NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Connori Pilgrims]

In the grimmest future the Azov Battalion destroys all of Russia's T-90s with Javelin missiles.

Mr. Trump bring back XM2001 and Block III Abrams while you're arming Ukraine with Javelin -Es. Pls Mr. Presidente pls. And bring back A/FX too.

What is af/x?

The AF/X was a Navy program to develop some kind of VLO strike fighter in the 1990s. IIRC, it took over from the separate Naval Advanced Tactical Fighter and the A-12 program which were late 80s things killed by the end of the Cold War. Basically an F-14 and A-6 replacement in one. It could have also replaced the F-111 if the Air Force bought into it.

The Lockheed-Boeing (and General Dynamics) AFX-653 is one of the concepts considered for the program, and is usually what most people think of when they hear AF/X (since it was one of the more developed ones). It wasn't the only one, Northrop and Rockwell and Grumman came up with concepts for the program as well.

It was unfortunately killed because the craft was likely to be even more expensive than the F-22, and the bean counters wanted a "joint" aircraft that all the services would use. The (then) cheaper JAST, later JSF programs became the successor... which would become the F-35.

[Gallia-]

In the grimmest future the Azov Battalion destroys all of Russia's T-90s with Javelin missiles.

Mr. Trump bring back XM2001 and Block III Abrams while you're arming Ukraine with Javelin -Es. Pls Mr. Presidente pls. And bring back A/FX too.

What is af/x?

The thing the USN wishes it had instead of F-35. Think Big!F-35.

[Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502]

How much do Warden's Five Rings still influence air power strategy?

[The Manticoran Empire]

What is af/x?

The thing the USN wishes it had instead of F-35. Think Big!F-35.

That sounds like a National Interest article.

[Xia-]

K. Mizokami would suggest the U.S. Navy bring back the Iowas and replace their turrets with VLS or something. And then "disperse" the SSBN force among 30+ Virginia Block Vs.

[Teraniun]

In an era with space ships, robots, and orbital bombardment, is there actually a conceivable case for compulsory service AKA conscription?

[Xia-]

If Americans are the most jovial of races then the most jovial of Americans has been found:

A smile brighter than the atom bomb.

[Zhouran]

K. Mizokami would suggest the U.S. Navy bring back the Iowas and replace their turrets with VLS or something. And then "disperse" the SSBN force among 30+ Virginia Block Vs.

>Turning obsolete battleships into oversized missile cruisers

I don't see the advantage tbh. If anything, more destroyers would be better, along with more nuclear submarines. Converting the Iowas into missile cruisers is kinda stupid since it would take a lot of money to recommission the ships and then convert them. Plus all that money could be better spent on new warships or new submarines.

In an era with space ships, robots, and orbital bombardment, is there actually a conceivable case for compulsory service AKA conscription?

Well, if you're a dictatorship hellbent on enslaving your people and pretty much everyone you occupy, then yes.

If a dictatorship is invading your territories, then yes, especially if manpower shortage is a concern.

[Albynau]

I understand the technology involved in armored warfare has changed dramatically in the last forty odd years, but I'm curious about how much the design of tanks have changed in that time span.

For example, comparing the Chieftain to the Challenger 2, they're both of similar weight, dimensions, armament, and appearance, though obviously there is technology difference between the two designs. What I'm asking is what is lost in incorporating new technology onto older designs versus coming up with a whole new design? Or in other words, if I slap a new engine, optics, fire control and heaps of applique on a Chieftain, what am I missing out compared to the Challenger 2? Would there be a significant gap in performance?

In comparison to ships and aircraft, tanks seem to have been pretty static in appearance, looking at the evolution of big blocky ships covered in antenna and radars and rigging to floating toasters, or angular flying tubes to more curved designs in aircraft.

I'm probably phrasing this terribly.

Thank you.

[Xia-]

K. Mizokami would suggest the U.S. Navy bring back the Iowas and replace their turrets with VLS or something. And then "disperse" the SSBN force among 30+ Virginia Block Vs.

>Turning obsolete battleships into oversized missile cruisers

I don't see the advantage tbh. If anything, more destroyers would be better, along with more nuclear submarines. Converting the Iowas into missile cruisers is kinda stupid since it would take a lot of money to recommission the ships and then convert them. Plus all that money could be better spent on new warships or new submarines.

