humidity controlled hangars to reapply its stealth coatings. Chinese missiles can target the F-22 special hangars. If the special hangars are destroyed, there is no way to reapply the F-22 stealth coatings.
----------

In a real battle, China should have the advantages.

The ground-based, sea-based, air-based, and probably satellite-based anti-stealth radar systems allow China to clearly see American stealth fighters.

The J-20 has a combat radius of 1,200 miles. This means the J-20 can freely roam the battlespace to attack enemy AWACs and refueling tankers.

In contrast, the F-22 is always in danger of running out of fuel.

In Asia, China has countless airbases. Against US fighters based in South Korea or Japan, China can fire "endless" missiles with multiple warheads until those US bases in South Korea and Japan are destroyed. Without major air bases, the US cannot mount large air operations in Asia.

The US cannot rely on its aircraft carriers. Those carriers are vulnerable to Chinese anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs), anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs), and torpedoes.

The US faces the same problem with its carriers that it faces with its land bases in Asia. China can fire "endless" missiles at US carriers. US carriers have a limited supply of weaponry (including those on supply ships). Once the last defensive missile has been fired, there is nothing to stop incoming Chinese missiles.

Also, the US needs a 100% success rate against incoming missiles. Of course, this is impossible. This means US carriers and destroyers can probably be sunk pretty quickly.
----------

So...do we really care about these very artificial and contrived scenarios for the Chengdu J-20? Not really.

In a real war, we already know how it should play out. It won't be a few J-20s against an incoming force.

It will be the entire Chinese defense system against the US expeditionary force. As I have explained above, I don't see how China can lose a war in Asia. China has all of the advantages, such as "endless" missiles because it can keep manufacturing more every day.

i agree that China is very unlikely to lose a war against the US in it's region of mature dominance.

But to win a war against the US elsewhere on a global scale- she still has a long way to go

 

[S10]

I've always said that when 4th (5th by US/Russian/European standards) fighter jets start entering service, it is time to stop producing 3rd and 3.5 gen. You can probably build a J-11B for half the cost of a J-20, but a single J-20 can inflict 15 to 1 kill ratio upon it.

 

[Mav3rick]

Drill 1:
Blue: J20 * 2, with lensen lens, only carries Mid-Range AAM
Red: Several 3.5x gen fighter + Several 3x gen fighter + KJ500 AWACs
Blue Target: Kill KJ500 AWACs

Process:
J20 entered by low altitude, kills 3x gen 1 by 1,
KJ500 turned to the opposite and ran, called 3.5x back
J20 tried to make sure of kill, was too close to KJ500, KJ500 downed but located J20 in radar, distributed to 3.5x via datalink,
J20 out of AAM and ran
3.5x AESA was able to see through the ECM from J20

Result:
Red: KJ500 AWACs killed. All 3x killed, lots of 3.5x killed.
Blue: 1 J20 killed.

Drill 2:
Multiple J20 and J16 played 3rd party other than Blue/Red (most likely simulates F22/F15)
Red: 3.5x, 3x, SAM, AWACs, Ground based Radar,...entire PLAAF set up before J20
Blue Target: kill key Red battle node (Blue most likely simulates TaiWan forces)

Process:
J20 as information node, J16 receives tactical information from J20 and shoots Long-Range AAM (PL21/PL15?), downed lots of Red planes (like F35, A shoot B guide)
Red tried to use SAM as bait, but backfired and lost SAM units.

Result:
Blue successfully killed key battle node (Airport? AWACs? Ground EW Radar? whatever...)
Only 1 J16 was down by Red

DRILLs proved many so-called PLAAF 'tactics' before J20 entering service, were just empty thinking.

Source: 席亚洲

While all those exercises are definitely helpful; I recall how an F-16's Pilot narrated an incident when his radar could not locate an F-22 even though he could visually spot it. That is how good the stealth on F-22 is. I read in the scenarios above that the J-20 was shot down when it was detected by the KJ500, however, what I would like to know is, how was the shooting Jet able to get a lock on the J-20 and how could the missile home onto and kill J-20?

 

[gambit]

Whoever made that prediction is a complete moron and that includes PLA top brass. They should have been immediately fired.

That is hindsight talking. If you were alive at that time, you would have agreed with them.

Imagine that Iraq had a force of say 250-300 Soviet Model Mig-29 with AWACs support, then potentially hundreds of USAAF F-16 and F-15 would have been shot down.

And that was the point of my post 33 on page 3.

We paid smart people to imagine scenarios where our CURRENT war doctrines and combat tactics would reduce our odds of victories or even upset them. Then we take efforts to change. That is why it is so wrong for people to take these papers as somehow indicative of an outcome when in conflict with US. By the time someone post 'Imagine that...' on Internet forums, it has already been done -- by US.

The wise thing to do when you get your hands on these papers is not to gleefully point out our flaws and weaknesses but to investigate if the US military has taken steps to remedy those flaws and weaknesses. You will need a lot of espionage luck on that front. And if you find we have taken steps, ask yourself what can you do -- imagine -- to counter the changes we made. In other words, you have to be more creative than US. Do you have the money for that?