Via the Alert 5 from the Taipei Times...read the whole thing here...
Just a couple of notes...In what has caused a major stir within the Pentagon, Beijing Internet censors earlier this week allowed high-resolution photographs of the Chengdu Aircraft Corp stealth fighter to be published for the first time.
“For Taiwan, this means that even a sale of the latest versions of the Lockheed Martin F-16 will only provide a brief period of technical parity with the People’s Liberation Army,” Rick Fisher, a senior fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Center in Washington, told the Taipei Times.
Fisher said it was now possible China could deploy significant numbers of the fifth-generation fighters — codenamed the Chengdu J-20 — within 10 years.
“There is now even greater reason for Taiwan to consider shifting its air defense resources to the more survivable short take-off fifth-generation F-35B, with modifications that increase its air combat potential,” he said. “Today, it is doubly tragic for Taiwan that Washington does not appear to be willing to sell either fighter to Taipei. Such a lack of resolve by Washington will only hasten the military confrontation it has successfully deterred since the Korean War.”
Taiwan is urgently pressing US President Barack Obama to sell it 66 advanced versions of the F-16, but with Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) scheduled to visit Washington later this month, a sale is unlikely to be approved anytime soon.
Credible sources claim China could build at least 300 J-20s.
Aviation Week and Space Technology reported that China has begun flight-testing the J-20, which puts it only a few years behind the troubled F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which is being developed by the US and a coalition of countries.
While it is possible that the newly released photographs of the J-20 are fakes, most US analysts believe them to be the real thing.
One military analyst said the plane had a chiseled front--section, triangular wings, all-moving tail-planes and seemed to combine the front fuselage of the US’ F-22 with the back half of the Russian T-50 stealth prototype.
“The J-20’s appearance could signal a big step forward for the Chinese air force, which to date relies mostly on airplanes bought from Russia or reverse--engineered from Russian or Israeli designs,” an analyst said.
Judging from the photographs, the J-20 is at least 21m from nose to tail, which means it would have a lower “supercruise” performance and agility than the F-22. However, with larger weapon bays and more fuel, it would have a longer range and carry more arms.
US military sources told the Taipei Times that China may be getting Russian help with the J-20 and that Moscow may be supplying 14.5 tonne thrust 117S engines for the plane, which is expected to double as a bomber.
Fisher said the J-20 could “supercruise,” or fly supersonically, for extended periods without using fuel-guzzling afterburners.
One commentator, writing on the Aviation Week and Space Technology Web site, said the new plane was “something to hang out at 50,000 feet [15.2km] over the Taiwan Strait with a large downward looking radar and serve up a large payload of AAM’s [air-to-air missiles] at anything underneath.”
First I haven't heard a peep out of the Pentagon. How this writer has gathered that its causing a stir is beyond me. Don't get me wrong, I hope it has caused a stir.
On a side note, isn't it interesting that the Secretary of Defense is due to visit China on Jan 9 and a couple of weeks before he arrives we get word of a new Stealth Fighter and that the Anti Ship Ballistic Missile is up and running?
I don't know what kind of game China is playing but it definitely appears to be hardball.
Next note is this...I am a fan of the Taiwanese military. But the government and the population is thought to have been thoroughly compromised with many citizens wanting reunification. Why would we sell a piece of high tech gear to a country that will probably be absorbed by a rival without a shot being fired.
Lastly. Its becoming apparent to all the 'analyst' out there that F-35B is survivable even though our bases are not.
Every base in the Pacific is vulnerable to conventional ballistic missiles. Only the "B" will be able to get into the air if a runway is taken out.
Future prediction. The USAF will be buying "B"s before this saga is over with!
"Future prediction. The USAF will be buying "B"s before this saga is over with!"
ReplyDeleteTranslation: What a fucking retard!
oooh...struck a nerve! does that piss you off? what makes you madder...the thought that i could be right or the thought that analyst are coming around to the need for the F-35?
ReplyDeleteI think it's unlikely that the USAF will be buying F35B.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, there was a massive problem in the NATO area during the Cold War with a very limited number of air bases which would have struggled to survive past day one of WWIII.
Only the RAF thought that VTOL was the answer to this (or went far enough to do anything about it), and even then, bought a relatively small number of not very effective aircraft.
