China Can Beat the U.S. Air Force in a War

[F-22Raptor]

Hahaha, one has to hand it to China, though. Not saying you're not doing that, I just think that too many have the tendency to dismiss any potential foe to the mighty United States military and in many cases, rightfully so. A practically unlimited budget with some of the most brilliant minds on earth is an almost unbeatable combination. Why the US is at the forefront of nearly every technological & industrial field. But to the basically knowledgeable individual, it's not too difficult to see that China has its own qualities and advantages and has risen to superpower level and in many ways surpassed Russia not so much a belligerent threat to the United States, but as a competitive.

Unfortunately, some of that threat conception is taken and used to propagate the military industrial concept exactly for that reason. The MIC lobby can't use Russia so much anymore, like it used to extensively during the cold war and for much of the time after. But now China has taken that spot.

You look at how quickly they developed and put the J-20 into operation it's remarkable. Unabashedly reverse-engineering or copying or basically doing whatever it had to in order to get it done, and boy did it ever.

The Su-57 is hardly a threat to the USAF anymore not because of its threat level, but because of that aircraft's developmental stagnation, if it can be called that. It's taken too long to develop the engine (similar to the demise of the MiG-35 and its issues with the AESA radar). Taken too long to get the production line rolling. Too many instances where it's faced criticism and never put up a fight or counter that criticism in any meaningful way.

Then you have the J-20 which exploded out of nowhere and onto the scene and took over 1st place to its Russian counterpart. Almost like the favored track runner in first place at the Olympics coming around the last corner and suddenly some Chinese dude who started in last place catches up to him and passes him to the finish line lol. Because of all that, the Su-57's threat level to the F-22 or even the F-35 is nowhere near that of the J-20, at least on paper anyway.

And if the F-22 or F-35 -- and particularly the NGAD -- need funding from Congress, then the J-20 and the China threat need to be played to get paid.

View attachment 41043

This is the new age we're at now. Long gone are the days of moving from 4th generation fighters to the new concept of stealth and so on. It's all about hyper technology advancement, sensor fusion, counter stealth and unmanned concepts.

And an aerial battle between China and the US even at this stage of the game would be something out of this world. The problem the US would find itself in is that it might not have enough advanced platforms between both, the Raptors and the F-35s to go up against China's J-20s, so it would be forced to bring in its F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s. At the same time, we really don't know how good the J-20 is since we have no samples to go by like we do with the Raptor and F-35s. Or even the F-15s, 16s & 18s vs J-10Bs & Cs, J-9s & J-11s. It would be a dream to watch, especially with all the visual recording technology available today.

China should 'worry' about Taiwan 2027 timeline, J-20 is just 'OK' fighter: PACAF chief - Breaking Defense

“China has a much more difficult military problem from the standpoint of, they have to accomplish one of the most difficult military events that you would have to do," said Gen. Kenneth Wilsbach. “If I was them, I'd be worried. If I was a [Chinese] military commander, I'd be worried about 2027.”

breakingdefense.com

While the J-20 is certainly more capable than the Su-57, the US Air Force isn’t really all that concerned about the J-20.

 

[GoMig-21]

FMC planes are those capable of flying all unit-assigned missions.
which is not an excellent number.

I completely agree, pretty much what I was saying. I would think the FMC should be well over 85%. I was just making the distinction that just because 30% of the jets are full mission-capable, doesn't mean the other 70% can't even get off the ground. Which is kind of what was implied.

But hey, that still is well below expectations for a program that was originally supposed to cost around $200 billion and ended up being twice that at over $400+ billion with a lifetime cost of most countries' GDP! lol. Something like $2 trillion.

And here's a good question to think about; what is the complete list of parameters that make a F-35 fully mission capable? And what are those of the J-20? That's actually a much better thing to discuss than the silly tit-for-tat shhttuuuff.

 

[majesticpug]

China stole the detailed schematics of this warplane as early as 2005, during a cyber operation known as Titan Rain. They have had ample time to copy the plane as well as to build countermeasures against it.

That's a hearsay that's not going to be proven and is as good as America's claims of Xinjiang genocides and Saddam Hussein had the biochemical WMD. Another 'I'm America then what I say must be true' directive to the world. America's stealing of China's South-West(?) Univ of Tech 200GB of data was just to 'merely to review China's progress, not copying', in hypersonic missiles and aircraft designs.

