Is it a good idea to abandon the FA-XX program at the time that our main adversary has caught up with our carrier airwing technologically?

Retarded chink

Implessive

generally, parity in technology isn't a deal-breaker.

china is lagging in fleet carriers. it's trying to offset that by ballistic missile strikes, but we just don't know how they will work until it happens.

china's biggest issue is their lack of a large ssn fleet. which is the most potent naval asset.

>>63911514
Submarines are not likely to be super relevant to a Pacific war, as any major power can build something like SOSUS near their coast. With sufficient density of static sensors, not even the stealthiest submarine will be able to move undetected. SSNs are probably only relevant for warfare on the open ocean.

>>63911395 (OP)
The US Navy has received already the F-15EX as well as the F-35C, not to mention the F-18 Super Hornets they also operate. At a time of budget cuts, the "FA-XX" (which would most likely just be the same as the F-15EX in role) is not necessary right now.

>>63911534
the fighting in the pacific will be mostly blue water. which is where ssns are the deadliest threat. a single ssn can devastate a carrier battle group without much issue in the real world.

>>63911514
They're building their 4th and 5th carrier as we speak and even a modern day equivalent of "escort carrier" with EMALS, meant to be much cheaper and faster to build that the full sized fleet carriers.

>>63911558
>The US Navy has received already the F-15EX
Since when has Boeing made a carrier version of the F-15EX with folding wings, arresting hook and launch bar? May I see It?

>>63911395 (OP)
You've only shown them catching up geographically.

>>63911395 (OP)
secnav doesn't think so but in some rare turn of events navy isn't allowed to spend the navy's budget. secdef overruled navy.
last time this happened was when cheney killed the tomcat against the navy's wishes. this left the navy with no long-range a2a capability.

>>63911558
The F-15EX is not carrier based. It is the only land based aircraft that can engage in the East Asian AO without needing a refuelling aircraft. The carrier aircraft are F-35's and F-18's and they need refuelling if you wanna keep the aircraft carrier away from Taiwan et al.

The USA needs, really, another long range escort aircraft. China is not built around killing F-35's and F-22's (despite their propaganda videos) it is designed around killing HC-130J, MC-130J Commando II, KC-135, KC-46 and the planned MQ-25. Even if the F-22 and F-35's take down the Chinese aircraft, if they take out your tanker at the point of no return or past it, you've essentially written off multiple additional aircraft as well as they'll land somewhere not useful.

>>63911663
>The USA needs, really, another long range escort aircraft.
wrong.
US could base their fighters in Taiwan to defend Taiwan.

>>63911678
>Just park your aircraft in bases that are within range of enemy rocket artillery and SRBM range so that they can be taken out while they're still on the ground.
Great idea Sherlock!

>>63911678
Parking your air force in range of Chinese rocket artillery is generally not a good plan.

>>63911685
>>63911698
Taiwan has underground hangars

>>63911822
Ok, you've hidden them inside their underground hangars, then the chinks collapse the entrance. What's the use of your aircraft when they're trapped underground? Saddam learned that lesson back in 1991 and the Iranians recently with IAF strikes

>>63911395 (OP)
>our main adversary has caught up with our carrier airwing technologically
lol

>>63911837
>Saddam learned that lesson back in 1991
?
Saddam's air force could flee unopposed to Iran

>>63911865
How many of them escaped to Iran and how many were buried underground?

>>63911854
KJ-600 -> E-2 Hawkeye
J-15T -> F/A-18 Super Hornet
J-35 -> F-35C
Type 003 -> USS Ford
Type 055 -> Ticonderoga/Raleigh Burkes

>>63911395 (OP)
>our
An American? Making a "China is our equal" post? During prime multipolar hours?

>>63911897
>prime multipolar
Stealing this

>>63911534
>Submarines are not likely to be super relevant to a Pacific war
Yeah, ok buddy.

>>63911584
That'd reduce their disadvantage to a
'mere' 6 carriers and 8 assault ships.

>>63911905
They can focus all their fleet in the Pacific because that's their main and only area of influence. While CENTCOM will always have at least 2-3 CSGs tied down as long as Israel still exists as a country. Europe/Baltic's would need at least 1 CSG unless Putin dies and Russia falls into internal strife in the following years.

>>63911905
They have 4 Type 075 LHDs on top that new Type 076 LHD, which means they're only 4 more to go. If they keep up their pace of cranking out a new LHD every 9 months means that this difference will be completely eroded by 2030.

>>63911897
>>63911902
>>our
>An American? Making a "China is our equal" post? During prime multipolar hours?
If that's the case who are you?

