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

[Oldman1]

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" ?

Look up the name Snark and you can find out.

 

[jammersat]

SM-62 Snark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It says development began in 1946 , that's the year the US snatched nazi rocket scientists , but it was deployed in 1958 , so i wasn't entirely wrong , it was finished in late 50s

Operation Paperclip - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

@1000

V - CRUISE MISSILES: THE OTHER AIR BREATHING THREAT
A portion of the preceding chapter examined the advantages aircraft present over ballistic missiles in delivering conventional munitions. The significance of one particular aircraft munition, cruise missiles, warrants closer examination.

Cruise missiles merit a closer inspection for a number of reasons. First, cruise missiles make a unique contribution to aircraft effectiveness and survivability. For example, the long range, accuracy, and autonomous guidance of the Russian AS-15 cruise missile transforms the Bear-H; a lumbering, turbo-prop powered bomber into a first-class strategic threat. In Operation Desert Storm, coordinating aircraft and cruise missile attacks increased the effectiveness of both systems considerably. Cruise missiles freed allied aircraft to pursue other missions which could be better executed by manned aviation, attacked several different objectives during weather conditions that precluded the use of other precision-guided munitions, and made possible daylight attacks on Baghdad without endangering pilots or requiring large support efforts.(1) Thus it appears that even when not launched from an aircraft, an important synergy exists between manned and unmanned aviation. Ballistic missiles, on the other hand, are absent from this equation. (Aircraft/cruise missile synergy in the Persian Gulf will be discussed in more detail in a subsequent chapter.)

It ionalso useful to examine cruise missiles because the systems and technologies are proliferating widely. Unlike most technologies found in ballistic missiles, those contributing to the development and production of cruise missiles are usually "off the shelf" components with commercial applications.

Third, cruise missiles share many attack aircraft attributes. They exhibit similar capabilities, and ergo, the solutions to countering cruise missile threats and proliferation may apply to managing the proliferation and threat of attack aircraft. Finally, as this chapter will illustrate, cruise missiles are uniquely effective weapons.


http://fas.org/spp/aircraft/part05.htm

 

[gambit]

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.

Hidden runway ? Been watching too much sci-fi or playing too much video games, kid. The greatest danger of a completely covered runway, as in several hundred meters or more...

Aerospaceweb.org | Aircraft Museum -
F-16 Fighting Falcon

Takeoff Distance (F-16A) 1,750 ft (535 m) with 4,000 lb (1,815 kg) external load
Landing Distance (F-16A) 2,650 ft (810 m) with 4,000 lb (1,815 kg) external load

...Is if there is a Class A mishap during take off or landing, you risk long term or even permanent disabling of your air base. Another consideration that you missed -- due to your no military experience -- is that a covered runway limit your ability to perform multiple take offs and landings because there is no open environment for the turbulence to dissipate.

You are an intellectual fraud. You have no experience in these matters yet talk as if you are an authority.

 

[Martian2]

Hidden runway ? Been watching too much sci-fi or playing too much video games, kid. The greatest danger of a completely covered runway, as in several hundred meters or more...

Aerospaceweb.org | Aircraft Museum -
F-16 Fighting Falcon

...Is if there is a Class A mishap during take off or landing, you risk long term or even permanent disabling of your air base. Another consideration that you missed -- due to your no military experience -- is that a covered runway limit your ability to perform multiple take offs and landings because there is no open environment for the turbulence to dissipate.

You are an intellectual fraud. You have no experience in these matters yet talk as if you are an authority.

China:
9.6 million square kilometers of land
41 deep underground air bases
countless above-ground airbases
2,000 mile hinterland
virtually unlimited resources

VS.

Kadena: exposed airfield
Guam: exposed island
limited resources for repair

Unless you're a moron, it is obvious the advantage belongs to China. China only has to disable an airbase on Kadena and a tiny island. The adversary has to disable a huge continent. Gee, I wonder who has the harder job.

 

[GR!FF!N]

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).

Underground bases has vulnerabilities too..USA has demonstrated that while openly parked or parked in a hardened shelter aircrafts will take multiple attacks to destroy them,2-3 properly dropped bunker busters can not only bury these aircrafts without proper escape route,it can destroy most of them too...

Assessing PLA Underground Air Basing Capability

 

[Oldman1]

China:
9.6 million square kilometers of land
41 deep underground air bases
countless above-ground airbases
2,000 mile hinterland
virtually unlimited resources

VS.

Kadena: exposed airfield
Guam: exposed island
limited resources for repair

Unless you're a moron, it is obvious the advantage belongs to China. China only has to disable an airbase on Kadena and a tiny island. The adversary has to disable a huge continent. Gee, I wonder who has the harder job.

Just means there are more targets to hit. Its harder job to many countries, but not to the U.S. military.

 

[UKBengali]

Just means there are more targets to hit. Its harder job to many countries, but not to the U.S. military.

LOL - US had so much trouble hitting the Serbs to disable their airforce.

China will be an infinitely harder scenario.

 

[banvanaxl]

I want to know your POV's.

@Nihonjin1051 @SvenSvensonov @gambit @cnleio @ChineseTiger1986 @Indos @madokafc @Viet @Carlosa @Martian2 @jhungary etc.

 

[Corsair]

^ certainly Superboy's double accounts votes.

 

[Víðarr]

^ certainly Superboy's double accounts votes.

