Future War with (Red) China Hypotheticals/Theorycrafting

[TheRejectionist]

The only thing that can compete with the F-35 right now, is the F-22. They have the highest combat capability of any fighter flying.

The Chinese J-20 is, at least in theory, also a generation 5 fighter, but it's been plagued with issues, and given they've no actual combat experience, it's not at all clear how well it can perform.

The track record of combat aircraft from communist nations suggests that at best they'll be about a third as good as the F-22 or F-35, and possibly a great deal worse. If it does come to a war, pilots will probably instructed to treat them as a near-peer threat in first engagements, and then the actual combat will let the world see how much the Communists have been lying, this time.

I wasn't talking about the planes. Whatever marvel gadget, mcguffin or wonder weapons, if the enemy knows your moves, you might as well be the fish in the barrel getting shot at.

Also there are reasonable doubts to how "good" is an F35 :

The F-35 is an overpriced lemon that doesn’t work

Your friend and humble narrator is getting pretty sick and tired of continuing problems with the F-35, the super-expensive wonder jet that might be ready for a war against China or Russia by the turn of the millennium.

taskandpurpose.com

Five F-35 issues have been downgraded, but they remain unsolved

Five of the 13 major technical issues first revealed by Defense News have been downgraded in the last year.

www.defensenews.com

The number of major F-35 flaws is shrinking, but the Pentagon is keeping details of the problems under wraps

The F-35 program currently has 857 deficiencies, but only seven are considered "critical."

www.defensenews.com

 

[LordsFire]

I wasn't talking about the planes. Whatever marvel gadget, mcguffin or wonder weapons, if the enemy knows your moves, you might as well be the fish in the barrel getting shot at.

Also there are reasonable doubts to how "good" is an F35 :

The F-35 is an overpriced lemon that doesn’t work

Your friend and humble narrator is getting pretty sick and tired of continuing problems with the F-35, the super-expensive wonder jet that might be ready for a war against China or Russia by the turn of the millennium.

taskandpurpose.com

Five F-35 issues have been downgraded, but they remain unsolved

Five of the 13 major technical issues first revealed by Defense News have been downgraded in the last year.

www.defensenews.com

The number of major F-35 flaws is shrinking, but the Pentagon is keeping details of the problems under wraps

The F-35 program currently has 857 deficiencies, but only seven are considered "critical."

www.defensenews.com

Yes, the same cycle of teething issues that basically every plane has. You saw similar talk about the F-teens, and they beat the crap out of everything they flew against.

Which is a lot more than can be said of commie aircraft.

 

[Zachowon]

I mean, it has the lowest crash rate at the 12 year mark compared to its predecessors.

And do remember, what can be considered an issue for the mikitary or the pilots and the like, can be minor as something not being comforting in the seat to various other issues.

Should we bring up what the F16 went through early on? The A10? F15?
Ohhhh the F4, or the F14.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Yes, the F-35 took a bit longer to produce then it should have (Britain’s Royal Navy got left a little hung out to dry when the planes we were to put on our new carriers weren’t ready on schedule), and had technical issues, but the current aircraft is an excellent thing. It’s a jack of all trades F-22 that can take off from anywhere.

What’s not to love?

 

[Zachowon]

It is the 22 if it was newer but not as good.
Because the 22 is the king

 

[Marduk]

F-22 is a dedicated air superiority fighter with limited ground attack abilities slapped on. F-35 is not, it's a strike fighter.
It's somewhat hidden these days under the technicality that tactical jets are de facto multirole, but some are fighters first, most of the well known US cold war ones are, but some are bombers first, like Su-34, Tornado and F-35, which confuses a lot of people in how to compare them.
As a fighter, it's somewhere between F-22 and gen 4.5 fighters. Probably should avoid dogfighting with peer opponents, though it makes for a very good missile bus, including air to air missiles. But as a tactical bomber, it's the only gen 5 one currently operational in the world.

 

[LordsFire]

F-22 is a dedicated air superiority fighter with limited ground attack abilities slapped on. F-35 is not, it's a strike fighter.
It's somewhat hidden these days under the technicality that tactical jets are de facto multirole, but some are fighters first, most of the well known US cold war ones are, but some are bombers first, like Su-34, Tornado and F-35, which confuses a lot of people in how to compare them.
As a fighter, it's somewhere between F-22 and gen 4.5 fighters. Probably should avoid dogfighting with peer opponents, though it makes for a very good missile bus, including air to air missiles. But as a tactical bomber, it's the only gen 5 one currently operational in the world.