>>63911514
In a war over Taiwan (meaning close to China's shores) their conventional fleet is more than enough to get the job done. The problem for them is they can't go beyond the first island chain, which gives the US too much breathing room

>>63911584
4th yes, 5th no. Also their type 001/2 'carriers' cannot be used in combat. China basically has 1 carrier

>>63911897
>prime multipolar hours?
Lmao

>>63911395 (OP)
>that our main adversary has caught up with our carrier airwing technologically
they haven't.

>>63911985
>Also their type 001/2 'carriers' cannot be used in combat. China basically has 1 carrier
It's seems like they didn't get the memo that they only have 1 carrier: https://www.twz.com/sea/two-chinese-aircraft-carriers-are-operating-beyond-the-first-island-chain-for-the-first-time

>>63912043
nice, a 2 for one.
i hope they're dumb enough to do this in a real war scenario lol.

>>63912049
>nice, a 2 for one.
>i hope they're dumb enough to do this in a real war scenario lol.

>>63912063
free to go out in open ocean uncontested, they won't be tracked the very second they pass through one of the openings in the island chain, unlike china.
also they have a lot more of them.

>>63911897
>prime multipolar hours
My sides are currently making a turn for orbital insertion.

>>63911395 (OP)
usa cant keep up on domestic manufacturing its pretty simple
their plane manufacturing is worse than france
their shipbuilding capability is even worse than greece and it should tell you a lot considering what greece use to be
>>63911514
>china is lagging in fleet carriers.
thats technically true(they have in construction 5 of them currently)
dont forget currently only 0.33% of the total population of usa is serving
for china is 0.12%
if china actually reaches the same amount 0.33% they gonna be 9 time bigger than the entire us army
china has 4.900+ vls tubes as of now
if we assume that the us navy will continue supporting 23 of the old AB's then its also close to 4800-4900
ticos are dead anyways since no upgrade path exists for them
(only for surface ships cause we dont know if china has its own vpm module for subs)
>>63911534
subs are literally the only offensive weapon system by design
ofc they gonna be relevant everywhere

>>63912114
>randomly mentions army size in a naval conflict
wew

>>63912117
army=whole military

dont try to be coy

>>63912118
well i sure hope those extra sailors can swim because there's not going to be enough boats for all of them, making it pointless to bring up.

>>63911395 (OP)

Implessive

>>63911514
>generally, parity in technology isn't a deal-breaker.
US has fallen

>>63911983
>The problem for them is they can't go beyond the first island chain, which gives the US too much breathing room
About that:>>63912043

>>63911395 (OP)
>chinese
>caught up
Lmao you will never have global force projection capabilities chang

>>63912334
Oh God I miss Tomcat so much...

It's probably the most important move US defence made in the last 20 years.

They didn't just develop the f35, they flooded middle power countries with upgraded f-16 which is now dirt cheap. Wherever Russia and China go they will be met with hundreds of f-16s which could absolutely tear arse out of soviet tier armour. It would be another 1L-2 Turkey shoot.

That means Russian and Chinese ground forces have to advance very slowly under s-3/400 cover not blitzkrieg across Asia/ Europe. But even worse for Russia and China, that's just the f-16 issue, behind that is the American f35 itself, which can deep strike the s400 guidance units.

So if say...10 F35s struck Russia SAM Web in Ukraine, 200 f-16s would follow, far more than Russia could shoot down.

You saw in the attempt to flank kyiv how venurable an armoured column is, it's not just the tanks its the fuel, munitions, the issue is that they'd get stuck in the middle of nowhere and wiped out entirely, by arty even if the f-16 attack group was shot down.

That's America's thing. Air superiority. They have that in the f35, mostly because of the numbers they're producing. It didn't exactly live up to the hype but they pushed ahead and have hundreds of them. And Russia and China just can't match that. The f35 is a strike fighter, not really a fighter bomber, not an air superiority fighter, it's a strike fighter. A SAM killer, a carrier based fighter bomber.

The Russians have some interceptor fighters which could match it in the air but America has hundreds of these.

>>63911964
Type 075s can't operated fixed-wing aircraft.

>>63911974
An insomniac

>>63912623
can't operate*

>>63911395 (OP)
Maybe the Navy could turn toward that Lockmart offer of an upgraded F-35
https://www.twz.com/air/what-we-just-learned-a-more-advanced-ferrari-f-35-could-include
https://www.twz.com/air/f-35-chassis-can-deliver-80-of-6th-gen-capability-at-half-the-cost-lockheed-declares

>>63912830
fuck no, the airframe is the worst thing about the F35

>>63911395 (OP)
I mean the chinese FA-XX equivalent, J-50, was already seen flying around. Pre-series model, not prototype.
Which means they're 15 years ahead of the US with that program.
>>63911514
>generally, parity in technology isn't a deal-breaker.
>china is lagging in fleet carriers.

