gambit
Professional
Are YOU paying mortgage on one of those not built apartment?
China Can Beat the U.S. Air Force in a War
- Thread starter Beijingwalker
- Start date
Beijingwalker
VIP Member
- Thread starter
- #77
LOl, I live in one of the ghost cities in China that your media has kept telling you for 2 decades.Are YOU paying mortgage on one of those not built apartment?
Beijingwalker
VIP Member
- Thread starter
- #78
"the world biggest ghost city" based on the western media
The same city in reality
The same city in reality
GoMig-21
Elite Member
Would the US stick the F-22 into a quagmire without at least a well-coordinated, overall network? I doubt it. Problem with the Russian Armed Forces is they've proven to be not so organized, maybe even capable to put it mildly and bluntly.
I don't think any responsible powerhouse military would risk its main, aerial asset on a highly unpredictable scenario. Why the greatest of minds with the most qualified experience under their hats like Hungary was saying are handed these responsibilities.
gambit
Professional
j_hungary
Professional
The top of this page is a post from someone that said, "Ukraine war is about attrition" that said all that you need to know about how one being delineated from battle science (Which is probably a better term for someone is speaking off their arse).
No one, in an offensive position would want to fight a war in attrition, if you are an defensive army, yes, you fight a war of attrition because you can't fight and win in a set piece, which mean you need to make them go away by simply going after their losses (that's a game theory thing, not going to talk about here) Taliban did that to us, Vietcong did that to us, AQI and ISIS did that to us, but we never fight an attritional war in an offensive capacity to anyone, because when you go that mode, that mean you can't win in an conventional way, which mean one of the most basic Principal of War is being violated - The Economy of Force. If Russia really fighting an attritional warfare with Ukraine, that is actually a strategic mistake.
People who never set foot on a battlefield and see "Dude, Russia have 150 million people while Ukraine have 45, it's a no brainer that Russia can just throw people into the question and win a war". The problem is, first of all, this probably would be true if we are talking about Population of Sweden or Estonia, which is sub 10 million, 45 mil population with a 1/10 mobilisation conversation means you get 4.5 million combat ready bodies easily, and it is going to take Russia a long time to go thru that 4.5 million defenders. And Russia don't have enough support to send a million strong military into Ukraine, so, that point is kind of moot.
Another issue is, the War isn't over even when all the fighting subside, US didn't withdraw from the war in Vietnam and Afghanistan in the attacking phase, US withdrew from the occupation phase, just because you took land, that does not mean the war of that piece of land ended there, you still need to occupy it, you still need to transit into a civil society, and then you still need to fight off any insurgency. It's not like okay I took Avdiivka and I can pull all my troop out and then use it somewhere, you can't because occupation and pacification is probably the hardest part of any invasion warfare. Just because they don't report insurgency in those area does not mean there aren't any.
So yes, for someone who keep saying "we have better industrial capability" or whatever, does that really translated to war fighting capability? Sure, but on the other side of the equation is how much you can train and support to use those shiny new tanks or whatever you build? That's the key, I can have 1000 tank made a year, that does not mean I can put 1000 experienced and well trained tank crew in them in a year, material is one part of the equation and in Russia case, this does not help them that much, because we can all agree Russia manufacturing capability is several fold above Ukraine, how the war going for them now?
this is true. ive been following beijingwalkers posts so i know that china has cured cancer, developed 6th gen fighters, and achieved infinite nuclear fusion energy.
there is no economic probrem in china, everything is fine.
america capitalist pigs are cooked
there is no economic probrem in china, everything is fine.
america capitalist pigs are cooked
j_hungary
Professional
I think the issue is not on F-22 itself. But what that single platform done to other.
While this is probably true no advance country will ever risking them on a more on par foe, unless those are dated anyway. But we can still see legacy platform such as F-15, F-16 or F-18 with technology that developed for the F-22 and F-35 being used to top over our enemy, that is one of the ways to gauge whether those tech works or not.