The point is, given infinite resources, the USN would most certainly be pursuing a deep attack capability with a new form of carrier-based VLO strike aircraft. One that is fully robotic, optionally manned, or a manned strike fighter.

F-35C is like the F-18 of VLO aircraft and the USN would want an F-14 or A-6 instead. Otherwise it has to call the Air Force to bomb the Chinese to death and that's just embarrassing.

[Zhouran]

The point is, given infinite resources, the USN would most certainly be pursuing a deep attack capability with a new form of carrier-based VLO strike aircraft. One that is fully robotic, optionally manned, or a manned strike fighter.

There is no "infinite resources", the US may have the world's largest defense budget but they've been going through tough financial situations, especially with handling programs such as the F-35 program and cancelled programs like the XM2001 Crusader ever since the Cold War ended. If the US did have "infinite resources" then why reactivate the Iowas and re-purpose them when you could simply make new warships?

F-35C is like the F-18 of VLO aircraft and the USN would want an F-14 or A-6 instead. Otherwise it has to call the Air Force to bomb the Chinese to death and that's just embarrassing.

The F-14 was rightfully decommissioned since it's a swing-wing aircraft. Those wings aren't maintenance-friendly compared to conventional wings. The Navy was expecting both the A-12 Avenger II and the A/F-X, but since both got cancelled, the Navy simply went with the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Right now they're expecting the F-35C, which would have to fulfill the roles of both the A-12 and A/F-X. Even if its range or ordnance payload isn't impressive, at least the F-35C is stealthy, which matters more. And even of the Navy does have to call in the Air Force instead, it maybe embarrassing but achieving a victory is more important than petty service-branch rivalry.

And if K. Mizokami you mean Kyle Mizokami, then I'm not surprise. His articles are pretty mediocre and his followers live in a circle-jerking echo chamber.

[Xia-]

<missing the point>

There are infinite wants.

"but vg"

That's why the USN's high performance super fighter for the 21st century was going to be VG.

at least

Yes it is perfectly mediocre and only slightly depressing. Perhaps it may one day become adequate. But it will never be able to allow the USN to attack 1,000 nautical miles into Chinese territory to destroy the 2nd Artillery Corps. For that you need something else. B-21 is going to be doing the job atm but it's probably not sufficient by itself and there really isn't a carrier based alternative that can conduct the deep strike portion of SIOP. What the USN lacks is two things: +1,000 nautical mile strike distance and aerial refueling, which is bad since the land strike mission is the entire purpose of the carrier now.

There are other things, like a lack of carrier based fixed wing ASW and a fleet defense fighter, but the USN has been heavily focused on the strike mission for the past 25 years and nothing really has changed enough to change that.

It needs something that can reach out and touch Chinese TELs in Xinjiang or something.

petty

The USA might lose a war with the PRC but there will always be another round of defense budget allocations next year.

Far from petty, arguing about distribution of budget funding next year is vastly more important than "winning a war".

[Zhouran]

muh bullshit wants

There is no such thing as infinite resources though. Those who want but cannot have are whingers. The Navy has to cope with what they have, it's why they accepted the Super Hornet even if it's no F-14 or A-12 Avenger II.

muh swing wing.

The reason why the A/F-X has swing wing is because the F-22 Raptor's design isn't suitable for carrier operations. They simply went with swing-wing because the F-14 itself uses it and designing a suitable wing design for the A/F-X would take more time than simply going with what's there. Other than that, swing-wing is utter trash as it is maintenance-intensive and complex, as well as heavy.

[Xia-]

words

Everything you said is wrong for reasons that would take too long to explain.

1) You clearly have no way of interpreting what I'm saying about the USN being between a rock and a hard place in accepting F-35C. Since I cannot make it any simpler you simply have to try to climb that mountain yourself.
2) You clearly have no idea what or why the USN was going for what it wanted with its 21st century carrier wing and I'm not sure any amount of explanation can make you see it since you lack the basic foundational knowledge.
3) You have no clue what A/FX was. Nor do you really seem to know anything about the chronology of USN strike aircraft in the early 1990s.
4) You also don't know what VG is apparently.

You're just saying a lot of "I don't know what I'm talking about," in so many words. Try reading what I write instead.

