What's new

October Surprise: my prediction for war

Video shows PLA jet driving away foreign fighter plane up-close


A video shows an Air Force jet of the People's Liberation Army driving away a foreign plane from its operating space, with the distance between them as close as dozens of meters. Experts said it shows that the PLA is able to deal with such situations, and that there is no space for negotiations on China's sovereignty.

"This is the China Air Force. Attention! You are flying in our operating space, which may jeopardize flight safety. Identify yourself immediately," Luo Wei, a pilot of the Air Force said to a foreign fighter plane.

The Air Force jet driving away a foreign plane was revealed on Monday night by China Central Television (CCTV). During an interview, Luo told CCTV that a foreign fighter would normally leave when a Chinese fighter takes off and enter into the warning area. But the situation was different that day as the foreign fighter was flying toward China's territorial waters demarcation line.

"[We] were so close to seeing the badge and number of the foreign fighter… it was also narrowing the distance and altitude between us to disturb our monitoring. I immediately made an S-turn to follow it. When it found that it was impossible to shake me off, it flew away," Luo said.

The report did not reveal which country the foreign fighter was from.

An insider told the Global Times on Tuesday that there is no space for negotiations on the issue of sovereignty, and the move shows that the PLA dares "take out the sword."

A banking turn is a tactical maneuver usually used in tailing during close combat. The insider said that the action is aimed at occupying a favorable position to tail, supervise and warn an unclear target in the air to prepare for combat anytime.

"Two planes have to be at most 100 meters apart if one of them can clearly see the other's badge and number," the insider said.

Fu Qianshao, a Chinese military aviation expert, told the Global Times that sometimes it is only a dozen meters between two planes for a pilot to see another aircraft's badge and number, which is common in formation flight. It requires very high skills of the pilot to do this when tailing a foreign military aircraft.

Wang Ya'nan, chief editor of Aerospace Knowledge magazine, told the Global Times that such close tailing and supervision is risky, and relies on the pilot's strong skills and will.

"Such close flight requires both sides to take professional measures and actions to avoid a clash, while achieving the aim," Wang said.
 
.
Video shows PLA jet driving away foreign fighter plane up-close


A video shows an Air Force jet of the People's Liberation Army driving away a foreign plane from its operating space, with the distance between them as close as dozens of meters. Experts said it shows that the PLA is able to deal with such situations, and that there is no space for negotiations on China's sovereignty.

"This is the China Air Force. Attention! You are flying in our operating space, which may jeopardize flight safety. Identify yourself immediately," Luo Wei, a pilot of the Air Force said to a foreign fighter plane.

The Air Force jet driving away a foreign plane was revealed on Monday night by China Central Television (CCTV). During an interview, Luo told CCTV that a foreign fighter would normally leave when a Chinese fighter takes off and enter into the warning area. But the situation was different that day as the foreign fighter was flying toward China's territorial waters demarcation line.

"[We] were so close to seeing the badge and number of the foreign fighter… it was also narrowing the distance and altitude between us to disturb our monitoring. I immediately made an S-turn to follow it. When it found that it was impossible to shake me off, it flew away," Luo said.

The report did not reveal which country the foreign fighter was from.

An insider told the Global Times on Tuesday that there is no space for negotiations on the issue of sovereignty, and the move shows that the PLA dares "take out the sword."

A banking turn is a tactical maneuver usually used in tailing during close combat. The insider said that the action is aimed at occupying a favorable position to tail, supervise and warn an unclear target in the air to prepare for combat anytime.

"Two planes have to be at most 100 meters apart if one of them can clearly see the other's badge and number," the insider said.

Fu Qianshao, a Chinese military aviation expert, told the Global Times that sometimes it is only a dozen meters between two planes for a pilot to see another aircraft's badge and number, which is common in formation flight. It requires very high skills of the pilot to do this when tailing a foreign military aircraft.

Wang Ya'nan, chief editor of Aerospace Knowledge magazine, told the Global Times that such close tailing and supervision is risky, and relies on the pilot's strong skills and will.

"Such close flight requires both sides to take professional measures and actions to avoid a clash, while achieving the aim," Wang said.


Calm down mate..... have you heard the saying "Barking dog, seldom bite"?.... It's time now china should show some guts and teeth..enough of barking....no one is buying this propaganda in the west.
 
.
Can’t wait to see J-20 (with WS-15), J-35, H-20, Type 055 cruiser, Type 095 SSN, Type 071 LPD, Type 075 LHD, Type 003 AC all part of the PLA arsenal.
 
.
Indian BrahMos:

Length 8.4 m (28 ft)
Diameter 0.6 m (2.0 ft)

AGM-183 ARRW:

jkaBxdk.png


zz4Uqql.jpg


 
. . . .
The CCP must not have gotten the OP memo , October is ending with out any bang.
OP was too ambitious. IMO, a shooting war could take place within the next 10 years if things continue on the current path.
 
