Who has the strongest air force in East Asia-Pacific ?

[Martian2]

Protection for the aircrafts, but not the runways.

Runways can be repaired.

Exposed aircraft, oil tanks, and repair facilities cannot be repaired within a reasonable amount of time. Also, it only requires another missile attack to set everything back to square one.

Kadena and Guam are out of the war.

 

[gambit]

Runways can be repaired.

Exposed aircraft, oil tanks, and repair facilities cannot be repaired within a reasonable amount of time. Also, it only requires another missile attack to set everything back to square one.

Kadena and Guam are out of the war.

The US explored the concept of underground protection for aircrafts a long time ago and found it no better than above ground shelters. The EMP threat is overblown, and by you on this forum.

Runways can be repaired, yes. But does the PLAAF have the equivalent of the USAF Red Horse and Prime Beef engineering squadrons who specializes in runway repairs ?

I have posted this example before, remember ?

The new philosophy is degradation over destruction. Do we want to destroy the actual warfighter -- aircraft -- instead of preventing it from take off ? Absolutely. But under certain tactical necessities, degradation of its ability to fight, as in runway denial, will be just as good. By the time the enemy repaired the runway, a crucial battle or vital asset may have been lost.

 

[Martian2]

The US explored the concept of underground protection for aircrafts a long time ago and found it no better than above ground shelters. The EMP threat is overblown, and by you on this forum.

Runways can be repaired, yes. But does the PLAAF have the equivalent of the USAF Red Horse and Prime Beef engineering squadrons who specializes in runway repairs ?

View attachment 207210

I have posted this example before, remember ?

The new philosophy is degradation over destruction. Do we want to destroy the actual warfighter -- aircraft -- instead of preventing it from take off ? Absolutely. But under certain tactical necessities, degradation of its ability to fight, as in runway denial, will be just as good. By the time the enemy repaired the runway, a crucial battle or vital asset may have been lost.

You're a laugh.

Despite the obvious protection from EMP and missile attack, you dismissed the value of deep underground airfields by claiming a bs study. Give me a break.

Gee, I wonder why they built Cheyenne Mountain. Oh, that's right, the study you claim is bs and the US built Cheyenne Mountain and underground silos for its ICBMs.

 

[Keel]

I think nowadays one is not only resorting to "runways" for war plane taking off or landing
It's a bit old school isnt it?

The Taiwanese bros have done their maneuvers on highways
Why cant the PLAAF?

Taiwanese jets takeover freeway - CNN Video

Chinese art of paper folding

 

[kaykay]

China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia ( in decreasing order).

 

[SipahSalar]

I object to not including East Timur. The Ghost squadron of their air force is renown for their fearless raids.

 

[gambit]

You're a laugh.

Despite the obvious protection from EMP and missile attack, you dismissed the value of deep underground airfields by claiming a bs study. Give me a break.

Gee, I wonder why they built Cheyenne Mountain. Oh, that's right, the study you claim is bs and the US built Cheyenne Mountain and underground silos for its ICBMs.

And you continues to be the joker.

The Cheyenne Mountain complex is about the preservation of the communication and command structure of US strategic forces and as such, its location deep inside a mountain is to ensure physical survivability, the EMP protection was secondary. Same for ground embedded ICBM launch facilities.

Aircrafts -- as in them being warfighters -- are different. You can hide them inside the mountains but then your runways are exposed. Runway denial is just as effective as being EMP fried. Get it ?

 

[Martian2]

And you continues to be the joker.

The Cheyenne Mountain complex is about the preservation of the communication and command structure of US strategic forces and as such, its location deep inside a mountain is to ensure physical survivability, the EMP protection was secondary. Same for ground embedded ICBM launch facilities.

Aircrafts -- as in them being warfighters -- are different. You can hide them inside the mountains but then your runways are exposed. Runway denial is just as effective as being EMP fried. Get it ?

You're annoying.

Try reading the Australian Air Power citation.

There are multiple runways (and possibly hidden runways) coming out of the mountains. Good luck trying to disable the Chinese bases. If you had read the citation, you would know they are defended by missiles, track-based anti-air defenses, and land-based CIWS.

China's numerous (and other possibly hidden) under-mountain bases and air bases deep in the hinterland (we're talking about 2,000 miles of strategic depth) gives it a huge advantage in fielding airpower.

Kadena and Guam are exposed bases with zero strategic depth and cannot compare to China's underground facilities. Get that through your head.

 

[Carlosa]

You're annoying.

Try reading the Australian Air Power citation.

There are multiple runways (and possibly hidden runways) coming out of the mountains. Good luck trying to disable the Chinese bases. If you had read the citation, you would know they are defended by missiles, track-based anti-air defenses, and land-based CIWS.

China's numerous (and other possibly hidden) under-mountain bases and air bases deep in the hinterland (we're talking about 2,000 miles of strategic depth) gives it a huge advantage in fielding airpower.

Kadena and Guam are exposed bases with zero strategic depth and cannot compare to China's underground facilities. Get that through your head.

@gambit It is true that Kadena and Guam have a certain level of vulnerability as many American reports have also suggested, but to imply that they'll be wiped out in a few hours by a missile barrage is an unproven exaggeration since there are multiple BMD systems defending the islands such as THAADS, AEGIS and Patriot. It remains to be seen if chinese missiles can go through that shield.

It also remains to be seen if china can actually achieve the element of surprise since as soon as those missiles start to move into place and other preparations are done, etc, American surveillance systems will detect that and they could easily start offensive actions to destroy those missile systems. Its actually very easy for American bombers, other aircraft as well as cruise missiles to penetrate chinese airspace since there are a lot of gaps in their radar coverage.

 

[Oldman1]

Protect aircraft from EMP and missile attack.

The key is survivability. Parking a bunch of aircraft out in the open to be eliminated by enemy missiles is a weakness. Those combat jets won't be around for very long. Kadena and Guam are for show. They are useless in a real war against China (an EMP and premier missile power).

Okay that is one of the big mistakes any country makes when thinking the U.S. does not have the ability to hit countries from far distance. Especially when bombers with mid air refueling can travel far distance with long range stand off weaponry and overwhelm the enemy. Japan made the same mistake when they took over most of the territories in the Pacific and thought the U.S. couldn't hit Japan. And I haven't even mentioned intercontinental cruise missiles the U.S. developed back in the late 1940s and 50s before the coming of ballistic missiles which could delivered nuclear warheads quicker.

 

[jammersat]

intercontinental cruise missiles the U.S. developed back in the late 1940s and 50s before the coming of ballistic missiles which could delivered nuclear warheads quicker.

Intercontinental cruise missiles? like a V-1 only intercontinental ?!

 

[Oldman1]

Intercontinental cruise missiles? like a V-1 only intercontinental ?!

No, the Snark. It had 10,000km+ range

 

[jammersat]

No, the Snark. It had 10,000km+ range

Ok mate , but i'm sure this wasn't developed in the late 40s rather the late 50s

 

[Oldman1]

Ok mate , but i'm sure this wasn't developed in the late 40s rather the late 50s

No the project started in the late 1940s.

 

[jammersat]

No the project started in the late 1940s.

Ok , pardon my ignorance , i didn't knew US made such missiles , by the way what is the correlation between the naming of "Snark" and "Silk worm" ?