OTOH you are a person who takes a comment about "Kyle Mizokami", "VLS battleships", and "Virginia Payload Module replaces SSBNs" 100% dead serious so I'm not sure you're capable of understanding why and how you're wrong in the first place.

[The Manticoran Empire]

The Navy would love to have something that is stealthier than the F-35, as fast as the F-22, and has the range of legacy aircraft. Unfortunately, that isn't in the budget. They are stuck with F-35, which is just fine. 450 Nautical Miles works just fine.

[Zhouran]

Yes it is perfectly mediocre and only slightly depressing. Perhaps it may one day become adequate. But it will never be able to allow the USN to attack 1,000 nautical miles into Chinese territory to destroy the 2nd Artillery Corps. For that you need something else. B-21 is going to be doing the job atm but it's probably not sufficient by itself and there really isn't a carrier based alternative that can conduct the deep strike portion of SIOP.

What the USN lacks is two things: +1,000 nautical mile strike distance and aerial refueling.

There are other things, like a lack of carrier based fixed wing ASW and a fleet defense fighter, but the USN has been heavily focused on the strike mission for the past 25 years and nothing really has changed enough to change that.

No, the B-21 is sufficient enough to do a deep strike itself, it's why it is stealth, that's it. Why would the USAF even want the B-21 if it cannot into deep strike?

Plus the F-35C is still a capable fleet-defense fighter. It has a powerful AESA radar and it can carry BVR AAMs. It's mediocre and depressing alright, but that's the reality when there's no Cold War to spend a lot of money on.

The USA might lose a war with the PRC but there will always be another round of defense budget allocations next year.

Far from petty, arguing about distribution of budget funding next year is vastly more important than "winning a war".

You don't get it. There is no "war" with the PRC, only neocon warhawks and submissive bootlickers want one but will not get one. And plus the US military is facing a tough financial climate, they have to be practical with what they have.

smeared dogshit

1. The Navy can't have whatever they want. That's tough luck, they either wait for several years for their F/A-XX or they simply accept the F-35C and actually have a stealth fighter for once.

2. I lack basic foundation knowledge on what? Sounds like horseshit if you ask me. Again, the Navy can't have whatever they want.

3. The A/F-X was a stealth fighter program based on the NATF, which itself was based on the ATF program. Plus the Navy did want the A-12 Avenger II during the 1990s to replace the A-6 Intruder.

4. Yeah, swing wing, as in variable-geometry.

[Xia-]

words

No.

1) Anything "stealthier" than F-35 would be too big to fit on a carrier...
2) The USN hates fast jets for somewhat obvious reasons: Fast planes consume a lot of fuel.
3) F-35C #BTFO all "legacy" aircraft in combat radius. But it can't hold a candle to super jet A/FX or even ATA's early 1990s requirements.
4) People much smarter and better educated than you decided that 1,000 nautical miles is necessary to kill a bunch of TELs and give carrier admirals the striking distance they need to stay safe. I trust them over "random person".

No, the B-21 is sufficient enough to do a deep strike itself, it's why it is stealth, that's it.

LOL.

Why would the USAF even want the B-21 if it cannot into deep strike?

Amazing that you can't figure out that ~30-40 bombers probably aren't enough to destroy a highly dispersed, high-tech TEL force in the world's second largest country.

Plus the F-35C is still a capable fleet-defense fighter.

Amazing.

It has a powerful AESA radar and it can carry BVR AAMs.

Super Hornet is a better fleet defense fighter than F-35C.

It's why F/A-18E/F are sticking around for a few more decades.

Sadly the USN's dreams of having an all VLO strike/EW wing for 1,000 nautical mile radius into Xinjiang to annihilate the PLARF's anti-shipping ballistic missiles/Pershing II clones is all for naught.

when there's no Cold War

Good one. You're a riot.

There is no "war" with the PRC,

LOL.

only neocon warhawks and submissive bootlickers want one but will not get one.

Too late it's already here, but that's not really the point, either. You don't start buckling your seatbelt after you've been in a car accident.

And plus the US military is facing a tough financial climate, they have to be practical with what they have.

