Topic: J-20 and Chinese Military Power

[augustmanifesto]

With that in mind, Yes, destroying satellites has that ability and yes, for the reasons I've mentioned. Nearly all long range, stand off guided munitions require satellite support, e.g. GPS & Tomahawk cruise missiles

GPS satellites are out of reach for current ASAT weapons which are kinetic energy weapons - read missiles. These missiles can only go up to lower orbits at which you find reconnaissance satellites.

GPS satellites AFAIK can only be reached by high energy lasers.

 read here for discussion of Chinese ASAT weapons believed to be under development, including jamming of GPS and the high energy lasers for use against satellites

@Dipsomaniac:

Tomahawks were also designed with ground mapping capabilities which they could also revert to if necessary.

Yes, but are inaccurate over long distances, why they were upgraded to GPS assisted guidance in the first instance. Even the US short range guided munitions order of battle is compromised by GPS destruction or jamming, e.g. Small diameter bombs. I'm not claiming this neutralizes US Air Forces, but that it severely hampers US operations is pretty straight forward. And we haven't even begun to consider Communications Satellites...

This is why i mentioned getting into technical details may obscure rather than help, earlier. For example, in this case, do you seriously believe that the development of substantial anti-satellite capabilities is not a threat to US given its dependence on satellite networks? yes or no? If you say no then I relaly give up... 

Your published refutation is an interesting.

One, because of its irrelevance, because the approach involves both  modified F-15E's and F-22's working in tandem, hence involves 5th generation aircraft which were excluded from my claim ex hypothesi. I restate my issue on evasiveness, therefore.

Two, because it emphasizes a premise you underplay,  that the J-20 will possess serious stealth capabilities.

I actually said it may share the performance envelope of a 4th gen It just may not be all that good. Which I still stand by until better information becomes available. This does not mean the project is a failure merely that some of its goals are not as high as you assume. Adopting some of the qualities of a 5th gen aircraft yet not all of them. A possibility that is quite plausible depending on the intended design.

that's precisely what 4+ means. I don't there is any serious question that the program is intended as a full 5th generation aircraft. I have no Chinese primary sources on this, I'm not sure if those exists or not to the public, but all third parties I'm aware of consider the program as an intended 5th generation fighter. This would, again, seem to be supported by logical inference given that the PRC declined participation in the T-50 PAK FA.

No it isn't. Anyone with the ability to launch their own satellites have the capability to destroy others. This is nothing new and but another weapon system. Unreliable launch systems are more dangerous than this anti-satellite capability.

Again, you're being evasive. I discussed precisely why this was dangerous and will simply here refer to my previous post. I would also add the United States has never gone to war with a country with that capability -- the the possibility of war in the context of the great power cycle between the United States and China is precisely what is at point here, not whether the PRC capability to destroy satellites is novel or not.

[The GrimSqueaker]

One, because of its irrelevance, because the approach involves both  modified F-15E's and F-22's working in tandem, hence involves 5th generation aircraft which were excluded from my claim ex hypothesi. I restate my issue on evasiveness, therefore.

You may call it as irrelevant as you wish yet the article does mention the strengths of the previous generation over the next. Without firm data you're not going to get exact details. Claiming evasiveness is merely your desire to force an opinion based on information we just don't have. I'm not General Powell and won't make statements more founded in imagination than reality. 

Two, because it emphasizes a premise you underplay,  that the J-20 will possess serious stealth capabilities.

Always assume the worst case when wargaming. Standard practice. They're assuming that the J-20 is a match for the F-22 which is an unfounded assumption at this point but an easy assumption to make when wargaming and prepares the pilots for any situation they may face rather than just the likely ones. The training also helps prepare for when a more credible threat emerges.  Not really a surprise here.

Again, you're being evasive. I discussed precisely why this was dangerous and will simply here refer to my previous post.

And I'll again state that I believe your concerns are unfounded and tend more to the extreme of the situation. You may assume the worst case scenario in this instance but I'm not going. I do not see the possibility of open strategic warfare with China anytime soon. If you insist on calling my hedging evasiveness I'll begin to call your assumptions fear-mongering. 

[augustmanifesto]

No, on the 4th gen issue I was simply not just "assuming." There was a reasoned and evidence argument which you ignore

Also, re: this "i push things to the extreme side of the spectrum," assuming the aircraft is actually 5th gen is hardly extreme. Claiming it will outclass the F-22 is extreme, which I do not. Also, if you return to the argument mentioned above, you see I demonstrate how my point still obtains in a case closer to conservative estimation, which is if the aircraft is 4+.