I voted for North Korea, but only since Palau wasn't an option



But the reality is the most powerful air-force in the region belongs to China, followed by Japan, though both are trumped by a superior USAF, though it relies too much on the USN, hence why I didn't vote for the "other" option.

And no, I'm not Superboy or any iteration of him



@Gabriel92

I think a more interesting question would be the most powerful air-force in the Middle-East/North Africa or Europe, but on the condition that the US is excluded since it remains the most powerful everywhere on Earth and thus ins't a fair choice.

And just to answer my own suggestion, France, since the UK is shirking its responsibilities and Germany is neglecting its military is the best in Europe, even over my native Russia. I take them over Russia due to their real-world experience and rigorous training, and Russia's continuing modernization and training problems. Russia also lacks the real-world experience and realistic training that France and its allies are afforded. Turkey is tops in the Middle East, unless we want to include it in Europe, then I would select Israel.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

I voted for North Korea, but only since Palau wasn't an option



But the reality is the most powerful air-force in the region belongs to China, followed by Japan, though both are trumped by a superior USAF, though it relies too much on the USN, hence why I didn't vote for the "other" option.

And no, I'm not Superboy or any iteration of him



@Gabriel92

I think a more interesting question would be the most powerful air-force in the Middle-East/North Africa or Europe, but on the condition that the US is excluded since it remains the most powerful everywhere on Earth and thus ins't a fair choice.

And just to answer my own suggestion, France, since the UK is shirking its responsibilities and Germany is neglecting its military is the best in Europe, even over my native Russia. I take them over Russia due to their real-world experience and rigorous training, and Russia's continuing modernization and training problems. Russia also lacks the real-world experience and realistic training that France and its allies are afforded. Turkey is tops in the Middle East, unless we want to include it in Europe, then I would select Israel.

- North Korea, huh? Me thinks you're bored. I can help.

You are right though... well not about North Korea, or Palau. The USAF is strong and large and has its own airlift systems and command, but it does rely on the USN... but everyone relies on the USN.

We'll agree to disagree on China versus Japan, I know you'd select Russian anyways.



My Analysis

I'll exclude the US, since I don't want to include them as they would override all other choices via their training, experience, technological superiority and massive numbers. The USAF would be the obvious choice.

For the record, I voted for the "other" option.

PLAAF

Using a lot of older aircraft, training gaps, command and control problems and a lack of professionalism at times. It's modernizing but has yet to reach the levels of its competitors, it doesn't have a long range either... Yet

Unlike the JASDF which is to defend Japan and Japan alone, the PLAAF is becoming a global force that can influence event far from China, if needed - this stipulation remains unknown. Its training is rapidly improving, its lack of professionalism being worked out, though incidents such as the P-8 overflight are still a concern due to the pilot's carelessness. China's technology isn't yet what Japan has, but its progress is progressing more rapidly than it appears to be to outside observers. Its massive number aren't too much of a problem, unless you are concerned with cost, but its not a benefit either. For all their worth, older aircraft with outdated weapons don't represent much of a threat in modern warfare, even if in massive numbers.

China has a lot of aircraft too, of a wide-range of types, though its ASW, heavy transport and electronic support (intelligence and attack) remain weak.

China has to account for a wide-range of threats, thus the variance in its procurement.

JASDF

The JASDF is overstretched due to China and Russia causing weekly headaches, it still retains older systems in significant numbers which unlike China, remains a problem against an adversary that is modernizing rapidly, improving its training standards and can throw massive number against a defender.

Those are its pit-falls.

What the JASDF does have going for it is a high-tech, well trained and disciplined and coordinated Air Force that benefits from cross-coordination, intelligence sharing and cross-operational capabilities from the US. It also has a procurement policy that is similar to the JMSDF, that is planned obsolescence and a willingness to retire a system before its time to make way for newer systems.

Japan makes up for its numerical downside by being better commanded and trained and supported by the best intelligence apparatus on Earth.

My pick

China is becoming a global force, and still has downsides. Japan is a regional force that has downsides, but only one consistent threat. It isn't concerned about events half-a-wold-away and thus can tailor its entire battle-strategy towards China. Because Japan trains for China, gather intelligence about China and bases its entire defense strategy, sans missile defense which is also concerns North Korea, towards China it better knows its enemy and how to defeat them and it plans its procurement accordingly rather than opting a wide-range of systems that are useful, but not needed.

As strong as China is it faces more concerns that it must account for and thus its military is larger and more varied. China can't throw its entire weight at Japan, Japan can throw its entire weight at China.

I chose Japan, and that wont always be the case. Japan is strong, its trump card is its US support, but on its own Japan is still the strongest in Asia.

@Gabriel92 @Nihonjin1051 - here's my analysis

We're still #1 though

...

Oh, and for anyone that doesn't agree, I DON'T CARE!!! So spare me a rant, I'm not a professional military analyst.

 

[SQ8]

-

Oh, and for anyone that doesn't agree, I DON'T CARE!!! So spare me a rant, I'm not a professional military analyst.

You can still claim it though. Most in this forum do after stating that the F-22 raptor is dead meat to a F-5 tiger every time.

 

[Oldman1]

LOL - US had so much trouble hitting the Serbs to disable their airforce.

China will be an infinitely harder scenario.

The Serbs couldn't stop the 78 days of bombing which forced them out of Kosovo. Sure they can hide their forces, but a hidden jet is a useless jet while being bombed. Just like in Iraq when many Iraqi pilots defected to Iran or hid their planes.