Chinese PLAAF News

[gambit]

Now your airforce commander concedes that in the future they cannot maintain air superiority

Where did Allvin said 'cannot'?

 

[BobBiswas]

air is overated. Whether its ukraine or when China pushed the US out of North Korea without a single plane.

Err... france... world war 2.... blitzkreig....

 

[Joe Shearer]

In summary, while Tibetans and Chinese share linguistic and cultural connections, they also maintain distinct identities shaped by their unique histories and geographical contexts.

LOL.

The unique histories.
The unique geographical contexts.
But shares linguistic and cultural connections.

Thank you, for summarising the whole issue, better than anyone else, emphasising that the Chinese are far from their ethnic centre.

 

[Hendarto]

Where did Allvin said 'cannot'?

Here
“You don’t have air superiority just to have air superiority,” Allvin said. “It’s to enable other joint warfighting objectives.”

Allvin’s comments were not the first time he has suggested the Air Force may take a different approach to some of its fundamental concepts. During his State of the Air Force address at the AFA Warfare Symposium on Feb. 13, he said there would need to be “reinvention” of airpower.

 

[gambit]

Here
“You don’t have air superiority just to have air superiority,” Allvin said. “It’s to enable other joint warfighting objectives.”

Allvin’s comments were not the first time he has suggested the Air Force may take a different approach to some of its fundamental concepts. During his State of the Air Force address at the AFA Warfare Symposium on Feb. 13, he said there would need to be “reinvention” of airpower.

No, you twisted his words to fit your flawed understanding of air warfare in general. What Allvin meant was that air superiority is a component of the totality of war. That is what 'to enable' mean. So not only are you ignorant, you have a reading comprehension problem.

 

[Hendarto]

LOL.

The unique histories.
The unique geographical contexts.
But shares linguistic and cultural connections.

Thank you, for summarising the whole issue, better than anyone else, emphasising that the Chinese are far from their ethnic centre

Your thesis is Tibetan is not ethnically similar to Chinese So China has no claim on Tibet As if Idnain is all the same ethnicity well Tamil is not the same as Punjabi! I refute that. History and geography have nothing to do with ethnicity. DNA, language, archaeological find does! Even in history, Tibet was officially under the Yuan dynasty because they made an offer that Tibetans could not refuse either you submit! themselves or I'll destroy it AND PAY TAXES

So from that time on Tibet was ethernally linked to China They still retained some autonomy But by the time the Qing came they stationed Amban or Qing representatives and they did station troops in Tibet. Are you just ignorant of Tibetan history?

In the chaos of Qing demise They were left alone But When Mao came to power he reasserted China's claim on Tibet that was theirs in the first place!

 

[Hendarto]

No, you twisted his words to fit your flawed understanding of air warfare in general. What Allvin meant was that air superiority is a component of the totality of war. That is what 'to enable' mean. So not only are you ignorant, you have a reading comprehension pr

I think you are the one who has problem understanding the context of his speech. And just don't read just paragraph by paragraph. He doesn't say explicitly but he questions the usual practice of sir superiority

Here he questions the fundamental concept of air superiority because before that he elaborates how normally US air force does their job with air superiority

Allvin’s comments were not the first time he has suggested the Air Force may take a different approach to some of its fundamental concepts.

 

[DF-41]

China will destroy all air and naval bases in Japan, Okinawa, Guam and Diego Garcia in 10 minutes???

Hmm.... My advice is take few days leave and do some meditation.... you seriously need it......

No need to take my word.
Read what others say.

And remember this was written in 2009
And since then China missiles multiplied like dim sum and siew mai , with longer reach and more bang

Much more than enough to do both Japan Okinawa Guam Diego Garcia.
AND INDIA AT SAME TIME

GO ASK MODI TO GO TANGO WITH CHINA NOW PLEASE!!!

Fighting Under Missile Attack | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The Air Force hasn’t thought about air base defense for a while. Now, things are changing.

www.airandspaceforces.com

Fighting Under Missile Attack​

By John Stillion
Aug. 1, 2009
For the first time in decades, Air Force aircraft deployed in an international crisis now face substantial risk of damage or destruction on the ground. By some estimates, missile and air attacks could disable up to 70 percent of the aircraft at some overseas bases in the opening minutes of a fight.
The problem is not insurmountable; the Air Force and the Pentagon already have the means to start addressing this critical problem. Even so, there is no doubt the threat is growing.
The affordability, accuracy, and ease of operation of today’s cruise and ballistic missiles make possible an effective surprise attack on theater air bases. Some of the more obvious countermeasures, such as operating from more-distant bases, raise major questions about the ability of current and planned USAF forces to fight an effective and efficient air campaign.

 

[PoKeMon]

Is this typical Indian accent?

Better than you set up a call with some Jack in US turning up chaoxiang.

 

[arjunk]

So I say they are too false. In reality, China has always been a defensive posture towards India's deployment on the border, and the real border threat is India. They have always wanted to find opportunities to change the status quo. Looking at the discussions among the Indians in this forum, we also know what their inner thoughts are, such as wanting China to disintegrate at any moment. Of course, the reasons are grandiose

India is a revisionist power. The status quo for the last 1500 years in South Asia is either hundreds of independent states or Muslim rule over all of them. Only in 1947 did the British give Hindus control over so many Indian states.

Indians often forget that it was the British who conquered most of South Asia and handed it to them on a platter. Consequently, many of them seriously believe they are in a position to invade and disintegrate neighboring countries.

 

[Joe Shearer]

India is a revisionist power. The status quo for the last 1500 years in South Asia is either hundreds of independent states or Muslim rule over all of them. Only in 1947 did the British give Hindus control over so many Indian states.

Indians often forget that it was the British who conquered most of South Asia and handed it to them on a platter. Consequently, many of them seriously believe they are in a position to invade and disintegrate neighboring countries.

Make up your mind whether you want to play the bigot card or not.

At the moment, you have Hindus in one para., Indians in the next.

I will not point to your extreme foolishness in naming another religion in a political context. As if we did not have enough trouble already.

 

[gambit]

I think you are the one who has problem understanding the context of his speech. And just don't read just paragraph by paragraph. He doesn't say explicitly but he questions the usual practice of sir superiority

Here he questions the fundamental concept of air superiority because before that he elaborates how normally US air force does their job with air superiority

Allvin’s comments were not the first time he has suggested the Air Force may take a different approach to some of its fundamental concepts.

In other words, Allvin said nothing even remotely insinuating the word 'cannot'.

The article's title is Air Force Must Rethink How to Achieve Air Superiority, Chief Says. The operative word is 'How', not 'cannot'.

What else did Allvin said...

“It’s cost prohibitive to be able to say that we’re going to build enough Air Force to do it the way we did before and have air superiority for days and weeks on end,” Allvin said at a Brookings Institution event in Washington, D.C. “That’s probably not affordable. It’s also not necessary.”​

So here, note the words 'enough Air Force'. It means originally, we can use numbers but depends on situation, there MAY not be the need to use superior numbers to achieve the same goal. Later in the article, the Pacific was mentioned as a potential conflict situation where surface control is less certain than when on land. At sea, fleets transit to land combat, but on land, armies can stop at any point. Air superiority at sea is different on land warfare.

“If we’re going to operate in that contested environment, we need to be able to move in a theater to be able to disaggregate for survival but aggregate for the greatest combat effect,” Allvin said. “That’s a different way of war fight.”​

What does the word 'disaggregate' mean? To break apart. Then what does 'aggregate' mean? To come together. The sum of what Allvin said was that air superiority at sea can be achieved under different needs, not because air superiority cannot be achieved at all. Air elements must be more flexible over water regions than over land. There is nothing Allvin said about modern day air defense rendered the concept of air superiority invalid.

The reason Ukraine was able to deny Russia air superiority over its territory is because Russia failed to overwhelm Ukraine in the first place. Russia's airpower numbered nearly 4,000 assets. Of course, not all of them will be deployed to Ukraine the same way that not all USAF assets were deployed to Desert Storm. But Ukraine's had barely 100 operational assets. Russia can send 1000 and should have been able to shut down the Ukrainians in a few days. But because the VKS was an utter failure as an air force, Ukraine was able to import more and better air defense, and that created the air stalemate that we see today.

Airpower is overrated? Yeah, let US know when your Parade Line Army do away with its air force.

 

[Hendarto]

In other words, Allvin said nothing even remotely insinuating the word 'cannot'.

The article's title is Air Force Must Rethink How to Achieve Air Superiority, Chief Says. The operative word is 'How', not 'cannot'.

What else did Allvin said...

“It’s cost prohibitive to be able to say that we’re going to build enough Air Force to do it the way we did before and have air superiority for days and weeks on end,” Allvin said at a Brookings Institution event in Washington, D.C. “That’s probably not affordable. It’s also not necessary.”​

So here, note the words 'enough Air Force'. It means originally, we can use numbers but depends on situation, there MAY not be the need to use superior numbers to achieve the same goal. Later in the article, the Pacific was mentioned as a potential conflict situation where surface control is less certain than when on land. At sea, fleets transit to land combat, but on land, armies can stop at any point. Air superiority at sea is different on land warfare.

“If we’re going to operate in that contested environment, we need to be able to move in a theater to be able to disaggregate for survival but aggregate for the greatest combat effect,” Allvin said. “That’s a different way of war fight.”​

What does the word 'disaggregate' mean? To break apart. Then what does 'aggregate' mean? To come together. The sum of what Allvin said was that air superiority at sea can be achieved under different needs, not because air superiority cannot be achieved at all. Air elements must be more flexible over water regions than over land. There is nothing Allvin said about modern day air defense rendered the concept of air superiority invalid.

The reason Ukraine was able to deny Russia air superiority over its territory is because Russia failed to overwhelm Ukraine in the first place. Russia's airpower numbered nearly 4,000 assets. Of course, not all of them will be deployed to Ukraine the same way that not all USAF assets were deployed to Desert Storm. But Ukraine's had barely 100 operational assets. Russia can send 1000 and should have been able to shut down the Ukrainians in a few days. But because the VKS was an utter failure as an air force, Ukraine was able to import more and better air defense, and that created the air stalemate that we see today.

Airpower is overrated? Yeah, let US know when your Parade Line Army do away with its air force.

Again you belittling Russia when the general clearly said the IAD is the cause of why they couldn't achieve air superiority I am tired of talking to a wall. Western hubris has met their demise in Ukraine they threw everything they had even depleting their stock and yet they can't even advance 5 miles. So much for proponderous superiority! They trained Ukro using super duper Western tactics and only ended up in a tank graveyard in Ukraine!. they spent close to 70 billion dollars for nothing except lining up the pocket of corrupt ukro official


You wrote plenty of words but with little meaning Let's make this clear In the next Pacific war the US Air Force will be fighting for their life. they never engage a peer air force as they will in the next Pacific war And I doubt they will ever achieve air superiority. Their premier aircraft is a turkey, short leg, slow. and I don't how many accidents they have had so far last count is 15 or 16 and more are reported every year. F35 is only 70% effective according to GAO. It is late beyond normal reason. As of today still have not entered formal serial production though they produce turkey for their allies. Koreans complaining about the operation of the F35. Their pilot training hours have been reduced from mid-200 to mid-100 now. Keep dreaming of your air superiority! enough said!

 

[gambit]

Again you belittling Russia when the general clearly said the IAD is the cause of why they couldn't achieve air superiority

Yeah...Because Russia's incompetence gave Ukraine and the West TIME to arm Ukraine with better air defense than they had before.

I am tired of talking to a wall.

I feel exactly that. By the way, am (ex)USAF, F-111 Cold War, then F-16 Desert Storm. You?

 

[DF-41]

and I don't how many accidents they have had so far last count is 15 or 16 and more are reported every year. F35 is only 70% effective according to GAO. It is late beyond normal reason. As of today still have not entered formal serial production though they produce turkey for their allies. Koreans complaining about the operation of the F35. Their pilot training hours have been reduced from mid-200 to mid-100 now. Keep dreaming of your air superiority! enough said!

You misread the % effectiveness of F35

F35 IS NOT 70% EFFECTIVE
F35 IS A MISERABLE 30% TO 15% EFFECTIVE

SEE BELOW AS TO THE FINDINGS FROM THE American Government Accountability Office
70% OF F-35s MAY NOT BE COMBAT READYA Government Accountability Office report reveals up to 85% of F-35s might lack combat readiness, contrary to the perceived 55% mission-capable rate.The "full mission capable" rate is around 30%, with the Marine Corps F-35B variant at a mere 15.5% in March 2023

NEVER MIND HOW MUCH THE American BROWN NOSERS HERE TRY TO DRUM BEAT THEIR SUPER DUPER GAME CHANGER FROM THE LEMON THAT IT SHOWED ITSELF TO BE.

I NOTICED F35 CHEER TEAM STARTING TO PUT CAVEATS IN THEIR SUPER DUPER GAME CHANGER F35 BEFORE IT SHOWED THEIR EFFECTIVENESS SIMILAR OR WORSE THAN American PATRIOT AND AIR DEFENSE SYSTEMS SOLD TO KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA AND PROVED AS UTTERLY USEFUL AS TITS ON A MAN

MAYBE BOEING PLANES WITH MISSING DOORS AND DOOR KNOBS ARE MORE EFFECTIVE AT COMBAT THEN THE F35S

https://twitter.com/x/status/1769362436820250851