Astounding. It's almost as if you think American procurement programs are well managed or something. There's been about two successful major American post-Cold War procurement programs:

1) SSN-774 class
2) M4 carbine

Soon CVN-78 will join that list. Of course, the USN had its own version of F-35, in the form of LCS, but at the moment it's not even clear if the USAF will get any B-21s let alone the 150 they're asking for. They only got 150 F-22s which is less than the 750 they need. And they will probably get half as many F-35s as they're asking for. So it looks like the USAF will be outgunned in all aspects by the PLAAF of the future with +1,500 J-20s and J-31s. Relying on the least reliable of all American service branches (besides the Army, but the Army at least has elan) is a bit flaky.

The Navy can't have whatever they want.

Incredible.

I lack basic foundation knowledge on what?

Everything. The fact that you can't go three words without inserting a vulgarity speaks volumes. You don't have an argument besides "stay the course". Good groupthink I guess.

The A/F-X was a stealth fighter

*Bzzt* Wrong.

NATF was going to replace F-14 and be the new fleet defense fighter. ATA was going to replace A-6 and be the new fleet medium attack jet. Cheney told NAVAIR "pick one" and NAVAIR picked ATA. ATA exploded because the Peace Dividend collided with high tech weapons procurement (honestly the USA should have just abandoned all weapons programs after the Cold War it would be the morally and historically congruent choice) and all the key components were essentially vaporware. Cheney got lied to by GD/McDD in his face and the USG ended up in a suit that lasted 22 years but that's another story.

After ATA comes NAVAIR asking the Fleet what they wanted. The Fleet replied they needed a striker that could go out about 1,000 nautical miles with VLO capability with a fairly high subsonic speed, which is AX. Fleet says they also need it to not be a pushover in a dogfight so AX becomes A/FX. A/FX is a lot of things from a lot of contractors because NAVAIR got solicitations from everyone. OSD looked at the Super Hornet and AFX entry date (this is about 1995-96 so the Navy's Epic Quest for a 21st strike aircraft has been happening for ~3-4 years) and sees that they're pretty close together. OSD says "pick one" and the Navy picks Super Hornet because it's the least risk option.

Expectation was that they would be able to pick it up but it never happened until decades later with UCLASS and we see where that went. So perhaps MQ-25 will be turned into a 1,000 nmi striker.

Yeah, swing wing, as in variable-geometry.

Knowing the name isn't the same as knowing the thing. VG has no real differences in availability rates to non-VG aircraft. CVW-9's problem was they weren't using F-14D, which had availability rates comparable to F/A-18C/D. Turns out running a 30+ years old engine which hasn't been in production for decades and is running dangerously low on spare parts (and was never high on reliability to begin with) leads to lower availability rates.

RIP F-14A. "He was the F-35 of his generation," on his tombstone. All around mediocre but got a pretty good MLU that died early because the USA became a vaporware producer.

[Zhouran]

"hahaha lol no u wrong" garbage

Trash. Don't know why I should even argue to a brick wall but I'll bite the bait again.

No, the B-21 is sufficient enough to do a deep strike itself, it's why it is stealth, that's it.

LOL.

Not an argument.

Why would the USAF even want the B-21 if it cannot into deep strike?

Amazing that you can't figure out that ~30-40 bombers probably aren't enough to destroy a highly dispersed, high-tech TEL force in the world's second largest country

>Probably

Well geez, aren't you smart. Please go and tell them Northrop Grumman boys that they're wrong and you're right while their design for a future stealth bomber sucks.

Plus the F-35C is still a capable fleet-defense fighter.

Amazing

Yeah, the F-35 is an amazing bird. Better than nothing.

It has a powerful AESA radar and it can carry BVR AAMs.

Super Hornet is a better fleet defense aircraft than F-35C.

F-35C shits on the Super Hornet any day, sweety.

when there's no Cold War

Good one. You're a riot.

There is no "war" with the PRC,

LOL.

only neocon warhawks and submissive bootlickers want one but will not get one.

Too late it's already here.

There is no war with the PRC. If there is, then the world economy shatters. It takes someone with a brain (something you lack) to know that

And plus the US military is facing a tough financial climate, they have to be practical with what they have.

Astounding. It's almost as if you think American procurement programs are well managed or something. There's been about two successful major American post-Cold War procurement programs:

1) SSN-774 class
2) M4 carbine

I didn't even say the American procurement programs are well managed or something. Stop pulling shit out of your ass.