The most important factor for the F-35 in air-to-air, is its stealthed radar profile. Not zero-detection, but very much into 'I can fire missiles before you can,' and 'older crappier radar is practically useless against me.'

The majority of the Chinese air fleet is crappy knockoffs of older Soviet designs, so odds are good they'd be utterly helpless against F-35s.

And on top of this, the F-35 is designed to be able to provide fire-control links for other aircraft, so you can have F-teens trucking long range missiles in and launching them off the F-35's targeting locks.

 

[History Learner]

Also...Lockheed Martin has announced the 1000th F35 has been produced.

How many stealth aircraft has China made...that are actually flying?

250 J-20s so far, more than the F-22 total production run, as of December. Monthly production rates are currently ~10 airframes a month, so they'll surpass the U.S. sometime next year in active stealth fighters, presuming their rate of increase continues:

In a recent report, CBO analyzed how the availability and use of other DoD aircraft have evolved as those aircraft have aged.4 Compared with those aircraft, DoD's F-35 fleet is very new: 87 of the aircraft began operation during fiscal year 2022, and as of September 2022, more than half of the 532 F-35s in DoD's possession had operated for less than four full years. Only 44 aircraft were in their 10th or later year of operation.​

 

[History Learner]

Something else worth noting, however, is that whatever the various merits of weapons systems, the U.S. categorically lacks the capability to wage a war in the Pacific on a logistical basis. 90% of our aircraft get destroyed on the ground in the first 24-48 hours and then operations collapse in the first week as munitions and fuel goes empty. After that, the Chinese start picking us apart and it really depends on how far they want to take things.

They could stop at just Taiwan and then using their new found strategic position can arrange things in East/Southeast Asia to their liking diplomatically and that's the end of it, or they can fight us all the way to Hawaii if they desire in the worst case.

 

[LordsFire]

90% of our aircraft get destroyed on the ground in the first 24-48 hours and then

And then the Yeerks reveal their master plan, through superior alien technology and political espionage, they conquer the human race!

 

[History Learner]

And then the Yeerks reveal their master plan, through superior alien technology and political espionage, they conquer the human race!

Not sure what that's referring to, but I'm actually quoting the CSIS study:

 

[LordsFire]

Not sure what that's referring to, but I'm actually quoting the CSIS study:

Yes, your ability to pay attention to sources that conform to your delusions, and only said sources, is quite well known.

Have you seen the pessimists' predictions that were made before Desert Storm in 1991?

Have you seen the similar predictions about Afghanistan? About the second Iraq War?

There were always 'experts' quite eagerly predicting crushing military defeat for the US, that it'd be Vietnam all over again, etc, etc.

Oddly enough, in the real world, what actually happened, is that professional militaries from free nations perform a hell of a lot better than conscript armies from dictatorships.

If you were interested in a realistic look at the possibility of conflict between China and the USA, what outcomes were plausible, you'd look at a broad array of sources, see what they predict, critically analyze the reasoning behind their predictions, consider the most comparable historical cases, and then come to a conclusion based on that.

With USA vs China, the reasonable prediction is 'The PLA will perform somewhere between utterly pathetic and marginally competent,' and 'the US military performance will only be limited by how much politicians hamstring it.' US defeat is possible, but any reason for it other than political incompetence is extremely unlikely. If the PLA turns out to be somewhat competent, they could make the US bleed a lot more than we want to win, but they don't have the hardware, the experience, or the competence, to win a military victory outright.

But you're not interested in that. You already have your conclusions, and just like with all your other nonsense, you'll look for sources that say what you want to hear, and ignore any other source that contradicts it.

 

[History Learner]

Yes, your ability to pay attention to sources that conform to your delusions, and only said sources, is quite well known.

You have yet to provide any sources. Please, do share yours so that I may know what you base your argument upon.

Have you seen the pessimists' predictions that were made before Desert Storm in 1991?

Yes, but I'm equally well aware China, unlike Iraq in 1991, isn't coming off of eight years of attrition warfare and has an economy larger than that of the United States; again, unlike Iraq in 1991.

