Not to sound like an F-22 cheerleader but I thought this was interesting. . .

"Tom Cooper" wrote in message
...
Pete,

No, they should be fighting for their own territory. Unless you think
the
USAF and USN should be able to go it alone, everywhere around the globe
at
the same time.

Well, from the way the USAF runs specific operations in the last 15 years,
it appears that there is no chance of anything else happening.

The problem is this: the USA have an obligation to defend Taiwan (except
some US admin finds this is 0 and void), and they have a treaty with Japan
and South Korea. But, there is no way the USA to hit China first.
Consequently the first blow in such a scenario would obviously be
delivered
by the Chinese; and in that case the USAF would not be in offensive, but
on
defensive right from the start, flying from airfields that are thousands
of
kms away from the battlefield.

Eh? You think there is some kind of rule that says, "OK, if the PRC gets in
the first blow, the USAF is NOT allowed to take the fight "downtown" back in
the PRC--no B-2 strikes against C4I targets, no cruise missile strikes
against airfields and IADS..."? Strange idea of modern combat you have
there...

The USN could bring a carrier or two (even
more... of course, several months later) but these would have underdogs on
their decks, developed to strike places not defended by hundreds of
Flankers
and AWACS....

You have yet to conclusively show where "hundreds of Flankers and AWACS"
will be a problem in the forseeable future--heck, the PRC is still awaiting
delivery of their first fully functional AWACS (the US having quashed the
Israeli plans to sell them Phalcon a few years ago).


Hm, perhaps you are right: the ROCAF would fight for US air superiority...
Obviously, there is no need for either the USAF or the USN to push for
additional developments in the air-to-air arena...

Yeah, go simplistic...*that's* gonna really make your point! The fact is
that the ROCAF is going to be fighting the PLAAF at the same time and in the
same area that this postulated US response would be occuring in--sorry you
can't seem to grasp that little fact.



Kevin,
Let's see, the first F/A-22's have already entered into their
operational
test and eval phase, and the 1st TFW is scheduled to get their first
birds
in the 2005-06 timeframe IIRC. The PLAAF has, from what I have seen on
the
sinodefence.com site, some 120 total Su-27/30 variants in service now
(out
of a total of some 175 on order) from Russia and some 200 in the
construction pipeline in the PRC, and indicates that it is expected some
48
aircraft will be added to the 120 number in service by 2006--it would
appear
that your timeline may be a little off, unless you think all of those
200
or
so domestic production examples will be completed over the next year or
two
(and then they's still have to order another 25 or so Russian built
aircraft
just to meet your four hundred figure, much less acheive "over 400").

The following figures are from Chinese-language sources and as of 1 March
2004. They detail the number of aircraft in service, location and
assignement of Flankers in the PLAAF (and I hope you know that J-11 is the
Chinese designation for Su-27SKs, and that an increasing number of these
is
meanwhile upgraded with new avionics package - foremost radars and
nav/attack systems).

- 1st Anshan MR, base: Shenyang, 1st AR: 26 J-11
- 2nd Suixi MR, base: Guangzhou, 4th AR: 26 Su-27
- 3rd Wuhu MR, base: Nanjing, 9th AR: 26 Su-30
- 6th Yingchaun MR, base: Lanzhou, 16 or 18 AR and 139 AR: 26 J-11 (and
increasing)
- 7th Beijing MR, base: near Beijing, 19/20/21 ARs: 26 J-11 (and
increasing:
planned to become 78 by the end of 2005)
- 18th Changsha MR, base: Guangzhou, 54th AR: 26 Su-30
- 19th Zhengzhou MR, base: Jinan 55/56/or 58 AR: 26 Su-27 (and increasing:
planned to become 78 by the end of 2005)
- 29th Quzhou MR, base: Nanjing 85/86 or 87 AR: 26 Su-27 (and increasing:
planned to become 78 by the end of 2005)
- 33rd Chongqing MR, base: Chengdu 97th AR: 38 Su-27
- 6th Naval MR, base: Dachang (Shanghai)16 or 17 AR: 18 Su-30 (and
increasing: planned to become over 36 by the end of 2005)
- Flight Test Center, Cangchou MR, Beijing: 18 Su-30