If the British had been serious about the need for VTOL, then the Harrier would have undergone some serious through-life upgrades, and seen a successor / more capable alternatives much earlier than the F35B.
I would have though that the Swedish model of using roads as emergency runways (with pre-planning and appropriate design / infrastructure) was a better model for most countries than relying on VTOL/VSTOL.
For me, VTOL/VSTOL is too badly compromised in terms of what you lose (i.e. combat capability - weapons, range) vs what you gain.
the Harrier did receive upgrades. the A model is a totally different beast from the Harrier II in US service (or the Harrier GR9 vs. Harrier GR1).
ReplyDeleteas far as using the Swedish model? not very useful. roads can suffer the same type of destruction as airfields...and besides, the Gripen or its equivalent doesn't offer stealth which appears to be essential in future operations.
the USAF through their Rand think tank has already identified bases as being vulnerable in future scenarios with China.
we have allies (most notably Japan with the 22DDH and the S. Koreans with their LHD and even Australia with the Canberra Class) are all looking for STOVL aircraft.
and speaking of basing...even the Israeli's are becoming concerned about airfield survivability.
sorry my friend but circumstances and powerful people in important positions (along with a serious push from the Marines) will see the F-35B being bought and probably used by not only our allies but also, probably, almost certainly...by the USAF!
I'd say the chances of Taiwan getting F-35s is somewhere between Hell freezing over and never. May as well ship a few straight to China as Taiwan.
ReplyDelete-sferrin
Yeah, I like the Taiwanese. Used to live there even. But the last two decades have shown that often it seems that America cares more about keeping Taiwan free than the Taiwanese do.
ReplyDeleteWe need to be very careful about giving Taiwan military tech. Many Taiwanese want to rejoin China. They think they can be the next Hong Kong.
And we've seen how effective the ChiComs are at stealing defense secrets from the US and Russia ... imagine how easily they can infiltrate the Taiwanese defense industry.
Not that the idea doesn't have some merit (though not off the LHD's as being acquired in their present form) but Australia isn't getting any F-35B's.
ReplyDeleteNot under any official plan since 2000 when it was first confirmed we WOULD acquire JSF has it been Australia's plan to acquire the -B model.
I don't much care for the "runway vulnerability" argument either. The moment someone launches ballistic missiles against US forces is the moment that Country has chosen to not exist in the future.
If you are worried about holes in your runway, then I'd suggest you figure out how to fill them quickly. That's what actual engineers do, as opposed to those who call themselves engineers yet have nothing to offer other than criticism.
wait a sec Aussie Digger.
ReplyDeletei actually thought the same thing (regarding ballistic missiles) but the DoD's response to the threat of anti-ship ballistic missiles has been beyond timid. the idea that ballistic missiles can be used against airfields has merit now. even the USAF toyed with the idea of ballistic missiles in the conventional role...
all i'm saying is that its got to be on the table. besides, i'm sure you've seen photos of the destruction of airfields after they've been struck and yes, engineers can put a field back together but if its under continuous attack you will just have your engineers whittled away in a futile effort.
lastly i'd like to add that plans change. forward basing is a luxury but not guaranteed. if Australia is going to have power projection ships...if the Australian Army is going to dedicate a portion of its force to the art of amphibious warfare, then it makes sense to add F-35Bs to the force mix...
but i don't understand why the Canberra Class couldn't handle F-35s?!
the Spanish Navy was planning on operating them off their ships which are similar right?
>the Harrier did receive upgrades. the A model >is a totally different beast from the Harrier >II in US service (or the Harrier GR9 vs. >Harrier GR1).
ReplyDeleteYep, I know. You'll note I said "serious upgrades".
If VSTOL was the answer, then the aircraft needed to be something like a 70s/80s equivalent of JSF:
Fighter: reasonable radar, higher performance, AAMs, better endurance
Attack: wider range of weapons, better precision strike capability, longer range
>as far as using the Swedish model? not very >useful. roads can suffer the same type of >destruction as airfields
Would it be feasible to attack every 1 mile long straight stretch of road in Taiwan? I genuinely have no idea, but it might not be. Even if it is, it causes the enemy to fly sorties and expend a serious number of munitions against empty roads.
>and besides, the Gripen or its equivalent >doesn't offer stealth which appears to be >essential in future operations.