I did a hypothetical scenario between China-Taiwan war with my old think tank. One of the key issues if the US is involved is the battle of legacy fighter. Ie can the Chinese J-10, J-11 or J-16 cap off US made F-15, F-16, F-18 and other assorted legacy fighter. That will tip the balance of the eventual outcome of that war.
Beijingwalker
VIP Member
- Thread starter
- #84
Great news then, and which Beijingwalker says that China cured cancer? Maybe you confused him with New Delhi walker?
No.. I think it was your message #38,982
Somewhere between china creating 6 times stronger aluminum and J-10 going 500-0 against eurofighter
Beijingwalker
VIP Member
- Thread starter
- #86
I don't remember it, can you post it here? China creating 6 times stronger aluminum, I remember this, it's true and being reported by many channels from different countries. J-10 going 500-0 against eurofighter, this must be the news from New Delhi walker.
Last edited:
Cryptonian
Registered Member
"the world biggest ghost city" based on the western media
The same city in reality
LoL , sure , don't know why CCP higher ups are having nightmares then.
Within last two weeks
Unboxing China's policy toolkit for propping up property market
In a bid to support economic recovery, China has ramped up efforts to stabilize the real estate market, a pillar industry underpinning the world's second-largest economy.
www.chinadaily.com.cn
Govt.cn article.
Sentiment upbeat on property market measures
Homebuyers in Shanghai and surrounding areas have given a positive reaction over the weekend to the supportive measures unveiled on Friday to stabilize the nation's property market, market insiders said.
govt.chinadaily.com.cn
Key steps to stabilize real estate market
China's real estate market is expected to become fully stabilized in the second half of 2024, ending a three-year adjustment period, if the latest rounds of highly supportive policy measures are well implemented to boost homebuyer confidence and ease liquidity stress among developers, experts...
govt.chinadaily.com.cn
Beijingwalker
VIP Member
- Thread starter
- #88
which country doesn't have development issues? India? US? EU? Japan?LoL , sure , don't know why CCP higher ups are having nightmares then.
Within last two weeks
Unboxing China's policy toolkit for propping up property market
In a bid to support economic recovery, China has ramped up efforts to stabilize the real estate market, a pillar industry underpinning the world's second-largest economy.
Govt.cn article.
Sentiment upbeat on property market measures
Homebuyers in Shanghai and surrounding areas have given a positive reaction over the weekend to the supportive measures unveiled on Friday to stabilize the nation's property market, market insiders said.
Key steps to stabilize real estate market
China's real estate market is expected to become fully stabilized in the second half of 2024, ending a three-year adjustment period, if the latest rounds of highly supportive policy measures are well implemented to boost homebuyer confidence and ease liquidity stress among developers, experts...
SolarWarden
Trusted Member
Lol. I just love these delusional threads by chest thumping Chinese who don't understand how real wars are fought. When you go up against the US you just don't go up against one branch of military but against pretty much the whole system. It is one force unlike the PLA branches. What the US can do in the EM-realm is incomprehensible to Chinese fanboys because that is not how they think. Their thinking is quantity, somewhat quality and what looks good on parade and combat exercises they never think about the battle space picture that the US will own in any conflict with China under high-tech conditions.
Chinese had a small taste of what the US can do to China's powerful AESA antennas.
The Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post (SCMP) reported on August 14 that Chinese and US forces engaged in reconnaissance and electronic warfare before and after Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan, in which China lost.
China’s state-owned broadcaster CCTV reported that the PLA Navy and PLA Air Force conducted “full tracking and surveillance” against the US Air Force transport aircraft flying Pelosi and her delegation from Kuala Lumpur to Taipei on August 2.
The purpose of tracking was “deterrence,” according to PLA Major General Meng Xiangqing of the PLA National Defense University, cited by CCTV. However, PLA’s tracking efforts which involved the J-16D aircraft and a Type 055 destroyer, failed, reported SCMP, citing an unnamed Chinese military source.