In total, the numbers should currently be as follows:
- J-11: 80 at present, no additional orders: all are going to be converted
to J-11A
- J-11A: 20+ at present, 80 J-11s to be converted, for an eventual total
of
100
- Su-30MKK: 60+ at present, +20-30 additional airframes delivered per year
on average, for an eventual total of 80+ (at least) by the end of 2005
- Su-30MK2: 20+ at present, at least 20 are on order, for an eventual
total
of 40+ (at least) by the end of 2005
- Su-27SK: 50 at present
- Su-27UBK: 40 at present, 20 on order, for an eventual total of 60 by the
end of 2005

That's a total of 270 airframes in service and 140 on order, for a total
of
430 by the end of 2005 - if China indeed discontinues the production of
the
J-11.

You actually expect them to complete delivery of 140 airframes over an
eighteen month period?

Your numbers vary quite widely from those reported in other sources:

www.bvalphaserver.com/article8018.html : "By 2005, PLA fourth-generation
are expected to number about 150..."

www.cdi.org/asia/fa080201.html : "Jane's Defense Weekly (11 July 2001) gives
the number of modern Chinese warplanes in the People's Liberation Air Force
(PLAAF) as less than 200: 100 Su-27 fighters (with 10 or so more added
annually) and 38 Su-30 fighter-bombers with 38 more on order from Russia."
Granted, a 2001 report--but still indicative of the fact that your numbers
are inflated.

www.watsoninstitute.org/bjwa/ archive/9.1/Essays/Nolt.pdf : (2002) "During
the past decade, China ordered 118 Su-27/30 fighters from Russia (not all
have been delivered). China has begun assembling the Su-27 from Russian
kits, about 15 so far, but "considerable quality control problems" have
delayed deliveries." Source goes on to note that over the next five years
(reaching to 2007) it is only expected that China will be able to
domestically produce about 100 advanced fighter aircraft and declares that
the PLAAF is "declining in relative capability" when compared to the USAF
due to the excessive age of the vast majority of its airframes.,

http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articl...,2360,884,2014 :
"...while the PLA has roughly 3,400 aircraft at their command, only a small
number, around 100 are deemed modern fourth- generation fighters. These
include Russian-designed Su-27 and Su-30s...The PLA Air Force (PLAAF) is
dogged by personnel issues. Chinese pilots, by western standards, are ill
equipped to operate their aircraft to the fullest potential. The Pentagon's
report believes that the PLAAF will have "developed operational concepts and
the training needed to fight as an integrated force" by 2010."

http://www.uscc.gov/researchreports/...herreport.htm:
Lists total PRC purchases of Su-27/30 variants as 154 from Russia and 200
domestically produced J-11's, while noting that the production of the full
200 J-11's is in some doubt. This report, prepared for a US government
commission, is only a couple of months old.

http://www.jamestown.org/publication...ticle_id=23659 :
"The purchase of Su-27 fighters from Russia has progressed to the point
where China is assembling kits of these very capable aircraft, which now
number approximately 200 in the PLAAF. The Su-30 fighter/attack aircraft is
also rapidly being acquired by China, and more than seventy-five are
currently in its air force..." This source, which comes closest to matching
your claims, indicates the number that have entered into service as being
275; but it curiously does not reflect any operational/training losses (a
Taiwanese source indicates that during one six month period the PLAAF lost 4
Su-27's in training mishaps). Even if you accept this most optimistic
estimate of deliveries/in-service aircraft, if you apply even a minimal loss
rate (say four aircraft per *year* since the beginning of Su-27/Su-30
operations in the PRC), you would have a total loss rate of some forty
airframes--not including those that were heavily damaged in that 1998
typhoon, of which "most* were repaired and subsequently returned to service.


Duh, sorry, but it appears I was actually wrong: the numbers are even
higher
than I originally stated....

Sorry, but the picture I am getting from a number of sources indicates you
are not correct.


What?! You actually think they are going to field that number of J-10's
and
FC-1/JF-17's over the next couple of years? Holy crap, Batman--the FC-1
just
had its maiden rollout last year (and is intended to meet export market
requirements--no indication yet it will enter into PLAAF service)!

There is a similar problem here like in the case of the F-22: what is
reported is long since not current. The plane has obviously flown earlier
(perhaps only "few months" earlier than reported, but nevertheless), then
it
was not only flown by Pakistani pilots already in 2003 (reports in the
specialized press indicate it was flown by the Pakistanis for the first
time
only in April this year), but also by Iranians (in October last year).

Provide proof.

Consequently, they are ahead of what it appears they are. BTW, the PLAAF
very much plans to have the JF-17 in service. For example a total of eight
should enter service by 2006 (remaining planes from the first batch are to
reach Pakistan by June or July that year) and three times this number
should
form the first regiment one year later.

Wow! Eight?! Please show a source that states the PLAAF plans to introduce
the FC-1 into its force (preferrably in a greater number than *eight*).


So, if we do not count J-10s, and China discontinues purchasing Su-27/30s
from Russia after those currently ordered are delivered by the end of the
next year (which is not only unlikely, but - according to Russian
reports -
the PLAAF and the PLANAF want to acquire around 700 Flankers by 2007 or
2008), there are going to be a total of 430 Su-27/30s, 20+ JF-17s, and
over
200 J-8II and (I forgot to mention them earlier JH-7s alone in service
by - let's say - 2007. That's a total of 650 fighters, most of which are
going to be compatible with the R-77, but a large number of which is going
to be armed with even better stuff of Chinese design (and not to talk
about
all the Kh-31s, Kh-58s etc.).

Forget the J8--it is an anachronism. And you have yet to show where they
will have over 700 fourth generation aircraft in service by the time the
F/A-22 enters into operational service next year; in fact, your quick
backpeddle on the alleged 300 J-10 and FC-1's entering into service by that
time period kind of puts your allegation to rest, with a stake in its
proverbial heart. Lots of sources indicate the current total force of
Su-27/30's in service does not exceed 150 aircraft at present, and you have
not shown any source that indicates otherwise. Nor have you accounted for
training/operational losses since they started flying the Sukhois (and that
may well indeed account for the difference between 150 and the total number
of Sukhois/J-11's thus far delivered).


ROCAF is by the time still going to have a fleet of roughly 200 F-16s and
Mirage 2000s, and the USAF is not going to have more than two squadrons of
F-15s at Okinawa, plus four USN Hornet squadrons and four USMC Hornet
units
_in Japan_ (i.e. also thousands of kms away), for a total of 36 USAF and
96
USN/USMC fighters - "somewhere in the area". Oh, yes, and 20.000km+ away,
in
CONUS, the 1st TFW is going to have something like 25 F-22s....

Last I knew, F-15 squadrons were still flying between 20 and 24 aircraft,
except those in the ANG. And I guess your view is that we are bounf by some
kind of "can't reinforce" clause, which presumably goes along with that
whole "US has to fight defensively if the PRC strikes first" idea you
postulated earlier? What about the F-16's as Misawa--they can't forward
deploy? Nor can the F-15's from Alaska? There would be a prohibition of USAF
assets heading into ROCAF sites? The B-1B's and/or B-52's sitting on Guam
can't play? Kind of convenient scenario you have set out for yourself
there...


Hell, I'm really talking about very unrealistic things: this all are pure
dreams. Please, disregard my nonsence then you obviously need to feel
better
by bashing me at any opportunity.

Finally, you recognize that you are spluttering a bunch of nonsense...



The J-10
has been a pretty slow program--last I heard they were still dicking
around
with which engine to mount in it, and there is some doubt as to whether
or
not it will *ever* enter into major frontline service with either PLAN
or
PLAAF units in anything other than nominal numbers.

I see you are first-class informed about the current condition of the J-10
Project, so I'm not going to disturb you with any such nonsence like
citing
reports about acceleration of the J-10-production - from April this year.


Please show where this "accelerated production" is going to yield 300
aircraft by next year.

That statement is even more preposterous than your assertion that the
USN
is
involved in redefining the air-to-air arena to support fielding of the
F/A-22.

That's your own construction: feel free to continue developing it even
further.

YOUR words: "The USAF and the USN are just re-inventing air-to-air, after
they realized
that the F-22 might otherwise get cancelled..." Note the use of "and", and
"they".


That you have chosen to completely disregard the contribution of the
ROCAF
may be convenient for your agenda, but it is a ludicrous oversight.

I only asked if the ROCAF is now to fight for the air superiority for the
USAF and the USN. You have my most humble apology if that was wrong to do.

Stupid question.


In an environment where nothing short of at least a 1:6 exchange
ratio would be needed, but where anything beyond 1:3 is actually
unlikely
(at least according to calculations based on current data), not a very
brilliant prospect.

If the aforementioned numbers are representative of your "data", then
excuse
me for not buying into the validity of your assertion (which also
discounts
PLAAF losses due to ADA, SAM, and interdiction efforts, I presume).

Yeah! Hell, the Su-27/30 family has such a minimal combat range and
endurance, and China is not in a position to pick up the time of the
fight.

With all of those AWACS platforms...they still don't have, right?

For this alone - but especially because I am so obviously anti-US - it
must
be that most of them are going to be destroyed in interdiction efforts
or -
especially - shot down by SAMs.... ;-)))

SAM's will undoubtedly account for some of them, if they want to press the
fight. EW is not exactly the prime forte of the PLAAF, now is it?


But OK; feel yourself as "winners": obviously warning about such
matters
is
considered here as "anti-US", so I guess somebody has first to hit the
wall
head-on... (it wouldn't be the first time, but at least that functions
for
sure).

You have to be able to present a credible case--you have fallen far
short
thus far. Merely playing Chicken Little, without a decent set of
supporting
data, is not going to get you too far.

Consequently, I do not understand why are you still so upset? You are
doing
so well: all my "data" is wrong, because I am a Chicken Little, and cannot
support it. I contradict myself all the time, express myself so that
nobody
can understand it, and - most important of all, obviously - I am so much
anti-US that I must be wrong all the way - and you MUST be right (if for
no
other reason then because of my signature). ;-))))

I am not upset--I just don't approve of your taking half-baked figures,
tossing in unrealistic assumptions, and then labeling them as "fact". You
said they'd have 700 plus fourth generation aircraft in service by the time
the F/A-22 enters into service--but you have yet to show where that is
anywhere near possible.

Brooks



Tom Cooper

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

Eh? You think there is some kind of rule that says, "OK, if the PRC gets
in
the first blow, the USAF is NOT allowed to take the fight "downtown" back
in
the PRC--no B-2 strikes against C4I targets, no cruise missile strikes
against airfields and IADS..."? Strange idea of modern combat you have
there...

Of course: I said so at least 400 times so far on this NG. Haven't you read
any of my previous posts indicating this before?

You have yet to conclusively show where "hundreds of Flankers and AWACS"
will be a problem in the forseeable future--heck, the PRC is still
awaiting
delivery of their first fully functional AWACS (the US having quashed the
Israeli plans to sell them Phalcon a few years ago).

Kevin, after posting the current OrBat of the PLAAF/PLANAF Flanker-units, it
is definitely obvious that I'm completely clueless about this topic.

So, I must wonder: how do you actually come to the idea to ask me for any
kind of "conclusive" evidence to this topic?

I mean, seriously: you have posted all the possible sources - and plenty of
them - indicating something completely different. So, who am I to tell you
anything else?

Al has brilliantly explained it: I'm not qualified. So, don't bother to ask.

Yeah, go simplistic...*that's* gonna really make your point! The fact is
that the ROCAF is going to be fighting the PLAAF at the same time and in
the
same area that this postulated US response would be occuring in--sorry you
can't seem to grasp that little fact.

Agreed: I'm a stupid. Must be the reason I still wonder how haven't you seen
this coming?

Your numbers vary quite widely from those reported in other sources:

Yes. The reason is simple: they are right and I am wrong - because I'm
anti-US and not qualified.

There is a similar problem here like in the case of the F-22: what is
reported is long since not current. The plane has obviously flown
earlier
(perhaps only "few months" earlier than reported, but nevertheless),
then
it
was not only flown by Pakistani pilots already in 2003 (reports in the
specialized press indicate it was flown by the Pakistanis for the first
time
only in April this year), but also by Iranians (in October last year).

Provide proof.

See above: wouldn't you agree it's pretty silly to ask somebody anti-US -
like me - even for the way to the next shopping mal?

And you ask me for proofs for what I'm talking about? Ts, ts, ts....

It's namely impossible that there could be anybody who is not dependent on
Jane's and similar institutions: all the people that do not copy-paste from
them but research on their own are simply lying and phantasising - and
anti-US (that's most important here), not qualified, and twisting electrons.
Ask Alistair and Al: they can confirm it if you still don't believe.
Consequently, you can't ask me any such questions any more.

Heh, but I'll proudly add these nick-names as attributes to the existing
list (excerpt see bellow), some even on the first place. :8

Cheers,

Tom Cooper
Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
Unqualified Imperialist Text-writter, Communist Dog,
anti-US/Israel/Moslems/Arabs..., Russo-fob, (etc., etc.: list available on
demand)
Vienna, Austria

*************************************************

Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S7875

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S6585

African MiGs
http://www.acig.org/afmig/

Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...=S6550~ser=COM

*************************************************

"Tom Cooper" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

Eh? You think there is some kind of rule that says, "OK, if the PRC gets
in
the first blow, the USAF is NOT allowed to take the fight "downtown"
back
in
the PRC--no B-2 strikes against C4I targets, no cruise missile strikes
against airfields and IADS..."? Strange idea of modern combat you have
there...

Of course: I said so at least 400 times so far on this NG. Haven't you
read
any of my previous posts indicating this before?

Strange as it may seem, many of us do not hang upon your every word--I can
only go off what you say *now*, and that was, to quote: "...the first blow
in such a scenario would obviously be delivered by the Chinese; and in that
case the USAF would not be in offensive, but on defensive right from the
start..."


You have yet to conclusively show where "hundreds of Flankers and AWACS"
will be a problem in the forseeable future--heck, the PRC is still
awaiting
delivery of their first fully functional AWACS (the US having quashed
the
Israeli plans to sell them Phalcon a few years ago).

Kevin, after posting the current OrBat of the PLAAF/PLANAF Flanker-units,
it
is definitely obvious that I'm completely clueless about this topic.

Considering that your numbers, not to mention your conclusions, contradict
what many other sources indicate, including the latest DoD report, which
indicates that the PLAAF *might* be capable of taking on a joint USAF/ROCAF
force sometime after 2010: "The PLAAF's primary strength remains its
size--approximately 3,000 combat-capable aircraft. Also, the PLAAF and
PLANAF are undergoing significant upgrades, whichinclude acquiring
fourth-generation aircraft, air defense systems, advanced munitions, and
C4ISR equipment. These upgrades eventually will improve the PLAAF's
capability to conduct both offensive and defensive operations. In addition,
air combat tactics continue to evolve, and training is becoming more
advanced, though both remain behind Western standards. By 2010-15, the PLAAF
will have made additional progress toward becoming a modern air force and
will be equipped with modern weapons that most likelywill enable the PLA to
execute the regional combat operations its current military doctrine
envisions."

That is a far cry from what you have been braying about, and it would be
hard to point to the DoD's accessment as being overly optimistic--this is
after all one of the foundation documents trotted out when budgeting comes
to the table.


So, I must wonder: how do you actually come to the idea to ask me for any
kind of "conclusive" evidence to this topic?

Because you have a habit of tossing out unspupported "facts" that do not
jive with other available sources.


I mean, seriously: you have posted all the possible sources - and plenty
of
them - indicating something completely different. So, who am I to tell you
anything else?

An idiot, perhaps? But then again, you remain firmly convinced your version
of reality is quite different from that portrayed by folks like the DoD,
right?


Al has brilliantly explained it: I'm not qualified. So, don't bother to
ask.

Apparently he hit the nail on the head in this case--anyone claiming that
the PLAAF would field 300 J-10/FC-1 aircraft over the next 12 to 18 months,
as you have, is obviously a bit lacking in qualifications, namely common
sense.


Yeah, go simplistic...*that's* gonna really make your point! The fact is
that the ROCAF is going to be fighting the PLAAF at the same time and in
the
same area that this postulated US response would be occuring in--sorry
you
can't seem to grasp that little fact.

Agreed: I'm a stupid. Must be the reason I still wonder how haven't you
seen
this coming?

I am guessing english is not your first language-- that last question makes
no sense whatsoever.


Your numbers vary quite widely from those reported in other sources:

Yes. The reason is simple: they are right and I am wrong - because I'm
anti-US and not qualified.

From what I have seen thus far, only the latter really applies here.


There is a similar problem here like in the case of the F-22: what is
reported is long since not current. The plane has obviously flown
earlier
(perhaps only "few months" earlier than reported, but nevertheless),
then
it
was not only flown by Pakistani pilots already in 2003 (reports in the
specialized press indicate it was flown by the Pakistanis for the
first
time
only in April this year), but also by Iranians (in October last year).

Provide proof.

See above: wouldn't you agree it's pretty silly to ask somebody anti-US -
like me - even for the way to the next shopping mal?

So, another unsupported "fact" you have trotted out--figures. Your
dedication to the practice of snipping all of that stuff you don't like from
the conversation, even though it is still the subject of debate, is another
little trait of your's that gets a bit tiresome, though since you have a
demonstrable tendency of denying your own previous statements it is probably
understandable--why make it easy for your opponent to zing those direct
quotes back at you, eh?


And you ask me for proofs for what I'm talking about? Ts, ts, ts....

It's namely impossible that there could be anybody who is not dependent on
Jane's and similar institutions: all the people that do not copy-paste
from
them but research on their own are simply lying and phantasising - and
anti-US (that's most important here), not qualified, and twisting
electrons.
Ask Alistair and Al: they can confirm it if you still don't believe.
Consequently, you can't ask me any such questions any more.

Actually, you seem to fit quite well into the mold of "New Journalism"--the
facts be damned, your personal views and "hidden sources" are paramount. You
might want to drop a resume off at the New York Times--they have
demonstrated a recent propensity to like journalists with that kind of
philosophy.

Brooks


Heh, but I'll proudly add these nick-names as attributes to the existing
list (excerpt see bellow), some even on the first place. :8

Cheers,

Tom Cooper
Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
Unqualified Imperialist Text-writter, Communist Dog,
anti-US/Israel/Moslems/Arabs..., Russo-fob, (etc., etc.: list available on
demand)
Vienna, Austria

*************************************************

Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S7875

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S6585

African MiGs
http://www.acig.org/afmig/

Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...=S6550~ser=COM

*************************************************