The Navy can't have whatever they want.

Incredible.

Not an argument.

I lack basic foundation knowledge on what?

Everything. The fact that you can't go three words without inserting a vulgarity speaks volumes. You don't have an argument besides "stay the course". Good groupthink I guess.

Not an argument.

The A/F-X was a stealth fighter

*Bzzt* Wrong.

Nope you're wrong sweety.

Yeah, swing wing, as in variable-geometry.

Knowing the name isn't the same as knowing the thing. VG has no real differences in availability rates to non-VG aircraft.

Yes there are real differences. VG design requires the mechanism to move the wings at different angles. They require more maintenance than non-VG wings plus they add complexity and weight penalty. Only someone like you would think VG wings move magically without any mechanism. VG-wings aren't even needed due to advancement in relax-stability flight control. Plus the NATF and A/F-X used VG designs because it's there already and it would take considerate amount of time and resources to find a suitable wing design for a navalized raptor-like fighter that can improve low-speed control for carrier landing.

[Xia-]

F-35C shits on the Super Hornet any day, sweety.

F/A-18E/F and F-35C are exactly equivalent in the fleet defense role. F-35C is slightly worse, though, since it has a higher effect on virtual attrition. Using something as capable as it for something as boring as fleet air defense is a waste.

If the USN had actual VAs again with long-range strikers like A-12 or A/FX it wouldn't be a waste, though. But ATM USN admirals will need to get too close to China and have too few good aircraft to perform the mission that is desperately needed to free up the very small number of B-21s for their most important role: bombing cities with B83s. If the USN cannot contribute to the SIOP then it puts all the onus on the USAF, so it's not just embarrassing, but an actual threat to the national survival of the United States. And if the USAF is too busy running around China looking for TELs so the USN can get close to the PRC mainland to conduct an amphibious invasion, then it's not bombing cities.

Since the "I" in SIOP means "integrated", it means everyone plays a part. When you start putting onus on one service branch to "do everything" SIOP falls apart. Especially when the USAF is already under-equipped for the job.

B-21's job is mostly to float over the PRC and nuke command bunkers, LCCs with PGMs (B-61 Mod 12), and cities with high yield megaton weapons (B83); UCLASS's job is to perform deep ISR, BDA, and strike TELs as targets of opportunity (or outright perform TEL sweeps as far deep as Xinjiang); and the carriers' job in general is to harass and degrade the Chinese IADS so Air Force bombers can get through and nuke the major centers of Chinese political-economic strength. They also destroy the PLAN and that is another thing the USN lacks: airborne maritime strike ability. When you kill their economy you defeat your enemy. Ideally the USN would have 20 UCAS/UCLASS with 24 SDBs a pop and half a dozen robotic tankers for each carrier wing, but it doesn't, because the USA is too skittish to buy good weapons I guess.

Like B-2, it's also unlikely that B-21 will be bought in any significant or even meaningful number.

So the USA is really just sort of doomed to lose the world to the PRC and maybe even become its client.

There is no war with the PRC.

We were never at war with the Soviet Union. Just like we're not at war with the PRC. Sadly, as a Leninist, I am required to inform you that the PRC very much views its relationship with America as a war. War is not restricted to "bombing people". Why do you think "blockade" is an "act of war"? The longer you stuff your ears with cotton and go "lalala there is no war", the happier Eternal President-for-Life Xi gets, because that's exactly what the Politburo wants Westerners to believe.

Thankfully as long as you declare yourself "Eternal President-for-Life" you automatically enter into a state of ideological warfare with Western nations. Expect cooperation with the PRC to remain the same but rhetoric to reach "severely stern talking-to" levels in the coming decades as the PRC eats all Eurasia.

I didn't even say the American procurement programs are well managed or something.

You did.

Nope you're wrong sweety.

A/FX was never a fighter. That's sort of why it's called "A/FX". It was a slightly-less-crummy-at-killing-other-planes A-12. It also died so fast they didn't even have time to decide what radar it would use anyway.

Yes there are real differences.

Availability rate isn't one of them. F-4 Phantom, a non-VG aircraft, has higher number of maintenance hours per flight hour than F-14D. Probably because F-4 is trash but whatever.