There's a Chinese saying: Whether it's a donkey or horse, just pull it out and see. I think Chinese people had enough of these American bullying and smearing and the American people heard enough of the propaganda about Xinjiang whatever and China a security threat. It's time to settle the scores.

People of the world are tired of sanction these and sanction that also.

 

[UKBengali]

Yep, you're exactly right, "espionage" is a euphemism. It's a euphemism for thievery!

First, China stole the detailed schematics of this warplane as early as 2005, during a cyber operation known as Titan Rain. They have had ample time to copy the plane as well as to build countermeasures against it.

And no, sorry, espionage is an entirely different thing.

If China and whomever can get away with such bold and blatant thievery, good for them and shame on the US for allowing such a heist to happen. But I can't imagine the US being so reckless as to allow the blueprints for the F-35 to be hacked and stolen by China no matter how advanced its cyberspace tech and capabilities are. The US is no slouch -- especially in that field -- to allow such a devastating heist to occur, even if it was by the Klingon or the Borg for that matter.

This is total and utter bull.

The most critical data would be stored "offline" and not in one server in one location either. Impossible for China to have obtained the amount of data that was alleged.

It is just western propaganda bordering on racism that non-whites cannot develop technology at the same level as whites.

 

[DF-41]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[j_hungary]

If you study modern China, its case of a grievous non-virtuous highly immoral extreme-statist contraption imposed for a very large duration of the 20th century (and ongoing in its various ways)....that has only introduced a number of virtuous cycles nested inside it after the major perpetrator of the former one passed away.....the person that justified and even praised the Japanese doing what they did to the Chinese nation, simply because it brought him to power in his immoral depraved zero-sum extremist statist thinking. While the Soviets went out of their way to hold Stalin's excesses to some account afterwards, no such thing has been done in the PRC regarding its cult image dude.

The US, on the other hand, in this same juncture of time had cultivated a larger virtuous system (through a number of trial and tribulations from the era before it) and now nests a number of non-virtuous cycles by way of number of reasons (but the very nature of this addressal systematically is also magnitudes lower than the problem that confronts China by having it other way around).

Really its best discussed in the book thread, you can quote this post there if you want to continue....as largely I lose interest in most other sections of the forum unless a worthy or friend tags me like you have.

But really the force levels, and that too just the Airforce alone have to be understood through this larger prism of context first.

As to the importance of things like mobilisation + war experience rather than schrodinger reliant goosestepping, posturing and brochures. There are huge pitfalls of FAFO when this is indulged as it is by the Chinese statist model as seen in 1979 Vietnam notably, when the boxes were best left unopened as the cats were all clearly dead given the objectives and investments of that real war....rather than whichever one the planners had convinced themselves on paper. Similar to the experience Russia has had with Ukraine in its own way right now (on paper Russia convinced itself of a great many things that simply didnt pan out).

This impacts everything in the schrodinger strategy since too, as say @gambit can tell you with the J-20 quite specifically (among other technologies)....or @j_hungary more broadly w.r.t modern China itself.

Till there is a revolution that re-orients the "extreme-statism" first, the mainland component of the Chinese nation is slaved and stockholm syndromed to the CCP and its grievous legacy and unaccountability on it.....and the doom already imposed in long term ways with the severe baked in demographic crunch or the continued festering of SOE and real estate ponzi w.r.t "labour theory of value" approaches enveloping, clouding and burdening what China has progressed on since the Mao era.

Anyway its best dicussed in the other thread. So yeah I will sympathise with some aspects of the Chinese nation and the virtuous cycles allowed some living room and time now compared to before......but the state is a completely different inverted contraption and continues to be the nationstates borrowed time doom.

In any case it also needs someone further up the ladder from even the statist edifice to be here on this forum..... not the commiebot types that permeate instead with the stale one-liners and propaganda spiel. Like Han told the Hutt, next time come yourself, dont send one of these punks....

A few months ago, I was asked for my professional opinion in my last job to explain to someone why Russia, in all aspect on paper, should have been rolling over Ukraine twice by now still have difficulty taking a single major city.

I looked around and pick up an apple and a bottle of water. I ask him, which one would you bring if you are going to war tomorrow, knowing that he never served nor ever set foot on a battlefield.

He quickly picks the bottle of water. I asked him why and his reply was "you need water to live mate" Then I told him, this is why Russia not doing very great in Ukraine. And he asked "water?"

Battle is all about experience, things that you process that make you more adaptive to the environment. You can try to learn it from history, learn it from classroom, or run it on simulation, it's not going to be the same when the eventual shit hit the fan, and unlike video game, you cannot reload a save and respawn if you failed.

