PLAAF should learn from Libyan War

[below_freezing]

+1. If we can make a ballistic missile that can hit slowly moving targets with global reach (theoretically possible; not a physics problem but an engineering problem), then every non-submarine naval ship is obsolete. This will require a significant sensor network: buried sonars, satellites, floating cameras, continuously flying UAVs (perhaps solar powered), long range radars, etc.

When this is done, US carriers won't even get to leave port before being shot down.

 

[Luftwaffe]

Dragon, Correction just in libya some 300 planes are participation in daily air strikes, for china US would be sending 30% of its F-35 inventory after it has 2400+ in inventory. But reality is different the current pace of modernization and development of land air sea and space by China, by 2025 US plans of attack would be on papers and computers nothing else. What would make US attack China in the first place and how is US going to get away from the "wrath of Khan" when China unleashes wrath upon it from all corners.

 

[GUNS-N- ROSES]

@ Dragon emperor. there is no lesson for PLAAF/IAF/PAF from libyan war. these forces can derive lessons from Gulf wars/arab israeli wars/vietnam wars but definitly not from libyan war.


to be honest with u, i expected a better post from u.

 

[siegecrossbow]

PLAAF already learned this following the Gulf War.

 

[Akasa]

na.

china should keep investing in R&D.

and i disagree with the OP. when it comes to cost effectiveness, cruise and ballistic missiles are the way to go. also to having 5th gen fighter jets isn't everything in air superiority, AAMs play a large role. china needs to develop BVRAAMs. even the old J-7s would become a major threat if it's equipped and can launch BVRAAMs.

Cruise missiles are expendable weapons. That means every time they are used, they will have to be replaced. Having a jet that can be reused again and again is more cost effective than building cruise missiles that need to be replaced every time.

No matter how you upgrade the J-7s, they will still remain J-7s. Why go through all the trouble of upgrading when they can't win against modern 4.5-generation fighters?

It is better to concentrate on a fewer number of models and make them mass-produced.

 

[casual]

once you factor in the cost of the jet and the bombs, cruise missiles are cheaper

 

[Akasa]

once you factor in the cost of the jet and the bombs, cruise missiles are cheaper

Not really. Cruise missiles have very expensive sensors, radars, computers, and warheads that have to be replaced every time.

 

[below_freezing]

Not really. Cruise missiles have very expensive sensors, radars, computers, and warheads that have to be replaced every time.

So do air to air missiles. mass producing cruise missiles gives economies of scale as well.

 

[SomeGuy]

Not really. Cruise missiles have very expensive sensors, radars, computers, and warheads that have to be replaced every time.

A Tomahawk costs about $1 million. Therefore, you could get around 50+ for the cost of a modern fighter jet.

Here's the thing, you lose that 1 jet, you lose $50 million. You lose 1 cruise missile, you have 49 left.

 

[mautkimaut]

A Tomahawk costs about $1 million. Therefore, you could get around 50+ for the cost of a modern fighter jet.

Here's the thing, you lose that 1 jet, you lose $50 million. You lose 1 cruise missile, you have 49 left.

a Tomahawk cruise missile costs around half a million.

 

[SomeGuy]

a Tomahawk cruise missile costs around half a million.

Even so, that just strengthens my point.

 

[Akasa]

So do air to air missiles. mass producing cruise missiles gives economies of scale as well.

A cruise missile is essentially a scaled down plane. It requires a lot of computers, sensors, and engines to do the job. An air-to-air missile requires nowhere as near much equipment.

A cruise missile salvo will cost more than several fighter jets for sure.

That is especially true when you are dealing with sophisticated cruise missiles such as the HN-I/II/III, DH-10, CJ-10, or HN-2000 and DH-2000.

 

[Dragon Emperor]

China's neighbours all have formidable air forces, like Japan, Russia, South Korea and USAF. Sure, China's missiles can bomb their airfileds, but what if any of them launch a preemptive strike on China? Will China be able to deal a maximum damage to the enemy while minimizing their own losses?

 

[below_freezing]

A cruise missile is essentially a scaled down plane. It requires a lot of computers, sensors, and engines to do the job. An air-to-air missile requires nowhere as near much equipment.

A cruise missile salvo will cost more than several fighter jets for sure.

That is especially true when you are dealing with sophisticated cruise missiles such as the HN-I/II/III, DH-10, CJ-10, or HN-2000 and DH-2000.

A tomahawk is 500,000 USD. A F-16 is 40 million USD. you can buy 80 tomahawks for the price of 1 F-16. The prices for CJ-10 and J-10 are similar. For offense, nothing beats mass cruise missiles/ballistic missiles.

 

[TEXAS BATTLESTAR]

Isn't that China is working on the Dong Feng 21 (DF-21D) Anti-ship ballistic missiles is for? I believe it has already gone through a high developed stage of development and just waiting for the Beidou (Compass sat. nav. system) to be completed covering of the entire Pacific region by 2012.