As for the article, yes, it is irrelevant because again, ex hypothesis, the claim excluded 4th generation aircraft, e.g. the F-22.

As for your claim pertaining to "without firm details," notice I have not used or claimed any. The above, that the plane will be somewhere between 4+ and 5th generation is hardly manufacturing firm details. 

thought you were citing irreconcilable differences on this one, eh? have I executed Pugachev's Troll? ha, sorry, couldn't resist.

[The GrimSqueaker]

Also, re: this "i push things to the extreme side of the spectrum," assuming the aircraft is actually 5th gen is hardly extreme.

I was returning to a previous paragraph concerning strategic warfare and the Chinese use of surface to orbit weapons to destroy GPS and the like.    That is a very extreme view I'd hope you'd admit. Assuming the J-20 is 5th gen is not an extreme view as I've already admitted that to some or entire extent it may be. Waiting on proof though which could be a long time in the making depending on how much the Chinese either let slip or publicise.

The above, that the plane will be somewhere between 4+ and 5th generation is hardly manufacturing firm details. 

An assumption I've accepted and used myself.

thought you were citing irreconcilable differences on this one, eh? have I executed Pugachev's Troll? ha, sorry, couldn't resist.

That I understand that I'm not about to change your opinion does not preclude me of replying to the points made. Otherwise this turns into a having the last word digression.  Your reference doesn't ring a bell I'm afraid.

[augustmanifesto]

Although there are a few things I'd like to keep hacking away at, and a few apparent miscommunications I'd like to address (no doubt you're in the same boat), I accept your appeal to call it a case of "we're not gonna see eye to eye" and avoid an excessively long discussion that may preclude others from the thread, which is in poor taste and perhaps not the best use of our time as well.

I therefore conclude by thanking you for your perspective. In the course of talking I was motivated to go back to a lot of old reference material, so I thank you for the constructive and productive (for me, at least) exchange.

that said, there is just one more matter...

That I understand that I'm not about to change your opinion does not preclude me of replying to the points made. Otherwise this turns into a having the last word digression.  Your reference doesn't ring a bell I'm afraid.

haha "Pugachev's Troll" was a reference to the aerial maneuver Pugachev's Cobra. Seemed appropriate.

[Mr.Peanut (Turtleproof)]

I'm not concerned.  Reacting with any concern to the development of a fighter craft is due to a drastically distorted worldview stemming from the United States's war culture.  That it could take them another decade to complete a high-priority project that's probably flight ready already is normal, only with the US's insanely bloated military budget do things get done faster.  China is smart right now: it observes the US bankrupting itself on military expenditures and adventurous resource grabs.  Rather than grabbing for oil they are researching advanced nuclear systems, rather than wrecking their own budget with military buildup they have dominated global production through economic strategies.

That Americans don't check the country of origin label when buying things and continue to use toxic goods worries me far more than any new military toy ever will.

[Full Metal Geneticist]

China does get a tonne of oil from Africa. Part of the giant hullabaloo about wikileaks was China got called out for its bargaining in Africa with tinpot dictatorships where it may be exacerbating the situation much like the USA during the period when it was doing the same to south america.

Plenty of diplomats complaining about chinese strong arm bargaining and economic weapons. a lot of Nigerian oil is mined using chinese engineering.

[augustmanifesto]

I'm not concerned.  Reacting with any concern to the development of a fighter craft is due to a drastically distorted worldview stemming from the United States's war culture.  That it could take them another decade to complete a high-priority project that's probably flight ready already is normal, only with the US's insanely bloated military budget do things get done faster.  China is smart right now: it observes the US bankrupting itself on military expenditures and adventurous resource grabs.  Rather than grabbing for oil they are researching advanced nuclear systems, rather than wrecking their own budget with military buildup they have dominated global production through economic strategies.

That Americans don't check the country of origin label when buying things and continue to use toxic goods worries me far more than any new military toy ever will.

But surely you can recognize the great power cycle in history and do admit the coming competition between China and the United States has a worrying destructive potential. From that perspective, what is concerning about the J-20 and Chinese military buildup is the connection to the rise of a great power challenging another and the risks which historically accompany such a geopolitical situation.

In other words, my concerns are not directed at China as such, but at the geopolitical situation that involves the rise of China more generally.