“The PLA deployed some electronic warfare aircraft such as the J-16D and warships to try to locate Pelosi’s aircraft, but were not successful,” the report said.
“Almost all the PLA electronic warfare equipment couldn’t work because they were all jammed by electronic interference by the American aircraft strike group sent by the Pentagon to escort her.”
Pelosi’s aircraft reportedly took a longer and more indirect route, heading southeast toward the Indonesian part of Borneo. After that, it turned north and flew along the eastern part of the Philippines.
According to He Yuan Ming, an independent airpower analyst, it is not surprising that the Type 055 was not able to detect Pelosi’s aircraft, who noted that “the Type 055 (destroyer’s) radar is said to be 500-kilometer (310 miles),” but its “effective range in the real world would be much less.”
“Couple this with the vast operating area as well as the Type 055’s relative newness both in terms of its hardware (capabilities) and software (crew), there should be little surprise that the PLA (naval) cruiser could not locate (Pelosi’s plane),” Ming told SCMP.
www.scmp.com
So PLAN most power ship's antennas was "jammed" and wasn't able to track Pelosi's plane.
This is nothing compared to what the US military is fully capable of doing to China's electronic systems in conflict. F-35's is not just a stealth fighter but a weapon system that can jam/EW and cyberwarfare/E-virus.
-LANGLEY AFB: If you want to stop a conversation about the F-35 with a military officer or industry expert, then just start talking about its cyber or electronic warfare capabilities.
These are the capabilities that most excite the experts I’ve spoken with because they distinguish the F-35 from previous fighters, giving it what may be unprecedented abilities to confuse the enemy, attack him in new ways through electronics (think Stuxnet), and generally add enormous breadth to what we might call the plane’s conventional strike capabilities.
So I asked Air Force Gen. Mike Hostage, head of Air Combat Command here, about the F-35’s cyber capabilities, mentioning comments by former Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz several years ago about the F-35 having the “nascent capability” to attack Integrated Air Defense Systems (known to you and me as surface to air missiles) with cyber weapons.
Hostage deftly shifts the conversation each time I press for insights on the F-35’s cyber and EW. He doesn’t refuse to talk, as that would be impolite and, well, too obvious.
He starts off with what sounds like a shaggy dog story.
“When I was a youngster flying F-16s we would go fly close air support at the National Training Center for the Army,” he tells me. “They would have a large ground force: blue guys, OpFor [opposing forces], they’d go out and have big battles on the ground. And they would bring the [Close Air Support] CAS in to participate. They’d let us come in, we’d fly for 30 minutes and then they’d shoo us away because they wanted to have their force on force and if they allowed the CAS to participate during force on force it fundamentally changed the nature of the ground battle.”
Then he brings us back to the issue at hand, and mentions the Air Force’s Red Flag exercises, the pinnacle of the service’s force-on-force training: “Fast forward to today. We do Red Flag for the purpose of giving our young wingman those first 10 days of combat, or first 10 combat missions in a controlled environment because what we’ve studied over the years of conflict is the first 10 missions are where you’re most likely to lose your fleet. So if you can replicate that first 10 in a controlled environment with a very high degree of fidelity, you’ve greatly increased the probability that they’re going to survive their actual first 10 combat missions. So Red Flag is the closest we can get to real combat without actually shooting people.”
Allies are a key part of the Red Flag exercises, especially as the F-35 becomes the plane flown by most of our closest allies, from Britain to Israel to Australia and beyond. But the toughest, most realistic exercises at Red Flag occur when it’s only American pilots flying against each other.
During those Red Flag-3 exercises they integrate space and cyber weapons into the fight, including those the F-35 possesses. Those capabilities make are “so effective that we have to be very careful that in a real world scenario we don’t hurt ourselves allowing them to play.”
Then he gets back to the point at hand. “So, to answer your question, it has tremendous capability. We’re in the early stages of exploring how to get the most effectiveness out of cyber and space, but we’re integrating it into the Air Operations Center; we’re integrating it into the combat plan; and it is absolutely the way of the future. And you’re right, the AESA radar has tremendous capacity to play in that game.”
Boil all that down and it comes to this. Gen. Hostage is saying that the F-35’s cyber capabilities are so effective — combined with space assets, which are often difficult to distinguish in effect from cyber capabilities — that the planes have to stop using them so the pilots can shoot at each other.
The obvious question that arises from this is, how can a radar system also be a cyber weapon? We’ve all seen those World War II movies where the radar dish sweeps back and forth. The energy beams out, strikes the enemy plane and comes back as a blip. What makes an AESA radar special is the fact that it beams energy in digital zeroes and ones — and the beam can be focused. This allows the radar to function as both a scanning radar, a cyber weapon and an electronic warfare tool.
AESA Radar, Cyber And IADS
Here’s an excellent explanation for how we go from radio and radar and military systems that are not connected to the Internet yet remain vulnerable to hacking that I’ve cribbed from my deputy, Sydney Freedberg, from a recent piece he wrote in Breaking Defense about cyberwar. An enemy’s radios and radars are run by computers, so you can transmit signals to hack them. If the enemy’s computers are linked together then your virus can spread throughout that network. The enemy does not have to be connected to the Internet. You just need the enemy’s radios and radar to receive incoming signals – which they have to do in order to function.
So, as a former top intelligence official explained to me about two years ago, the AESA radar’s beams can throw out those zeros and ones to ANY sort of receiver. And an enemy’s radar is a receiver. His radios are receivers. Some of his electronic warfare sensors are also receivers.
But neither Hostage nor many others I spoke with were willing to be specific on the record about how effective the AESA radar, working with the aircraft’s sensors like the Distributed Aperture System and its data fusion system, will be. So the following is information culled from conversations over the last three months with a wide range of knowledgeable people inside government and the defense industry, as well as retired military and intelligence officers.
As the F-35 flies toward the Chinese coast and several hundred incoming PLAAF J-20s streak toward them in the scenario outlined in the first piece of this series, spoofing (using the enemy’s own systems to deceive him) will be a major part of our attack.
Enemy radar may well show thousands of F-35s and other aircraft heading their way, with stealth cross-sections that appear to match what the Chinese believe is the F-35’s cross section. Only a few hundred of them are real, but the Chinese can’t be certain which are which, forcing them to waste long-range missiles and forcing them to get closer to the US and allied F-35s so they can tell with greater fidelity which ones are real. The Chinese will try and use Infrared Search and Track (IRST) sensors, which have shorter ranges but provide tremendous fidelity in the right weather conditions. But that, of course, renders them more vulnerable to one sensor on the F-35 that even the plane’s critics rarely criticize, the Distributed Aperture System (DAS).-
breakingdefense.com
So just because China built a car that looks like a Mercedes/Rolls in Hongqi-H9 doesn't mean it's a Mercedes/Rolls in quality performance. Same with Chinese stealth fighters and AESA radars just because they have them doesn't mean they have the capability/performance of US stealth fighters and AESA radars.
Chinese had a small taste of what the US can do to China's powerful AESA antennas.
US Wins 1st Round Of Electronic Warfare Bout Against China; Experts Admit PLA’s EW Equipment Was Crippled
According to recent media reports, the US military scored a major victory against China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in an electronic battle when US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Taiwan.The Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post (SCMP) reported on August 14 that Chinese and US forces engaged in reconnaissance and electronic warfare before and after Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan, in which China lost.
China’s state-owned broadcaster CCTV reported that the PLA Navy and PLA Air Force conducted “full tracking and surveillance” against the US Air Force transport aircraft flying Pelosi and her delegation from Kuala Lumpur to Taipei on August 2.
The purpose of tracking was “deterrence,” according to PLA Major General Meng Xiangqing of the PLA National Defense University, cited by CCTV. However, PLA’s tracking efforts which involved the J-16D aircraft and a Type 055 destroyer, failed, reported SCMP, citing an unnamed Chinese military source.
“The PLA deployed some electronic warfare aircraft such as the J-16D and warships to try to locate Pelosi’s aircraft, but were not successful,” the report said.
“Almost all the PLA electronic warfare equipment couldn’t work because they were all jammed by electronic interference by the American aircraft strike group sent by the Pentagon to escort her.”
Pelosi’s aircraft reportedly took a longer and more indirect route, heading southeast toward the Indonesian part of Borneo. After that, it turned north and flew along the eastern part of the Philippines.
According to He Yuan Ming, an independent airpower analyst, it is not surprising that the Type 055 was not able to detect Pelosi’s aircraft, who noted that “the Type 055 (destroyer’s) radar is said to be 500-kilometer (310 miles),” but its “effective range in the real world would be much less.”
“Couple this with the vast operating area as well as the Type 055’s relative newness both in terms of its hardware (capabilities) and software (crew), there should be little surprise that the PLA (naval) cruiser could not locate (Pelosi’s plane),” Ming told SCMP.
How Pelosi’s Taiwan trip set off a new wave of US-China electronic warfare
PLA eyes in the sky and at sea sought to track the aircraft carrying the US House speaker.
www.scmp.com
So PLAN most power ship's antennas was "jammed" and wasn't able to track Pelosi's plane.
This is nothing compared to what the US military is fully capable of doing to China's electronic systems in conflict. F-35's is not just a stealth fighter but a weapon system that can jam/EW and cyberwarfare/E-virus.
-LANGLEY AFB: If you want to stop a conversation about the F-35 with a military officer or industry expert, then just start talking about its cyber or electronic warfare capabilities.
These are the capabilities that most excite the experts I’ve spoken with because they distinguish the F-35 from previous fighters, giving it what may be unprecedented abilities to confuse the enemy, attack him in new ways through electronics (think Stuxnet), and generally add enormous breadth to what we might call the plane’s conventional strike capabilities.
So I asked Air Force Gen. Mike Hostage, head of Air Combat Command here, about the F-35’s cyber capabilities, mentioning comments by former Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz several years ago about the F-35 having the “nascent capability” to attack Integrated Air Defense Systems (known to you and me as surface to air missiles) with cyber weapons.
Hostage deftly shifts the conversation each time I press for insights on the F-35’s cyber and EW. He doesn’t refuse to talk, as that would be impolite and, well, too obvious.
He starts off with what sounds like a shaggy dog story.
“When I was a youngster flying F-16s we would go fly close air support at the National Training Center for the Army,” he tells me. “They would have a large ground force: blue guys, OpFor [opposing forces], they’d go out and have big battles on the ground. And they would bring the [Close Air Support] CAS in to participate. They’d let us come in, we’d fly for 30 minutes and then they’d shoo us away because they wanted to have their force on force and if they allowed the CAS to participate during force on force it fundamentally changed the nature of the ground battle.”
Then he brings us back to the issue at hand, and mentions the Air Force’s Red Flag exercises, the pinnacle of the service’s force-on-force training: “Fast forward to today. We do Red Flag for the purpose of giving our young wingman those first 10 days of combat, or first 10 combat missions in a controlled environment because what we’ve studied over the years of conflict is the first 10 missions are where you’re most likely to lose your fleet. So if you can replicate that first 10 in a controlled environment with a very high degree of fidelity, you’ve greatly increased the probability that they’re going to survive their actual first 10 combat missions. So Red Flag is the closest we can get to real combat without actually shooting people.”
Allies are a key part of the Red Flag exercises, especially as the F-35 becomes the plane flown by most of our closest allies, from Britain to Israel to Australia and beyond. But the toughest, most realistic exercises at Red Flag occur when it’s only American pilots flying against each other.
During those Red Flag-3 exercises they integrate space and cyber weapons into the fight, including those the F-35 possesses. Those capabilities make are “so effective that we have to be very careful that in a real world scenario we don’t hurt ourselves allowing them to play.”