That essentially the major different between Western and Eastern Doctrine. In the west, we look at practicality of stuff, if an op is too risky to pull, that mean it is too risky, I don't care how much you want something, or how much that mean anything to you, if it is too risky, I won't risk it. Eastern doctrine based on perception, if you look big, then you are big. The issue here is that would be okay if you are really "big" but if you are not, then you are biting more than you can chew.

That's essentially what's wrong with Russia, and to some extend Eastern doctrine. While we based our expertise in experience and practicality, eastern doctrine based on power (or projection thereof) I will give you an example. Logistic problem the Russian had is not because they don't know how to do logistic, nor because they don't have enough resource to pull it off, the issue here is, they don't have an operational point of view, in the west, we based our logistical capability on what you need in battle. For Russia, what they need is everything, but then unlike in video game or movie where everything can be brought to frontline without consideration, you still need to physically bring it to the frontline, which is why you can't get everything, and you have to choose, and when you choose the wrong thing because you don't have experience on choosing, that's going to go against your progress.

Russia is learning at a faster rate for the 2 years or so fighting in Ukraine than all of their op combines in the last 30 years. That is because they are facing a foe that capable and more importantly, willing to fight you, when people make fun of ISAF war in Afghanistan, they don't know that the fact that Taliban is willing to die to kill us, that alone make the war real, because if you had been in a war, you know the gun run from an A-10 is not going to scare you, the sound of 120mm gun firing from a tank is not going to scare you, the bomb dropping from a F-15 Eagle is not going to scare you when you are not afraid to die. And that's what scare me in war.

Going back to the apple vs water bottle question. Why apple is the better choice you may ask? From a guy who had done long range combat patrol before, apple don't rattle. That's why

 

[GoMig-21]

Going back to the apple vs water bottle question. Why apple is the better choice you may ask? From a guy who had done long range combat patrol before, apple don't rattle. That's why

Ok, Hungary, I'll bite, pun intended and yes, you did lose me there because although @Nilgiri 's reply to me was on a nuclear level, no doubt, all throughout your post I'm trying to find the connection to China's Air Force vs US Air Force and the only connection I think you're saying is that technological parity notwithstanding, the US has a lot more experience in air warfare than China?

But even so, you mentioned Russia's struggles with logistics at the front which is really not a huge distance all things considered. However, in this scenario here despite the US' tremendous power-projection capabilities, it would still be fighting an aerial battle halfway across the world but well within China's easily reachable territory. Someone brought that up earlier in the thread and I thought that was a very valid argument quite well in China's favor.

And as far as the apple or the bottle of water, by "don't rattle" are you referring to the plastic water bottles that crinkle & rankle and scrackle & cackle noisy so they'd tend to give up a soldier's position? lol and that the apple will give you both, food nutrition and water so it's a better choice than just water? Help me out, here.

BTW, I would take them both and put the water in my cantine so it doesn't crinckle and scrackle and have my apple, too since you didn't say "one or the other."

 

[Nilgiri]

A few months ago, I was asked for my professional opinion in my last job to explain to someone why Russia, in all aspect on paper, should have been rolling over Ukraine twice by now still have difficulty taking a single major city.

I looked around and pick up an apple and a bottle of water. I ask him, which one would you bring if you are going to war tomorrow, knowing that he never served nor ever set foot on a battlefield.

He quickly picks the bottle of water. I asked him why and his reply was "you need water to live mate" Then I told him, this is why Russia not doing very great in Ukraine. And he asked "water?"

Battle is all about experience, things that you process that make you more adaptive to the environment. You can try to learn it from history, learn it from classroom, or run it on simulation, it's not going to be the same when the eventual shit hit the fan, and unlike video game, you cannot reload a save and respawn if you failed.

That essentially the major different between Western and Eastern Doctrine. In the west, we look at practicality of stuff, if an op is too risky to pull, that mean it is too risky, I don't care how much you want something, or how much that mean anything to you, if it is too risky, I won't risk it. Eastern doctrine based on perception, if you look big, then you are big. The issue here is that would be okay if you are really "big" but if you are not, then you are biting more than you can chew.

That's essentially what's wrong with Russia, and to some extend Eastern doctrine. While we based our expertise in experience and practicality, eastern doctrine based on power (or projection thereof) I will give you an example. Logistic problem the Russian had is not because they don't know how to do logistic, nor because they don't have enough resource to pull it off, the issue here is, they don't have an operational point of view, in the west, we based our logistical capability on what you need in battle. For Russia, what they need is everything, but then unlike in video game or movie where everything can be brought to frontline without consideration, you still need to physically bring it to the frontline, which is why you can't get everything, and you have to choose, and when you choose the wrong thing because you don't have experience on choosing, that's going to go against your progress.

Russia is learning at a faster rate for the 2 years or so fighting in Ukraine than all of their op combines in the last 30 years. That is because they are facing a foe that capable and more importantly, willing to fight you, when people make fun of ISAF war in Afghanistan, they don't know that the fact that Taliban is willing to die to kill us, that alone make the war real, because if you had been in a war, you know the gun run from an A-10 is not going to scare you, the sound of 120mm gun firing from a tank is not going to scare you, the bomb dropping from a F-15 Eagle is not going to scare you when you are not afraid to die. And that's what scare me in war.

Going back to the apple vs water bottle question. Why apple is the better choice you may ask? From a guy who had done long range combat patrol before, apple don't rattle. That's why

Yah Russia is pressure fed, we got this much...divide by number of units, this is how much you will have to make do with.....and have to trust us bro on the paper it even exists and works as it should (which it often doesn't

Its not end-requirement driven like west..... thats also much more expensive ofc too, but its extremely war potent when required.

I mean you know the reforger exercises done in late cold war (I forget if it was you I chatted about them with before)....these put capabilities to near realisation to make sure everything is tic tac toe....this was before iraq and afg wars too. These are of another level compared to what Russia and PRC, though PRC has now done large investments over time with growing resources it has.

So with China (PRC) we can only wait till next schrodinger cat reveal....all along its total military org domain on this stuff....we cannot assume they are at Russian level of the issue (like what plagued them in 1979, ironically due to USSR tieing up most of their forces up north) somewhere in between Russia and NATO I think but hard to say where exactly.

In the interim till that time....a lot of NATO type equivalencies (individual tech assets, tech tree capacity etc) will be broadcast to create aura by the PRC too, to hide the gooey parts that are not so great still.

Till then everyone has to make best of what they can see and plan for the risks from PRC.

 

[Nilgiri]

Ok, Hungary, I'll bite, pun intended and yes, you did lose me there because although @Nilgiri 's reply to me was on a nuclear level, no doubt, all throughout your post I'm trying to find the connection to China's Air Force vs US Air Force and the only connection I think you're saying is that technological parity notwithstanding, the US has a lot more experience in air warfare than China?

But even so, you mentioned Russia's struggles with logistics at the front which is really not a huge distance all things considered. However, in this scenario here despite the US' tremendous power-projection capabilities, it would still be fighting an aerial battle halfway across the world but well within China's easily reachable territory. Someone brought that up earlier in the thread and I thought that was a very valid argument quite well in China's favor.

And as far as the apple or the bottle of water, by "don't rattle" are you referring to the plastic water bottles that crinkle & rankle and scrackle & cackle noisy so they'd tend to give up a soldier's position? lol and that the apple will give you both, food nutrition and water so it's a better choice than just water? Help me out, here.

BTW, I would take them both and put the water in my cantine so it doesn't crinckle and scrackle and have my apple, too since you didn't say "one or the other."

I mean you have to look at what are the USAF assets in Japan and Korea to begin with, and their logistical + support capacities per squadron etc. Over time US is looking to add philippines to this mix. It presents a serious conventional deterrence if you look at the reach and ranges to the geography thats baked in for China in eastern sea board.

 

[ziaulislam]

China Can Beat the U.S. Air Force in a War​

China’s war planners have not only beefed up their numbers of aircraft but they have also expanded their technological prowess. China has constructed a bevy of what they are calling Fifth-Generation warplanes to rival America’s F-22 Raptor and F-35. Many technology analysts argue that China’s Fifth-Generation warplanes aren’t as good or stealthy as America’s. But that’s beside the point.

by Brandon J. Weichert
April 15, 2024

For 20 years, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) has striven to reach parity with the United States Air Force. A recent Pentagon report highlights the various ways that China’s air force has at the very least, become a true near-peer competitor to the USAF.

In many respects, the Chinese air force might be able to overwhelm the Americans in a fight over Taiwan by sheer numbers of warplanes.

Chinese generals have planned for a 96-hour air war for dominance in the skies above Taiwan. They plan for surgical strikes against key infrastructure nodes. China’s forces have planned for a decapitation strike against the Taiwanese government, too. Much of these moves would be a prelude to an invasion of Taiwan.