[Zhouran]

F-35C shits on the Super Hornet any day, sweety.

F/A-18E/F and F-35C are exactly equivalent in the fleet defense role. F-35C is slightly worse, though, since it has a higher effect on virtual attrition. Using something as capable as it for something as boring as fleet air defense is a waste.

If the USN had actual VAs again with long-range strikers like A-12 or A/FX it wouldn't be a waste, though. But ATM USN admirals will need to get too close to China and have too few good aircraft to perform the mission that is desperately needed to free up the very small number of B-21s for their most important role: bombing cities with B83s. If the USN cannot contribute to the SIOP then it puts all the onus on the USAF, so it's not just embarrassing, but an actual threat to the national survival of the United States.

The F-35C is stealthy, this makes it better for interdiction operations within enemy territory than the Super Hornet since it has a higher chance of surviving. Also, using the F-35C for fleet defense isn't boring or a waste, it's still a more-capable fighter than the Super Hornet.

We were never at war with the Soviet Union. Just like we're not at war with the PRC.

The PRC isn't a superpower like the former Soviet Union. They still rely on Russia for technological know-hows. They're only powerful mainly 'cos of their economy, that's mostly it. Plus, this is a post-Cold War era in which there aren't really any clear threats apart from terrorism, and as a result the threat situation is unpredictable and can change.

I didn't even say the American procurement programs are well managed or something.

You did.

Nope.

Nope you're wrong sweety.

A/FX was never a fighter. That's sort of why it's called "A/FX". It was a slightly-less-crummy-at-killing-other-planes A-12

Wrong again sweety.

The A/F-X was designed as a multi-role attack/fighter aircraft for the Navy and a deep interdiction aircraft for the Air Force in response to a joint operational requirements document. The A/F-X is expected to have a new airframe configuration that incorporates advanced low-observable and associated materials technologies. The engine was to be from a new generation of engines exemplified by significant improvements in thrust-to-weight ratio and operation at high levels of turbine inlet temperature. The aircraft's avionics suite is expected to draw heavily on the integrated avionics from the F-22 program.

...

The degree to which the AX could perform both air-to-air, as well as air-to-ground, missions, was an important consideration being defined during 1992. The specific mix of combat capabilities and airframe performance parameters was defined in the concept exploration phase of the AX program in 1992, as competing industry design teams formulated their specific proposals to meet the Navy's broad set of tentative operational requirements.

Source

Yes there are real differences.

Availability rate isn't one of them. F-4 Phantom, a non-VG aircraft, has higher number of maintenance hours per flight hour than F-14D. Probably because F-4 is trash but whatever.

>F-4

>Trash

That's still doesn't ignore the fact that VG is obsolete and that NATF and A/F-X used VG design because it would take considerate amount of time to develop a non-VG design suitable for low-speed carrier landing. Plus VG-wings still require maintenance of the swinging mechanism that doesn't even exist on non-VG wings. As for the F-4, that's 'cos it's an older 3rd gen. fighter plane, of course it has a higher maintenance hours per flight hour than a 4th gen. fighter like the F-14.

[Xia-]

The F-35C is stealthy, this makes it better for interdiction

No one cares.

The PRC isn't a superpower like the former Soviet Union.

Yes it is. It's approximately as technologically advanced as the 1990s USA. The USA is also approximately as technologically advanced as the 1990s USA.

They still rely on Russia for technological know-hows.

It's clear that you are incapable of processing any changes in the world since 1995. The PRC has been capable of making their own things for about 10 years now. They lead the world in science output and are being helped along by major investment by a powerful fifth column in Silicon Valley and Washington D.C. They will surpass the United States in about 10-15 years since they are actually growing economically while the USA has been fairly stagnant for 10 years, especially after taking into account that it hasn't bothered responding to the PRC arms buildup.

The situation is analogous to the Brezhnev era, economically. The United States is the Soviet Union, which is not responding to the Western arms buildup, because its industry has yet to be recapitalized and it is more or less frozen in place with a sort of stagnation hanging over it. The PRC is the United States, which is growing fairly strongly, despite some potential hiccups down the road, but doesn't really seem to be in any position to fall over and well on its way to gaining first place in the world. It's possible that the USA may yet recapitalize in its industry or even purge its management ranks of ne'er do-wells and incompetents, but this is unlikely, so it will probably continue along at a pace that is sure to lead it to slipping behind the PRC.