. . .
Calm down mate..... have you heard the saying "Barking dog, seldom bite"?.... It's time now china should show some guts and teeth..enough of barking....no one is buying this propaganda in the west.
LOL at the Indian so humiliated after losing territory to the PLA :lol:
 
. . .
This is a weak argument ... why would the Chinese need a bunch of aerial refuelling platforms to go against Taiwan? It's not like Taiwan is hundreds or thousands of miles away from Chinese air bases. Either way, the 13 definitely seems too low considering there are at least two Y-20U tankers, there is at least a couple dozen of tankers.
It is NOT a weak argument but a valid one.

I will repeat...

Air Dominance. The ability of an air force to compel other air forces to rearray themselves and usually into subordinate postures.

Air Superiority. The ability of an air force to achieve control of contested airspace and if there are losses, those losses would not pose a statistical deterrence to that ability.

Air Supremacy. He flies, he dies.

Losses from 'Air Supremacy' by the dominant air force would come from mishaps and fratricide. The opposing air force would be a 'force' mostly in name but not in capability. In Desert Storm, when Iraqi pilots flew their jets to Iran was an example of 'Air Supremacy' by the allies over Iraqi airspace. The opposing air force can -- not just may -- still fly individually but cannot plan and coordinate counter-air operations because unit squadrons can no longer supply sufficient aircrafts of same or similar platforms to create a credible one-time attacking force. In other words, 3 fighter-bombers and 9 transports could constitute a 'squadron' by numbers but not by deliverable in terms of warfighting.

Which returns to 'Air Superiority'.

The dominant air force would still be meeting credible resistance from BOTH air and ground threats from the enemy. Control of contested airspace(s) are achievable, however, duration of control per sector remains variables. Control of one contested airspace maybe just in hours to support another combat operation, then cede control to the enemy. Control of another contested airspace may need to be in days due to long term strategic needs, and if the enemy is able to resist, the dominant air force must reallocate air resources from elsewhere to support said strategic needs, which may cede control of other contested airspaces to the enemy.

Statistics is critical in calculating what resources should be assigned to where. While numerical superiority in all air platforms are always desirable, the dominant air force may not have such resources and this is where air commanders must make calculated risks based upon statistics, established and estimates.

For example, the F-15 have a combat record of 100-1. That is an established statistics. If the F-15 is expected to meet a near-peer or even a peer platform, an ESTIMATED combat statistics maybe reduced to 5-1 or even 1-1. If that peer platform is expected to be in a contested airspace, the air commander must plan to have numerical superiority in order to achieve control of that airspace. On the other hand, if the F-15 is expected to meet resistance from inferior platforms that made up that 100-1 combat record, the air commander could rely on pilot and technical superiority to plan for 10 F-15 against 30 enemy fighters and still win the air battle, even if there are F-15 losses in the fight. Hence: ...if there are losses, those losses would not pose a statistical deterrence to that ability.

This is why the longer the time an air force spends in the 'Air Superiority' phase, the higher the odds of losing that phase.

Most of the PLAAF and the ROCAF is unknown in terms of combat capabilities. The best the global public have is that the F-16 have established combat record, no matter how old the F-16 and how new are the PLAAF's fighters maybe, that is a combat record no air commander will dismiss. Knowledge of combat record, both human and technical, are transferable, meaning that combat record can be replicated to greater than %90 accuracy. That mean ROCAF F-16 pilots have a wealth of technical knowledge and training that PLAAF pilots do not have, even if the PLAAF pilots are in newer platforms. Wars, ground, air, and naval, are repleted with incidences where human wiles triumphed despite facing technical superiority.

What this means is that the PLAAF must face two questions:

1- How long to achieve air superiority over Taiwan
2- Duration staying in that phase

Once the PLAAF achieved air superiority over Taiwan, maintenance of that phase depends on -- FUEL. :enjoy:

Even though Taiwan is just 100 miles away, patrol and loiter consumes fuel. External tanks allows in-mission flexibility but denies the fighter-bomber some weapons. Air refueling allows full weapons load but the fighter-bomber will have greater flight constraints to meet the air refueler and wait in queue. No loitering time to support naval operations will increase the time the PLAAF spends in trying to achieve air superiority over Taiwan. No patrol to maintain control of contested airspaces will lengthen the time the PLAAF spends in the air superiority phase. No air refueling will deny the PLAAF air superiority over Taiwan. PLAAF pilots already under combat stress and knowing they will not have fuel will quickly cede control of contested airspaces, even if they have technical superiority over ROCAF pilots flying older platforms.

The US is the world's premier air refueler. Learn.
 
. .

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom