Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Friday December 15 2017, @11:45AM   Printer-friendly
from the at-least-it's-in-the-air dept.

Has the People's Republic caught up?

The Chengdu J-20 marks the first entry of a multirole stealth fighter into China's armed forces. According to the Department of Defense (DOD), China views stealth technology as a core component in the transformation of its air force from "a predominantly territorial air force to one capable of conducting both offensive and defensive operations." Designed for enhanced stealth and maneuverability, the J-20 has the potential to provide China with a variety of previously unavailable air combat options and enhance its capability to project power.

As an advanced multirole stealth fighter, it is speculated that the J-20 can fulfill both air-to-air and air-to-ground combat roles for the People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) and the aviation branch of the People's Liberation Army Navy (referred to as either Naval Aviation or the PLAN-AF). According to PLAAF Senior Colonel Shen Jinke, the J-20 will enhance the overall combat capability of China's air force. A 2016 report by the DOD states that the J-20 represents a critical step in China's efforts to develop "advanced aircraft to improve its regional power projection capabilities and to strengthen its ability to strike regional airbases and facilities." In 2014, the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission described the J-20 as "more advanced than any other fighter currently deployed by Asia Pacific countries."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday December 15 2017, @02:21PM (11 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 15 2017, @02:21PM (#610288) Journal

    But no one knows how they'll stand against the west at sea, or in the air.

    Nobody's going to be able to touch mainland China by sea in 5 years time - their artificial islands in South China Sea won't move from there, but it will be a lot harder to destroy than an aircraft carrier.
     

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 15 2017, @02:44PM (9 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 15 2017, @02:44PM (#610297) Homepage Journal

    Hmmmm - depends on a lot of things, including the willingness to use nukes. Those islands aren't all that very stable - they can be swept away. A single tac nuke for each island, and that barrier is gone.

    But, only a bunch of suicidal fools would want to invade mainland China. How many nations would it take to assemble an army as large as China's? And, since the Chinese would have all of the home field advantages, an army as large as China's would still be at a disadvantage.

    --
    The only reason for not believing in it (Marxism) is that it doesn't work. - Thomas Sowell
    • (Score: 2) by Arik on Friday December 15 2017, @03:02PM (8 children)

      by Arik (4543) on Friday December 15 2017, @03:02PM (#610304) Journal
      Nuke their base and they'll nuke one of yours.

      You really want to trade Guam for some reef with a weather station and a landing strip?
      --
      If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 15 2017, @03:41PM (7 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 15 2017, @03:41PM (#610317) Homepage Journal

        Not "base", but "bases". Oh yeah - Sun Tzu, remember? The Chinese aren't really into pyrrhic victories. They aren't into all-out war. They may be willing to sacrifice a few divisions, but the introduction of a few tac nukes WITHOUT hitting the homeland would convince them to back down. Unless, of course, they should elect/appoint their own version of Trump. MCGA, anyone? I'm as sure as is possible to be sure that the destruction of those islands would convince the Chinese to fall back, and test their conventional arms. In that case, we would see just how good their navy and air forces are.

        Now, if we were so utterly stupid as to send a nuke into any part of mainland China, all bets are off.

        --
        The only reason for not believing in it (Marxism) is that it doesn't work. - Thomas Sowell
        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday December 15 2017, @10:52PM (2 children)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 15 2017, @10:52PM (#610525) Journal

          Unless, of course, they should elect/appoint their own version of Trump. MCGA, anyone?

          Don't underestimate Chairman Xi, he's very well into MCGA, without the media excesses of Trump.
          When he says "South China Sea is traditionally Chinese" [wikipedia.org] what do you think it means?

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 15 2017, @11:16PM (1 child)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 15 2017, @11:16PM (#610538) Homepage Journal

            I think he means that China had the premier world power naval force in the 1400's, and he wants to bring those days back. And, he is working hard to enforce his view.

            --
            The only reason for not believing in it (Marxism) is that it doesn't work. - Thomas Sowell
            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday December 15 2017, @11:34PM

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 15 2017, @11:34PM (#610547) Journal

              So... MCGA?

              --
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
        • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday December 15 2017, @11:48PM (3 children)

          by bob_super (1357) on Friday December 15 2017, @11:48PM (#610553)

          > the introduction of a few tac nukes WITHOUT hitting the homeland would convince them to back down.

          It's not like that areas has any neighbors who might take offense at getting irradiated in your little war games.
          The nukes are forever staying in the box. Period.

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday December 16 2017, @02:11AM (2 children)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 16 2017, @02:11AM (#610592) Homepage Journal

            That's a pretty big assumption there . . .

            --
            The only reason for not believing in it (Marxism) is that it doesn't work. - Thomas Sowell
            • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Saturday December 16 2017, @02:23AM (1 child)

              by bob_super (1357) on Saturday December 16 2017, @02:23AM (#610595)

              I must have watched too much propaganda about being the good guys.

              • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday December 16 2017, @07:34AM

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 16 2017, @07:34AM (#610646) Homepage Journal

                Little bit of sarcasm?

                Many of us have been warning the partisans on both sides about giving war powers to the president, about passing laws they won't like when the other side is in power. Times change. People don't change as much as some of us wish, but the names and faces change. The D's are squawking about The Orange One today. The time may come when this country looks back on Trump as the last of the benevolent presidents. I mean, the D's may come up with a fifty year winning streak - imagine how much damage they can do in that time!

                --
                The only reason for not believing in it (Marxism) is that it doesn't work. - Thomas Sowell
  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday December 15 2017, @04:39PM

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday December 15 2017, @04:39PM (#610348)

    Tzar Bomba makes silly little islands look silly.

    --
    John Galt is a selfish crybaby [huffpost.com].