When I said Swedish model, I didn't mean Gripen, I meant using the road network. Could an F35A (or F35C) use a straight road as effectively as a Gripen? Do the Gripens have special features to allow this semi rough-field capability that would prevent aircraft without this (F15/F16/F18/F35) from using roads?
>the USAF through their Rand think tank has >already identified bases as being vulnerable >in future scenarios with China.
Just like the Cold War?
>we have allies (most notably Japan with the >22DDH and the S. Koreans with their LHD and >even Australia with the Canberra Class) are >all looking for STOVL aircraft.
ReplyDeleteOK. STOVL for ships I get. With a small carrier, there is little choice. Am not convinced for land basing if the design is compromised. As I understand it, the F35B has lesser range, lower G-limits and a problem whereby it can't land vertically with any stores onboard. This is what I've read anyway. I'd rather have an A or a C unless I *really* need the STOVL.
I guess that in a scenario like Taiwan, most of the fighting will be "local" (i.e. ROC fighters attempting to shoot down PRC attack sorties approaching / over Taiwan). Could be that the lower range / lower manouevrability wouldn't be an issue in this scenario.
I'd still want to look very closely at alternative basing arrangements before I committed to STOVL though.
>and speaking of basing...even the Israeli's >are becoming concerned about airfield >survivability.
What I don't undertand is, why are these countries only concerned about it now? Surely, these have been probelms for decades. Or is it only being discussed now because for the first time there is a viable aircraft solution (the F35B)?
I still come back to the Cold War. This was a very serious problem if WWIII kicked-off, and no-one really did anything about it. What's changed?
>sorry my friend but circumstances and >powerful people in important positions (along >with a serious push from the Marines) will see >the F-35B being bought and probably used by >not only our allies but also, probably, almost >certainly...by the USAF!
I doubt it, personally. I hope that the Marines get theirs. I suspect that other Navies will buy as an excellent solution if they have small carriers, and may even lead new nations to consider small carriers (I wouldn't have bothered if all I could get were Harriers). I seriously doubt that the USN or USAF will buy any 'B' models though.
I'm still not convinced about whether we should be buying B or C models for our new carriers (UK). We've invested a massive amount of time and money into the B model, so it's a shame to abandon it. I can see the advantages of both designs. I yaw *slightly* to the C model, as I'd want cat and traps to have proper AEW (E2) rtaher than the helo based stuff we've had in the past.
hmm. i get where you're going but let me just add a few notes.
ReplyDelete1. the upgrade from the GR1 to the GR9 was rather massive. you're talking about a completely different airplane in many respects. we haven't even talked about the Sea Harrier which really was the basis of the USMC's AV-8B II's.
2. as far as the threat from the cold war, i really think the Royal Air Force was the most proactive of all the air arms in Europe. they along with the German's were posed to be in the teeth of the opposition. quite honestly that period of time produced some of the most effective gear used by any military and it was because the UK's military was slated to absorb the brunt of any attack across the Rhine. the Chieftan MBT and the Harrier. both systems were designed to handle worst case scenarios --- the Chieftan MBT to absorb hits from swarms of Soviet tanks and remain in the fight and the Harrier to operate in a dispersed fashion since the Soviet air force had NATO air fields fully targeted.
3. the Israeli's are concerned because the threat has evolved. i just read a report that an Israeli General states that Iran has 300 missiles that can strike targets in Israel in 10 to 12 minutes. that doesn't count the 4,000 missiles that Hezbollah is estimated to have (much smaller of course but still deadly)
4. i will always believe that the move to get C model F-35's is a way to "stick it" to the RAF. the range differential between the F-35A, B and C isn't great enough to really piddle with. the B and C models have duplicate G rating and the avionics suites are all the same. the B gives advantages that in my opinion can't be denied.
5. as far as AEW is concerned, you (again my opinion) shouldn't be worried. the new air defense destroyers that the UK is procuring should be more than capable of providing picket service and defense against cruise missiles...besides my understanding is that there is no money to get a Hawkeye type airplane to operate off your new carriers which means that in a protracted air campaign you'll still have to depend on either your helo based system or land based AEW.
3.
where the hell did you guys heard of the reunification shit? Dude, I'm a Taiwanese, and yes I heard some of my people talking crap, but they're minor. A reunification with communist People's Republic of China? Over my dead body!
ReplyDeleteif we're not getting the F-16 block 50's from the States, I have no clue how are we gonna get the F-35B's in less than 20 years
ReplyDeleteHey Sol, wasn't have a go at you earlier. The threat of BM is massively overstated for political purposes within the US.
ReplyDeleteIn a time of increased threat, runways can and will be hardened, counters can and will be developed.
It is an interesting point of view that a weapon designed to provide an assymetric response for the Chinese, an outright acknowledgement that they are massively outmatched, is itself portrayed as this "game changing" capability in the West.
Counters exist and are continuing to be devised. PAC-MSE, THAAD, SM-3, NCADE etc are all early, direct defensive responses to this threat. Longer term responses include DEW and hypersonic long ranged offensive systems that will nullify these sorts of threats before they even lift off.
The fact that this sort of weapon HAS to be developed by the Chinese shows how far behind the game they really see themselves.
The employment of such also carries enormous risk, because there is no way to tell before weapons impact if it is conventional, nuke or WMD equipped and the US cannot help but take SERIOUS offence at anybody who would dare to risk such.
Personally, I don't see this threat as anything more than the typical anti-US brigade shooting their mouths off at what they don't or choose not to understand.
As to Australia's LHD's. No chance of F-35B's. The Spaniards are only using theirs for qualification when their real light carrier is in for refit. They aren't intending to use F-35B's off them as an operational capability.
The ship, though superficially looking like it, isn't designed for any sort of sustained fixed wing air operations and the effect on the helo operations the ships are actually being bought for is considered too great, if operated alongside F-35B's.
If RAN were to look at such an idea, they'd need a 3rd ship, more appropriately designed for the role, plus the aircraft, plus the training systems, plus the escorts necessary to keep the thing safe and so on. Our budget and manpower really doesn't cut it I'm afraid, no matter the utility of the idea...
Cheers,
AD
The design is compromised. That is the biggest load of rubbish I've ever heard. The design may well be compromised if you think it should be an F-22 Mk 2, but it isn't, never was and doesn't need to be.
ReplyDeleteThat is just another pathetic cheap shot from a bunch of blowhards with no credibility, no impact and no use.
Let them rant and rave. They have no bearing whatsoever on what is and isn't done.
Quite amusing actually. Watching them get ever more wound up. I wonder where it will end?
1. the upgrade from the GR1 to the GR9 was rather massive. you're talking about a completely different airplane in many respects. we haven't even talked about the Sea Harrier which really was the basis of the USMC's AV-8B II's.
ReplyDeleteYes, I know. The GR7/9 was a very different aircraft to the GR3
But if VSTOL was the answer to the Red Horde charging through the Fulda Gap, then we'd have needed them to be much more capable, and a lot more of them.
Sea Harrier, by the time it was FA2, was a decent air defence platform. A pretty smart capability for a pocket carrier.
2. as far as the threat from the cold war, i really think the Royal Air Force was the most proactive of all the air arms in Europe. they along with the German's were posed to be in the teeth of the opposition. quite honestly that period of time produced some of the most effective gear used by any military and it was because the UK's military was slated to absorb the brunt of any attack across the Rhine. the Chieftan MBT and the Harrier. both systems were designed to handle worst case scenarios --- the Chieftan MBT to absorb hits from swarms of Soviet tanks and remain in the fight and the Harrier to operate in a dispersed fashion since the Soviet air force had NATO air fields fully targeted.
We had some good ideas alright. Unfortunately, we often didn't have the money or the will to make the products as good as the idea.
Chieftain - great armour and great firepower but unreliable and with a completely unique main gun (a bit slow too, but I guess with a 60s powerplant it was hard to be well protected and fast)
Harrier - great idea, but the GR3 was a pretty ineffective bit of kit (especially up against WP forces). A bit too low-end.
3. the Israeli's are concerned because the threat has evolved. i just read a report that an Israeli General states that Iran has 300 missiles that can strike targets in Israel in 10 to 12 minutes. that doesn't count the 4,000 missiles that Hezbollah is estimated to have (much smaller of course but still deadly)
ReplyDeleteIt's when they get guidance that the Israeli's problems really start. At the moment, they're just terror weapons or for saturating area targets (you'll hit an airfield if you launch a few, but may not hit anything more important than the perimeter fence). When guided SSMs are available to them, then airbases (runway, taxi way, aircraft shelters, hangars, fuel dumps, weapons stores, etc.), command centres, MoD HQ, naval ports (naval vessels, fuel storage, dockyard infrastructure, etc.), Dimona et al are at serious risk.