Then he gets back to the point at hand. “So, to answer your question, it has tremendous capability. We’re in the early stages of exploring how to get the most effectiveness out of cyber and space, but we’re integrating it into the Air Operations Center; we’re integrating it into the combat plan; and it is absolutely the way of the future. And you’re right, the AESA radar has tremendous capacity to play in that game.”
Boil all that down and it comes to this. Gen. Hostage is saying that the F-35’s cyber capabilities are so effective — combined with space assets, which are often difficult to distinguish in effect from cyber capabilities — that the planes have to stop using them so the pilots can shoot at each other.
The obvious question that arises from this is, how can a radar system also be a cyber weapon? We’ve all seen those World War II movies where the radar dish sweeps back and forth. The energy beams out, strikes the enemy plane and comes back as a blip. What makes an AESA radar special is the fact that it beams energy in digital zeroes and ones — and the beam can be focused. This allows the radar to function as both a scanning radar, a cyber weapon and an electronic warfare tool.
AESA Radar, Cyber And IADS
Here’s an excellent explanation for how we go from radio and radar and military systems that are not connected to the Internet yet remain vulnerable to hacking that I’ve cribbed from my deputy, Sydney Freedberg, from a recent piece he wrote in Breaking Defense about cyberwar. An enemy’s radios and radars are run by computers, so you can transmit signals to hack them. If the enemy’s computers are linked together then your virus can spread throughout that network. The enemy does not have to be connected to the Internet. You just need the enemy’s radios and radar to receive incoming signals – which they have to do in order to function.
So, as a former top intelligence official explained to me about two years ago, the AESA radar’s beams can throw out those zeros and ones to ANY sort of receiver. And an enemy’s radar is a receiver. His radios are receivers. Some of his electronic warfare sensors are also receivers.
But neither Hostage nor many others I spoke with were willing to be specific on the record about how effective the AESA radar, working with the aircraft’s sensors like the Distributed Aperture System and its data fusion system, will be. So the following is information culled from conversations over the last three months with a wide range of knowledgeable people inside government and the defense industry, as well as retired military and intelligence officers.
As the F-35 flies toward the Chinese coast and several hundred incoming PLAAF J-20s streak toward them in the scenario outlined in the first piece of this series, spoofing (using the enemy’s own systems to deceive him) will be a major part of our attack.
Enemy radar may well show thousands of F-35s and other aircraft heading their way, with stealth cross-sections that appear to match what the Chinese believe is the F-35’s cross section. Only a few hundred of them are real, but the Chinese can’t be certain which are which, forcing them to waste long-range missiles and forcing them to get closer to the US and allied F-35s so they can tell with greater fidelity which ones are real. The Chinese will try and use Infrared Search and Track (IRST) sensors, which have shorter ranges but provide tremendous fidelity in the right weather conditions. But that, of course, renders them more vulnerable to one sensor on the F-35 that even the plane’s critics rarely criticize, the Distributed Aperture System (DAS).-
'A God's Eye View Of The Battlefield:' Gen. Hostage On The F-35 - Breaking Defense
For years, the news about the most expensive conventional weapons system in US history, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, has been driven by its enormous cost, design, and schedule screw-ups. The Pentagon and Congress and the public have rarely spoken about what the F-35 would do, how effectively...
breakingdefense.com
So just because China built a car that looks like a Mercedes/Rolls in Hongqi-H9 doesn't mean it's a Mercedes/Rolls in quality performance. Same with Chinese stealth fighters and AESA radars just because they have them doesn't mean they have the capability/performance of US stealth fighters and AESA radars.
KingQamaR
Elite Member
Military experts agree that the greatest advantage of China is that its fighter planes would be fighting near its home bases in mainland China and the artificial islands it built in the SCS.
Users who are viewing this thread
Pakistan Defence Latest
Country Watch Latest
Latest Posts
-
If you go to China, you'll never see the world the same way again (17 Viewers)- Latest: Hamartia Antidote
-
-
-