The PRC will be stronger than the United States in almost every way, with the possible exception of "quantity", in the 2030s. By the 2060s it will be vastly superior in most relevant areas, equal in all others, and probably comparable in size. Since military procurement has a lag period of 20-30 years in the post-Cold War United States, it's pretty necessary that the USA start addressing its problems now rather than 2020 or 2025. It's doing this, but the Congress isn't really giving DOD the money it needs, so it will probably slip further than it should. Definitely further than it could since an all-out effort to rebuild the U.S. military would probably be adequate to meeting the challenge of the PRC in the future.

They're only powerful mainly 'cos of their economy, that's mostly it.

Ask yourself this: What is an economy? It's a machine. A machine to make tangible goods. Like pillows, T-shirts, and stealth fighters.

Plus, this is a post-Cold War era in which there aren't really any clear threats apart from terrorism, and as a result the threat situation is unpredictable and can change.

L O L
O
L

Nope.

Doublethink in action.

afx

Matej doesn't speak English as his first language so cut him some slack. He's using "fighter" in the same sense that someone might call this a "tank". Neither is the case except to uneducated laypersons.

The image you linked is silly. You might as well suggest that MQ-25 could have been descended from A-12 Avenger because X-47 and A-12 share a planform. Utter garbage, of course, but true only in the most superficial and meaningless sense. Also don't hotlink to his pictures it increases his site overhead and it's rude.

Yes, it was not a push-over in a fight against older aircraft. It wasn't supposed to be the second coming of NATF or F-22, though. It was a 1,000 nmi strike aircraft with self-escort. It's not quite F-15E, since F-15E didn't change the air-to-air capability, but it was definitely more and attacker than a fighter. For example, it probably would have lacked supercruise and it would have different F-119s than F-22 had, primarily to increase SFC and combat radius. Its ability as a fighter would probably be worse than F-22 and better than F-35, but it was an attack aircraft, not a fighter, so that's not really surprising. The "A" comes first for a reason. For the same reason it also had a backseat.

Were it a strike fighter or something, it would have been called "F/AX", but it wasn't. Interestingly it might have had a longer arm than F-22 had it been built since its bays were specced for AIM-152, but the USAF opposed AIM-152 for obvious reasons, so neither A/FX nor AIM-152 were built and the USAF and USN are left with piddly AIM-120s to fight PL-15.

>F-4
>Trash

Not even surprised you'd consider F-4 good. Blown flaps are an admission of defeat, though.

That's still doesn't ignore the fact that VG is obsolete

Good Hegelianism. Next dead philosophy.

As for the F-4, that's 'cos

It used blown flaps and had bad engines. If F-4 had used VG it probably would have been simpler. There's not much simpler than a fixed wing but VG isn't much more complex than that. A complicated valve and plumbing system necessary for blown flaps OTOH is about as complex as it gets. And modern commercial airliners tell us that these aren't terribly complex either, but they are noticeably finicky and have more points of failure than something like a NATF's VG wing.

TF30 was almost as bad as J79 though which is the biggest reason why F-14A had relatively lower availability rates than F-14D and F/A-18C.

[Zhouran]

The F-35C is stealthy, this makes it better for interdiction

No one cares.

Not an argument.

Yes it is. It's approximately as technologically advanced as the 1990s USA. The USA is also approximately as technologically advanced as the 1990s USA.

No it isn't. China still lags behind in military technology, plus they lack real combat experience in the 21st century battlefield. If anything, a war in the South China Sea would result in China's defeat. Even in a hypothetical Sino-American War with no allies involved, the US still wins.

They still rely on Russia for technological know-hows.

It's clear that you are incapable of processing any changes in the world since 1995.

Not an argument. Also please explain why China acquired the Su-35S and why their recent "domestically-designed" J-10 and WZ-10 were made with assistance from Russian engineers?

They're only powerful mainly 'cos of their economy, that's mostly it.

Ask yourself this: What is an economy? It's a machine. A machine to make tangible goods. Like pillows, T-shirts, and stealth fighters.

Infantile statement made by someone with an infantile mind. Plus China's J-20 still sucks especially against the F-35, it's only slightly better than the Su-57 in terms of frontal stealth but that's about it.