4. i will always believe that the move to get C model F-35's is a way to "stick it" to the RAF. the range differential between the F-35A, B and C isn't great enough to really piddle with. the B and C models have duplicate G rating and the avionics suites are all the same. the B gives advantages that in my opinion can't be denied.
Didn't realise that the B and C are both limited to 7G vs 9G for the A.
Fuel wise, I think that for carrier strike/fighter aircraft we want the maximum possible range/endurance. We won't have any AA refuelling capability on our carriers (I guess that the US will with -18s and buddy stores), so endurance for CAP and range for attack missions is important.
And according to Wikipedia (yeah, I know !!), the combat radius of B is 450 miles and C is 640 miles, which is a pretty big difference ! So an attack mission to a target 600 miles away is either impossible (carrier can't get close enough), or the carrier has to get 150 miles closer to hostile forces.
The B not being able to vertical land with stores is also a risk. I know that they were working on a "rolling vertical landing" to address this, but until it's proven, I'd be a little nervous.
5. as far as AEW is concerned, you (again my opinion) shouldn't be worried. the new air defense destroyers that the UK is procuring should be more than capable of providing picket service and defense against cruise missiles...besides my understanding is that there is no money to get a Hawkeye type airplane to operate off your new carriers which means that in a protracted air campaign you'll still have to depend on either your helo based system or land based AEW.
The new AAD destroyers (T45) have indeed got a very high-end radar / SAM system. But mounted on a surface vessel, you still have a very limited horizon. As for using them as a radar picket, we're only buying 6 of them. They'll have to stay real close to the carrier to provide the required protection. Height is everything for radar, and the heli mounted system is another rather shitty compromise we've had to make because of our small carriers. We're now getting 65k ton boats, so we should be thinking about them being able to dominate an area of ocean 3 or 400 miles across. Which it can't if we can't see that far.
I think that we're doing our usual trick of thinking big, but being cheapskates.
Tingler-
ReplyDeleteI was just repeating what has been widely reported in the US. I'm glad to hear that reporting is wrong but its widely accepted here.
Aussie Digger-
Great point about the Chinese having to 'go overboard' to develop a counter to our aircraft carriers. I'll concede that issue to you.
But I still have my doubts about the F-35 and the Canberra class. Why would they build a ski jump into the design of the ship if it wasn't made to operate jump jets? Its unsound to do so if the capability isn't a consideration.
Jeebers-
190 miles is a big difference? To be honest I considered that almost inconsequential. Regardless though, I think we're kinda stuck at agreeing to disagree. Before the defense review, I was quite impressed by the variety of kit and the ways in which its been employed. Quite honestly concepts and vehicles that are being bought for your Army and Marine Corps would fill missions on this side of the pond. Its just that darn F-35 program that has us sideways ...as far as the UK being cheap...nope, frugality is a virtue all its own and we're heading that direction too.
Sol, the only reason the RAN Canberra Class is getting the ski-jumps is because it was considered to expensive to remove them and re-modeling the design.
ReplyDeleteThe ski-jump is included to allow the short takeoff of fixed wing aircraft, but the ship is not being designed with the fuel bunker age, air weapons magazines, maintainence facilities or air traffic control systems to manage fixed wing ops.
The Spaniards will be using their LHD's for their Intended amphibious role and as I said, the vessels will have a limited ability to land and fly JSF's and maintain aircrews quals when their carrier is in refit, but the LHD won't be used operationally to fly JSF's because it simply isn't designed for it.
Plus ADFhas no plan to purchase the F-35B's necessary to make it happen. Our air combat plans have centred around the -A model ever since the F-35 was chosen and there is no plan to change this.
On top of all the practical reasons why it won't happen, there is the political aspect too. Australia's Government takes great pains to avoid upsetting our neighbors and a carrier is seen as something that would do that to a large degree. That is one of the main reasons HMAS Melbourne wasn't replaced (although the fact that we needed a new fleet of frigates, submarines and anti-sub warfare helos at the same time was also a very considerable factor) in the early 80's...
Nothing has changed in that regard...
I putting Singapore down for F-35Bs.
ReplyDeleteStrategically important city-state. The RSAF already has contingency plans to convert highways into aircraft runways during emergencies.