China needs an air force that is both large enough to swamp whatever territorial defenses Taiwan has, and to defend its territory and invasion force from the likely military responses of the United States and its regional allies.

China’s war planners have not only beefed up their numbers of aircraft but they have also expanded their technological prowess. China has constructed a bevy of what they are calling Fifth-Generation warplanes to rival America’s F-22 Raptor and F-35. Many technology analysts argue that China’s Fifth-Generation warplanes aren’t as good or stealthy as America’s.

But that’s beside the point. China doesn’t need to be pitch-perfect with anything they’re building. They just need to be good enough—which they are.

The old Maoism doctrine of “quantity having a quality of its own” combines nicely here with the old axiom that, “geography is destiny.” China’s targets, whether it be northern India, the South or East China Seas, or Taiwan are all near China's shores.

These territories are distant from America.

China's Home-Field Advantage​

Thus, the U.S. military must deploy its forces across vast distances and rely upon regional partners for basing and refueling rights to get its military nearby to China’s area of conflict. Beijing enjoys the equivalent of home-field advantages over the Americans and massive industrial capabilities to churn out their warplanes like butter.

The fact that China’s planes aren’t as sophisticated as America’s is also, unfortunately, an advantage for China. Their planes can be replaced at a much more reliable, faster, and easier rate than America can deploy, repair, and replace its warplanes.

Take the F-22 Raptor, for example. In every wargame scenario the Pentagon runs, the introduction of even a small number of Raptors can tip a potential battle with Chinese forces in America’s favor.

Yet, there are a limited number of those warplanes. And while these planes can do more than previous generations of warplanes, if faced with significantly higher numbers of Chinese fighters, they will eventually be taken down. What's more, China's inventory of stealth warplanes is set to surpass that of America's.

As for the F-35, the U.S. military’s preferred replacement for the aging fourth-generation warplane fleet, there are many problems with this vehicle.

First, China stole the detailed schematics of this warplane as early as 2005, during a cyber operation known as Titan Rain. They have had ample time to copy the plane as well as to build countermeasures against it.

Second, the F-35 is not nearly as good of an air-to-air fighter as the F-22.

Yet, former President Barack Obama discontinued the production line of the F-22 in 2009 to save costs. The number of F-22s the U.S. air fleet has at its disposal is the highest number it will have until the vaunted sixth-generation warplane is ready in a decade or so.

Third, the F-35 is far more expensive plane than most Chinese planes to produce and maintain. If airframes are lost at a faster clip than what America’s limited industrial capacity can replace in wartime, then those assets are gone, and strategic vulnerabilities are created in the American defense.

There’s the added problem that has plagued America in the post-World War II strategic environment. Whereas America, as a self-styled global power—a superpower, no less—has expansive interests in basically every region in the world, China’s core strategic interests remain close to Chinese territory. Of course, that means that possible war with the West would likely be fought closer to Chinese homes.

But that means that China can tailor their regional forces to pack a heavier punch against the distracted, strained, and stretched international U.S. forces.

Going to War with Our Suppliers?​

Meanwhile, imbalances and inefficiencies plague America’s military supply chain. In fact, the president of leading American defense contractor Raytheon chided U.S. policymakers over the summer for risking war with China.

That’s because so much of America’s defense supply chain runs through China. Will Beijing let the U.S. military have open access to wartime supplies in the event of a conflict between the United States and China? Don’t be ridiculous. China has America by the short hair.

China, on the other hand, does not have these problems. Not only has China worked assiduously to proof its society and economy against Western economic sanctions, but it has furthered ties with nearby powers—notably Russia—to ensure that its industrial base will remain untouched by any conflict with the West.

There remain vulnerabilities for China. But in the specific case of China’s massive air fleet and the proximity of their targets to Chinese forces, China could defeat the U.S. alliance in an air war over Taiwan. With America's possible loss of air dominance over Taiwan, China's invasion would have a free hand to do whatever it wanted to against Taiwan's defenders--and Taiwan would be isolated away from its Western allies for the duration of the invasion – unless America sought to significantly escalate against China which is unlikely.

Probably not
China doesn't have require fifth gen fighters in numbers or quality

Once they have 1000 j35s we can then talk business (usaf/usn has around 500+)

 

[ziaulislam]

It's 2+2 maths
China needs fifth gen fighters and required amphibious capabilities

Probably need a vertical take off fighter too

 

[Beijingwalker]

Probably not
China doesn't have require fifth gen fighters in numbers or quality

Once they have 1000 j35s we can then talk business (usaf/usn has around 500+)

How many of those planes can be used to fight China? it all depends on where the said war would be fight.