Plus, this is a post-Cold War era in which there aren't really any clear threats apart from terrorism, and as a result the threat situation is unpredictable and can change.

L O L
O
L

Not an argument.

Nope.

Doublethink in action.

Not an argument.

afx

Yes, it was not a push-over in a fight against older aircraft. It wasn't supposed to be the second coming of NATF or F-22, though. It was a 1,000 nmi strike aircraft with self-escort. It's not quite F-15E, since F-15E didn't change the air-to-air capability, but it was definitely more and attacker than a fighter. For example, it probably would have lacked supercruise and it would have different F-119s than F-22 had, primarily to increase SFC and combat radius. Its ability as a fighter would probably be worse than F-22 and better than F-35, but it was an attack aircraft, not a fighter, so that's not really surprising. The "A" comes first for a reason.

Were it a strike fighter or something, it would have been called "F/AX", but it wasn't. Interestingly it might have had a longer arm than F-22 had it been built since its bays were specced for AIM-152, but the USAF opposed AIM-152 for obvious reasons, so neither A/FX nor AIM-152 were built and the USAF and USN are left with piddly AIM-120s to fight PL-15.

A/F-X is still a fighter. Had the A/F-X entered service, the F-35C wouldn't really exist while had the NATF and A-12 had been accepted then the A/F-X wouldn't exist. Also:

>Probably

>Might

That's still doesn't ignore the fact that VG is obsolete

Good Hegelianism. Next dead philosophy.

Not an argument.

As for the F-4, that's 'cos

It used blown flaps and had bad engines. If F-4 had used VG it probably would have been simpler. There's not much simpler than a fixed wing but VG isn't much more complex than that.

No, VG is still complex because it requires the mechanism needed to change the sweep of the wings. And again, the F-4 is a 3rd gen. fighter jet. Also:

>Probably

Anyway, this argument has gone nowhere, all because of a stupid idea of recommissioning the Iowas and removing their turrets in exchange for VLS.

[Xia-]

Anyway, this argument has gone nowhere, all because of a stupid idea of recommissioning the Iowas and removing their turrets in exchange for VLS.

It's still amazing to me you're taking that 100% seriously. It was obviously a riff of K. Mizokami's most common headliners.

No it isn't. China still lags behind in military technology, plus they lack real combat experience in the 21st century battlefield.

Oh good, that means the USA and PRC are even more equal than I implied. Both lag behind the state of the art in military technology and neither has any relevant combat experience in the past 30 years.

No, VG is

Something you don't understand. Just like blown flaps. Or planes in general.

Repeat after me: "A/FX is a big F-35".

[Zhouran]

Anyway, this argument has gone nowhere, all because of a stupid idea of recommissioning the Iowas and removing their turrets in exchange for VLS.

It's still amazing to me you're taking that 100% seriously. It was obviously a riff of K. Mizokami's most common headliners.

>Hahaha I was only pretending to be stupid

Still doesn't shield such a stupid idea from any forms of criticism.

Oh good, that means the USA and PRC are even more equal than I implied. Both lag behind the state of the art in military technology and neither has any relevant combat experience in the past 30 years.

Can't tell if being unironically stupid or actually serious.

At least with America they have actual technological and engineering experiences, plus the US still deploys troops outside its borders and engages in unconventional wars with ragtag jihadis. When's the last time China sent troops outside its borders and fought a foreign enemy? Oh right, 1979, somehow a group of ragtag Vietnamese militias managed to kick the PLA's asses.

No, VG is

Something you don't understand. Just like blown flaps. Or planes in general.

Repeat after me: "A/FX is a big F-35".

No, you don't understand. An A/F-X doesn't make it a big F-35, and plus the F-35 itself is a multirole fighter. A stupid comparison no doubt, not surprised from a guy who seems to lack any understanding on why VG is such an obsolete and useless design in an era where fly-by-wire and digital technology has improved the capability of an aircraft. Back to the swing-wing circlejerk you go.

[Xia-]

Oh right, 1979, somehow a group of ragtag Vietnamese militias managed to kick the PLA's asses.

Your argument for why America is better than the PRC is America < China < Vietnam? The last time the USA and PLA fought a war the USA lost.