Is China capable of crippling US CSF's in Chinese ses?
- Thread starter Superbug
- Start date
- Status
No its not. Also I wonder if the PLAAF is willing to foot the bill on this. The PLAAF is not out to build the best superfighters but which will cost a lot of money. They will aim for an acceptable base level of performance which they can mass produce in an acceptable cost.
If there is an airborne AESA it will have to be used in the most cost effective way first. Not in fighters, but it will be in the AEWC aircraft, when in fact,there are active rumors doing so.
There is not many AEWC aircraft in the world that actually uses any form of electronic scanning whether its passive or active. Against the ROCAF, the E-2Cs, and pretty much all the E-3s in the region are all mechanically scanning rotodomes. By going with electronic scanning, the PLAAF actually jumped ahead of the ROCAF in supposedly one of its main strengths, surveillance. But that's of course, theoritical advantage, much more important over any issue of MSA/PESA/AESA is EW resistance and capability. Does not matter if its MSA or AESA if the radar gets jammed.
goldenpanda
New Member
hey you can paint a pretty picture but doesn't make it true. all the arguments have been hashed in this thread. it comes down to this -- you need tremendous operational ability to do this in a theater with few nearby bases, you need to keep your bases alive, you need to keep your ships alive, and finally, you need to find us, without satellites.
all of sudden I'm not the one who appears itching for war anymore. It's back to knocking people to stone age, making crusades, having regime changes. Sounds like Iraq, anyone?
People, supercruise is a function of having enough dry thrust to overcome drag, weight has little to do with it. If one would put a 90kn dry thrust engine into a mig21 - it would supercruise. Of course, problems there would be size and weight of the engine, for which the plane really needs to be bigger and beefier, meaning more drag, meaning yet more thrust needed. Perhaps you could even do it, with some severe modifications for mig21 airframe, but i suspect you'd be left with a very unstable plane that has extremely short range and carries next to no useable payload.
Basically, key to supercruise is thrust to size ratio, engine wise. Packing as much dry thrust as possible in as small and light package as possible.
Basically, key to supercruise is thrust to size ratio, engine wise. Packing as much dry thrust as possible in as small and light package as possible.
I said that they currently have similar number of operational modern surface combatants and that’s why I didn’t mention 054As…I was under impression that type051C destroyers are still undergoing see trials… If this ships are in operational service ratio is still quite close…
As for Lafayette’s and Kidd’s being only modern ships OHP are still capable ships and they are high-tech ships compared to Jiangwei-II Class(and more advanced in some areas then basic type054).
But considering that Taiwanese small industrial base receives more then decent help from US industrial complex I wouldn't discount ATBM capability.
But can it reach operational status and be deployed in PLAAF regiments in 2012 time line?
And even whit more type071 ships in the loop PLAN still doesn't have nearly enough amphibious capability to deploy enough troops and equipment needed for this scale of operation...
goldenpanda
New Member
not sure why people say this. china has about 25 amph assault ships, each carrying 250 troops + tanks. this is about one brigade per transport. Do people see problems with two transports per ship per day? So it's two brigades per day into the beach head. why is this any problem?
edit: not to mention 50 medium size ships. data from sinodefence
Now if you look at your 25 medium ships that’s 250 troops per ship and that’s 6250 infantry without any vehicles, nonexistent air defenses and whit zero supplies…
Your 50 medium LST carry at average 150 soldiers so that’s approximately another 7500 troops… Count in tanks, IFVs, air defense units and you can deliver how many troops to shore? Not to mention difficulties that 75 LSTs would have to bring those troops to shore.
Now just imagine what happens if ROC costal defenses (artillery and truck based SSM destroy few of those ships), try to find out more about ROC army and tell me how long will this PRC force be able to keep beachhead against ROC military counter attack?
Last edited:
It's got more to it than thrust. Study the F119 vs F136. The F-35 in a2a configuration has a T/W ration of over 1.2, yet it isn't a supercruising engine. Thrust is simply cramming enough fuel and air into the engine to make an explosion. That part is simply enough. But when you have materials operating under those conditions they wear out much faster unless you use exotic materials that are able to handle the increased stress. Then there has to be enough fuel to make it operationally useful. The idea that the J-10 is going to supercruise based on just increased thrust is not the case. I'm not saying it's impossible that at sometime in the future it cannot be done. In fact it would not surprise me if a clean J-10 could exceed M1.0 briefly in certain conditions dry. But it would not be something it could do operationally for the very same reasons the Typhoon, Rafale, F-15, Su-27 and others can't. The PRC is no where near being able to mass produce an engine that would do this for the J-10.