Have you seen the similar predictions about Afghanistan? About the second Iraq War?

There were always 'experts' quite eagerly predicting crushing military defeat for the US, that it'd be Vietnam all over again, etc, etc.

And they were right, the U.S. lost all of those conflicts. This time it isn't facing an insurgent group, however, but an entity that is able to outproduce it on a strategic level in conventional goods. The closest the U.S. has ever come to this situation before was Nazi Germany in World War II and then it had the assistance of the next two largest powers to assist it.

Oddly enough, in the real world, what actually happened, is that professional militaries from free nations perform a hell of a lot better than conscript armies from dictatorships.

If you were interested in a realistic look at the possibility of conflict between China and the USA, what outcomes were plausible, you'd look at a broad array of sources, see what they predict, critically analyze the reasoning behind their predictions, consider the most comparable historical cases, and then come to a conclusion based on that.

Again, please define those sources. You seem to wish to insinuate I haven't looked at them when I did; the CSIS report I'm quoting from actually assumes a Chinese invasion of Taiwan fails, so I'm not sure why you're assuming its biased. Perhaps you should take the time to read sources yourself, before commenting on them?

With USA vs China, the reasonable prediction is 'The PLA will perform somewhere between utterly pathetic and marginally competent,' and 'the US military performance will only be limited by how much politicians hamstring it.' US defeat is possible, but any reason for it other than political incompetence is extremely unlikely. If the PLA turns out to be somewhat competent, they could make the US bleed a lot more than we want to win, but they don't have the hardware, the experience, or the competence, to win a military victory outright.

Okay, what is the material basis of this?

But you're not interested in that. You already have your conclusions, and just like with all your other nonsense, you'll look for sources that say what you want to hear, and ignore any other source that contradicts it.

I can't ignore that which you have yet to present. This is how our conversations always go; you make a lot of personal attacks but are never able to present your case beyond a rhetorical level.

 

[History Learner]

@LordsFire if you'd be willing to tell me what you consider reliable sources, I'd be happy to review them. I'm assuming the Pentagon's 2023 report on the PLA would be considered objective and reliable by you, so for now I'll use that. For clarity's sake, I'm only going to quote the relevant part of your post:

With USA vs China, the reasonable prediction is 'The PLA will perform somewhere between utterly pathetic and marginally competent,' and 'the US military performance will only be limited by how much politicians hamstring it.' US defeat is possible, but any reason for it other than political incompetence is extremely unlikely. If the PLA turns out to be somewhat competent, they could make the US bleed a lot more than we want to win, but they don't have the hardware, the experience, or the competence, to win a military victory outright.

So, hardware is easily definable in this context. The PLAAF is now larger than European NATO combined:



The PLAN is also now the largest Navy, with a building pace that far surpasses anything by the USN:



So, hardware wise, they definitely have the capability to meet and defeat us. What about experience? We've learned they're now able to regularly move entire Army Groups in training exercises simulating an invasion of Taiwan:



Competence is something a lot harder to define, so I would need to see your metrics on that. China and the U.S. both haven't fought a conventional war against a peer opponent since the 1950s. The closest both have had to naval combat is fighting pirates in the Red Sea/Gulf of Aden, which China has been doing for almost 20 years now.

But, outside big ticket items like ship counts and experience, how exactly is the U.S. supposed to win without having logistics? Red Hill was closed a couple of years ago and has no replacement, the USN is short by 90% on its tanker needs to keep its ships running and the USAF supplied, and the USAF itself says it only has enough munitions for a week of combat.

What happens after that week and when the fuel runs out? It doesn't matter how deadly your weapons systems are if they don't have the fuel, munitions or parts to operate.

 

[Zachowon]

Did you know the US loses war games more times out of ten then it wins them?
Because we have our adversaries in war games be really competent on the level of us and they generally always win so we can adapt.

Like how many times have our allies shot down a 22 in a war game? Just for the 22 to be weighed down, slow, and start with the ally right behind them?

And how is China going to destroy our entire bomber fleet when most are in America, and thw fact that I&W (indications and warnings) will override any chance of a surprise missile launch on an airfield is huge.


But you obviously don't understand what the US is capable of.

Very few really do on here.