 

[ziaulislam]

How many of those planes can be used to fight China? it all depends on where the said war would be fight.

Still if USA brings all its fleet to Guam and Japan China can't win

Chinese navy is good enough now (except for submarine force) but air force needs to catch up

 

[Beijingwalker]

Still if USA brings all its fleet to Guam and Japan China can't win

Chinese navy is good enough now (except for submarine force) but air force needs to catch up

IF US fight China near China, it just can't win. if it couldn't win a war in Korea 70 years ago when China basically had nothing, what makes you believe they can win now?

 

[j_hungary]

Ok, Hungary, I'll bite, pun intended and yes, you did lose me there because although @Nilgiri 's reply to me was on a nuclear level, no doubt, all throughout your post I'm trying to find the connection to China's Air Force vs US Air Force and the only connection I think you're saying is that technological parity notwithstanding, the US has a lot more experience in air warfare than China?

But even so, you mentioned Russia's struggles with logistics at the front which is really not a huge distance all things considered. However, in this scenario here despite the US' tremendous power-projection capabilities, it would still be fighting an aerial battle halfway across the world but well within China's easily reachable territory. Someone brought that up earlier in the thread and I thought that was a very valid argument quite well in China's favor.

And as far as the apple or the bottle of water, by "don't rattle" are you referring to the plastic water bottles that crinkle & rankle and scrackle & cackle noisy so they'd tend to give up a soldier's position? lol and that the apple will give you both, food nutrition and water so it's a better choice than just water? Help me out, here.

BTW, I would take them both and put the water in my cantine so it doesn't crinckle and scrackle and have my apple, too since you didn't say "one or the other."

Typing with a broken keyboard, so, you need to excuse me if I keystroke bunched up together.

What I was replying is @Nilgiri saying why Russia and Chinese military is like a schrodinger cat, I didn't make it with the topic in mind, but it can still translate to air power projection because it involved all level of warfighting capability

The example I use, the issue for logistic goes all level, I chose that because that had the broader effect on all experience wise, most logistic op are based on experience, you kind of know what you are expecting before, during and after an op, some are no brainer solution (like you always going to put medical supplies (or 8 out) after an ops or ammunition (5 out) before an op, but stuff like uniform, equipment, gear, petroleum product or just about any other class of supply. The problem is, there is a fix capability to bring stuff toward the battlefield, any expansion of logistic capability requires exponential fold of increasing of your general capabilities depends on the length of the log line, because you need to have 3 to 1 supporter to warfighter, another 3 to 1 for each supporter to support another supporter.

So, for any unit you bring, you are going to miss something else, because it would have taken the spot. Which mean what you know about the requirement before hand is going to be advantageous to your warfighting capabilities. And the only way you are going to know what you need in war is by going to war yourself. Because otherwise everything is just simulated, you don't have the urgency.

In the case of air war between US and China, the issue would have applied to not even warfighting capability, but long-term strategy, fighting a war on the top level is really like playing chess, you need to anticipate your opponent 3 move ahead and at the same time you are trying to hide yours. So which mean what you do is directly related to what you have and how long you can sustain a war is by sending the right thing to the right place at the right time. But how do you know it's the right thing, the right place and the right time? That can only be from warfighting experience. I am not going to pretend I know shit about air war planning to give you are more dedicated example. But in land war, which is out of the scope, you need to be able to push at the right time on the right place in order to win a war. You exploit your enemy weakness and it wouldn't be good if you have nothing to push with. Because you either do not have enough, or had expanded all the ordinance. I mean, if I know I am going to expect more defilade vs enfilade defensive position, I will order more indirect fire munition (like 155 arty round or 120 mortar round) instead of direct fire munition, and you won't know that from any textbook, any lecture and such, that's come from personal experience or your feel. Because that is what I would do there.

As for the water bottle and apple, yes, a half-eaten apple don't make sound while a half full water bottle do, also, you need to consider the weight of both, a liter of water can last you about 4 to 5 days if you ration it. But it weights a kilo, that's like 7 to 10 apples (depends on size, like the difference between a Fuji apple and Royal Gala), and if you ration those, it will last you 7 - 10 days and it don't just quench your thirst. Plus, you don't pee as much.