DA
I guess i have to repeat myself. It is thrust versus drag. As simple as that. Thrust to weight has nothing to do with it. Why? because plane is in effect weightless, flying through the air. Actually the term should be called thrust to mass ratio, to make it more clear.
F35 can't supercruise because A) its relatively fat and draggy for the amount of thrust its engine produces (yes, if it had pylons and external weapons, itd be worse still, but it's draggy enough as it is) and B) cause its engine is tailored for subsonic speeds - for more thrust at subsonic speeds and greater fuel efficiency. That's why it has such a relatively high bypass ratio, compared to other fighter engines. As the plane approaches speed of sound, that higher bypass becomes less of an advantage and more of a hinderance.
I do agree that materials in the engine matter - because without materials to withstand great pressure and heat you can not make a small yet powerful engine - which has been the goal since the dawn of aviation - to increase mass/force produced ratio of the engine itself.
So, IF someone made an engine of same mass and dimensions as existing engine, and put it in a j10, and that new engine had more dry thrust - j10 would supercruise. Of course, that's not an easy feat.
Also worth to remember is that term supercruise is applied to anything going over the speed of sound, regardless of speed being mach 2, mach 1.7 or mach 1.2. Of course, more is always better. World is not black and white and we really shouldn't be talking just of 'supercruise' but of 'ability to do X speed at dry thrust for Y amount of time', with bigger X and Y being the goal.
What will PRC have in near future, no one knows. They're advancing all the time and it wouldn't surprise me if they achieve mach 1.2 at dry thrust in the next 10 or so years.
Well that's what we need for any meaningful comparison and not equipment list.
No, it's not. Sorry but I've read too many inconsistent reports from news agencies about military capabilities to accept that on word of mouth. Please provide some supporting evidence.
Totally irrelevant comment in this context. However, it is remarkable considering the volume of air traffic. Friendly fire incidents are a part of war and OIF was a dramatic improvement inspite of the unfortunate events that did occur. The coalition has refined its procedures and practiced them under fire. The PLAAF/PLA/PLAN haven't and don't have nearly the same level of training or C2 yet people are speaking of a mammoth PRC invasion as if its trivia.
That's not going to protect PRC satellites or make up for the loss of capability the USAF could impose on a PRC invasion.
DA
You are missing the point. I'll put it to you this way. If you see a supercruising J-10, let me know. Unless the redesign the engine with the technologies necessary and increase the fuel fraction, we will be waiting forever.
DA
Um... of course. I responded to supercruise issue as such, not to 'can j10 supercruise?'. My posts clearly showed that. I agree that j10 with current aerodynamics and current engine can not supercruise, i don't know if anyone contested that here.
LoL, just pass by and drop a comment.
From my observation, you did bias abit on what the Chinese have. You turn down every statement/evident given and claim them to be irrelevant. I know to read chinese, so for some of the statement from tphuang i had read b4 and believed in it.
Anyways, ones who try to push American super power to limit is quite annoying.
BTW, i am friend to USA and i living there.
They have given no evidence. Just vigorous assertions. Again, all I'm asking for is support for their statements.
DA
goldenpanda
New Member
Darth all the dry thrust rating are for extended use--it's pointless to use a figure that will ruin your engine. Your argument seems to be that WS-10 cannot maintain maximum thrust for extended time. I see no evidence of that at all.
Weight does actually count because weight is a function of mass, and you still have to push mass forward. Of course, this means better acceleration, but you need to push all this mass to break the sound barrier and the wave drag that goes along with it.
To keep the plane in a level flight and stop it from falling, you need lift. But creating lift also means creating drag. More weight needs more lift and therefore creates more drag. Hence there is a direct relationship between weight and drag. The key is to produce the equivalent amount of lift with less drag.
And that's why there is such a thing called lift/drag ratios. Some planes have worst L/D ratios than others. In order to stay up, the plane needs creates more drag for the same amount of lift. A very good L/D ratio is also necessary for supercruise.
If you remember that article (by a Western aviation mag) that was published last October or November, it did mention the J-10 having better L/D ratios than F-16s. If you can 3D model it in a wind tunnel, you can obtain the L/D ratios. There is no lack of J-10 photos to make an accurate wind tunnel model.