Those that served know better then you thiugh.
He'll damn near every American on this forum knows better then you

 

[Doomsought]

I think History Learner hasn't Learned about tofu dregs construction yet. I'm pretty sure a good chunk of the PLA navy is more likely to sink itself rather than an enemy if it ever tried to fire a weapon.

 

[TheRejectionist]

I would more worried about cyberwarfare with China.

 

[AnimalNoodles]

@LordsFire if you'd be willing to tell me what you consider reliable sources, I'd be happy to review them. I'm assuming the Pentagon's 2023 report on the PLA would be considered objective and reliable by you, so for now I'll use that. For clarity's sake, I'm only going to quote the relevant part of your post:



So, hardware is easily definable in this context. The PLAAF is now larger than European NATO combined:



The PLAN is also now the largest Navy, with a building pace that far surpasses anything by the USN:



So, hardware wise, they definitely have the capability to meet and defeat us. What about experience? We've learned they're now able to regularly move entire Army Groups in training exercises simulating an invasion of Taiwan:



Competence is something a lot harder to define, so I would need to see your metrics on that. China and the U.S. both haven't fought a conventional war against a peer opponent since the 1950s. The closest both have had to naval combat is fighting pirates in the Red Sea/Gulf of Aden, which China has been doing for almost 20 years now.

But, outside big ticket items like ship counts and experience, how exactly is the U.S. supposed to win without having logistics? Red Hill was closed a couple of years ago and has no replacement, the USN is short by 90% on its tanker needs to keep its ships running and the USAF supplied, and the USAF itself says it only has enough munitions for a week of combat.

What happens after that week and when the fuel runs out? It doesn't matter how deadly your weapons systems are if they don't have the fuel, munitions or parts to operate.

To many people suffer desertstormitis and still live in the 90's, not in an era where China have 200 times the shipbuilding capacity, can manufacture its own microprocessors, possesses several times more engineers and can drown the USA in munitions and materiel.

 

[LordsFire]

I think History Learner hasn't Learned about tofu dregs construction yet. I'm pretty sure a good chunk of the PLA navy is more likely to sink itself rather than an enemy if it ever tried to fire a weapon.

Eh, that's taking it too far. I wouldn't be surprised if a few in-launcher detonations caused a few ships to damage or sink themselves, but if it was that bad, there'd already be a ton of incidents like this.

More realistically, their ability to take hits will be seriously compromised by what corruption has almost certainly done to their ship-building industry, and valuing political indoctrination more than training has done to their servicemen.

@LordsFire if you'd be willing to tell me what you consider reliable sources, I'd be happy to review them.

No.

I've tried to debate with you before, and you do not debate in good faith. I didn't respond to your post because I wanted to try to have a debate with you; you've demonstrated for more than a year that you are fundamentally not a reasonable person, and trying to reason with you is a waste of time. Your absurd position on shell production, where you used one unsourced graphic of Ukrainian shell production years before the war broke out to claim Russian shell-production completely outclassed the West in every possible way would be proof of that all by itself, regardless of all the other nonsense you've gotten up to.

I post for the benefit of the thread, not because I think you'll listen to anything. If you want to actually debate with someone, I'm sure Marduk will come through again at some point with his compulsive desire to argue points, even with people who clearly aren't interested in listening.

 

[History Learner]

No.

I've tried to debate with you before, and you do not debate in good faith. I didn't respond to your post because I wanted to try to have a debate with you; you've demonstrated for more than a year that you are fundamentally not a reasonable person, and trying to reason with you is a waste of time. Your absurd position on shell production, where you used one unsourced graphic of Ukrainian shell production years before the war broke out to claim Russian shell-production completely outclassed the West in every possible way would be proof of that all by itself, regardless of all the other nonsense you've gotten up to.

I post for the benefit of the thread, not because I think you'll listen to anything. If you want to actually debate with someone, I'm sure Marduk will come through again at some point with his compulsive desire to argue points, even with people who clearly aren't interested in listening.

If you don't think I'll listen, then why did you reply and continue to reply? I don't buy you're doing it for the thread, because you just said it's a waste of time; these are mutually contradictory statements on their face. You only pull this card, and have done so many times, when I challenge you to actually back up your claims about my positions.

Ultimately, I am not the subject of this thread so if you’re not going to engage the actual topic, why don’t you stop derailing the thread? That’ll do more for it then what you’re currently doing here.