Supercruise or not, I believe the J-10 can easily achieve very high speeds. For one thing, not counting the two seater version, the single seater has a lower drag canopy, than lets say an F-16, which has issues with canopy drag. The plane is not fitted with LERXes or anything. LERX has a tendency to be a nasty lump in the airstream. Another drag causing device are adjustable slats, used for variable camber. That's pretty standard for planes these days to improve low speed flight and handling, but they do cause drag. Some planes like the F-86 and the F-4 Phantom have versions that have both slatted wing and wings that are completely hard edged. Guess which versions are also faster as well. In the case of the J-10, the slat is only half way the wing, so its a compromise, but it probably won't be as draggy as with the slat running on the entire length of the wing.
One of the characteristics of a global superpower is the ability to project and maintain significant military force anywhere in the world. It is a generally accepted fact the US is able to do this. So your argument about bases and ships is wrong. Further on what basis do you claim that we would not have any satellite assets available? Just because you temporarily blind the occasional recon satellite or destroy one of your own does not mean you will be able to knock out the hundreds of known and unknown military satellites we have in orbit.
I apologize if you misinterpreted the point I was trying to make. Do some real research and you will find out that invading and attempting to hold Taiwan would be a disaster for the PRC. China has made some amazing strides recently but you still have some really big and more important problems to solve than Taiwan. In fact I would not be surprised if eventually reunification takes place peacefully.
Wrong. You cannot supercruise (generally considered M1.4 or greater) for extended periods of time unless the engine is designed to do so Non supercruise engines if they attain those speeds dry will quickly start to melt. Many AC can marginally supercruise for short periods of time. The English lightening could, so could the F104 as well as F-15. The Lyulka Al-31FN turbofan that powers the J-10 is a fine engine but it is not a supercruise engine.
This has already been refuted but I bring it up again to illustrate how so many of your claims run counter to your argument. Let’s accept that you can make two sorties a day. Using the numbers you give at most you could transport about 15K troops and several dozen tanks a day. The delivery of these forces comes in two waves during a 24-hour period. It makes the dubious assumption that no ships are lost in transit and the nearest embarkation ports are fully intact. How long do you think this small force would last against the ROCAs 1.9 million-man army who are defending the island? They could not even hold an airstrip long enough to fly in more troops.
Maybe, maybe not. We do not know that yet. An F35A with F135 engine produces a lot of thrust. Right now no one at LM or DOD is saying if it is intended to supercruise or not.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
It seems satellite navigation is out of the question for a PRC invasion of Taiwan, if it was to happen today.
GLONASS
Current availability over Taiwan 15%-25%. Access to military signal (10-20m error) is also necessary for military use.
NAVSTAR/GPS
Assuming it will be scrambled for outside users - availability 0%.
BEIDOU 1
Due to GEO orbit of all satellites a solution can only be solved if you are at an accurately known altitude. This means it only works on the Earths surface as it uses a digital elevation model as a proxy. This excludes guided munitions as they are not on the surface. And if they could proxy that by other means there is still a 120m error on latitude on Taiwan to consider...
The Military Capabilities
and Implications of China’s
Indigenous Satellite-Based
Navigation System
So, today, the PRC forces will have to rely on INS/radar/EO/laser for their tactical munitions like guided bombs and SRBM's.
And the implications of that?
The BMs goes from 10s to 100s of meters of CEP... Other guided munitions will have to rely on alternative means of navigation.
GLONASS
Current availability over Taiwan 15%-25%. Access to military signal (10-20m error) is also necessary for military use.
NAVSTAR/GPS
Assuming it will be scrambled for outside users - availability 0%.
BEIDOU 1
Due to GEO orbit of all satellites a solution can only be solved if you are at an accurately known altitude. This means it only works on the Earths surface as it uses a digital elevation model as a proxy. This excludes guided munitions as they are not on the surface. And if they could proxy that by other means there is still a 120m error on latitude on Taiwan to consider...
The Military Capabilities
and Implications of China’s
Indigenous Satellite-Based
Navigation System
So, today, the PRC forces will have to rely on INS/radar/EO/laser for their tactical munitions like guided bombs and SRBM's.
And the implications of that?
The BMs goes from 10s to 100s of meters of CEP... Other guided munitions will have to rely on alternative means of navigation.
- Status