You're implying there will be carrier vs carrier fights.
This is not the case.
Carriers are actually not useful assets to fight other carriers anymore.
The reason is the size and range limitations of carrier based aircraft, and the size and range limitations of munitions they carry, as well as space-based recon.

>it's trying to offset that by ballistic missile(s)

No. Carriers are suitable to project force, but increasingly only against non-peer enemies. A peer enemy can counter carriers with missiles far more effectively than with their own carriers. The soviets did it with huge anti-ship missiles, and the chinese supercharged that with hypersonic ballistic ones.
They do not build carriers to counter US carriers, they build carriers to bully thirdies after they nuke US carriers from their home porch with hypersonics.

>but we just don't know how they will work until it happens.

China knows, they build movable aircraft carrier dummy targets on rail tracks in the desert to test them lmao.

>china's biggest issue is their lack of a large ssn fleet. which is the most potent naval asset.

The US is focussing on SSNs for the same reason nazi germany did: Limited ressources compared to the enemy industrial capacity. Subs are more limited in what they can do, but more efficient to run interference. Just like the nazis focussed on killing allied logistics chains with subs.

You have to give up the idea of american exceptionalism to understand reality.

>>63911663
>China is not built around killing F-35's and F-22's

I guess their heavy investment in 9001 fused sensor plattforms including triangulating VHF HALE drones to counter stealth is purely for entertainment then?

China has the most robust counter-stealth ISR on the planet, which makes sense since china is the only country who had the ressources and need to actually negate US stealth advantage.
Now the US has the need to counter chinese stealth the same way but lacks the ability due to institutional inertia, frankly corruption of MIC grift decoupled from operational needs, and a short-term oriented government unable to make required long-term procurement decisions. Oh and rapidly declining manufacturing capabilities due to service economy trends and the US dollar being a reserve currency allowing an economy which was mostly money printing on the back of the rest of the world for free. Though trump has nuked the last part faster than BRICS ever could hope for in their wettest dreams.

>>63911905
>That'd reduce their disadvantage to a
>'mere' 6 carriers and 8 assault ships.

The current numerical disadvantage is pretty irrelevant. The chinese aren't even going all-out on mass producting everywhere.
They've still figuring out what the optimal carrier looks like.
Once they have a design nailed they start ramping production.
Given the production capacity they have and how effortlessly chinese shipyards shift from military to civilian ships, it's clear they can ramp the living shit out of their production anytime they want.
The US can not, specialised shipyards for military with a lot of secrecy nonsense getting in the way of any parallel or interleaved commercial activity for the civilian market = totally noncompetitive = rampant corruption.
Meanwhile china has shipyards which pump out tons of civilian ships and are occasionally asked to make some military one-off's, and if those one-off's are the right design, they get a batch order for a dozen.
They've done so with all of their smaller vessels, ofc they'll keep doing it for CVs.
US procurement in comparison is comically inefficient and inflexible.

>>63914242
>J-50, was already seen flying around
Not even the PRC themselves have claimed this. It is an X-plane that was "leaked" presumably for propaganda purposes.
>>63911534
This assumes the sensors and/or relay stations can't be neutralized themselves. Moreover they aren't effective away from coastal zones & choke-points, as there is simply too much area in the open ocean to effectively cover.
>>63914269
>I guess their heavy investment in 9001 fused sensor plattforms including triangulating VHF HALE drones to counter stealth is purely for entertainment then?
Pretty much.
If they can get multiple high end stealth drones within a few dozen miles of a USAF strike package then I guess they could target stealth jets. Good luck with that.
They're still useful early-warning assets.

>>63911890
>Type 003 -> USS Ford
I want you to explain this.

>>63914269
i remember you using this shill line in the past.
you've become way too predictable with the narrative your masters told you to shill
>than brics could ever hope to
even more evidence that you're a multipolar thirdie with an inferiority complex, brics doesn't actually exist, it's a coping mechanism.

>>63911395 (OP)
>our main adversary has caught up with our carrier airwing technologically?

whoever you're talking about, no they havent.

>>63912114
>4.9 VLS tubes
I think they need more than that.

>>63914242
>Muh ballistic missiles
If the last few years of war have taught anything, it's that conventional ballistic missiles are costly and not particularly effective.

>>63914977
>y-you have said t-that before this makes it untrue!!!!
>y-you must be brown!!
>M-MURRICA N-NUMBER O-ONE

Don't worry i'm sure mommy will buy you a happy meal or something.

>>63911534
Submarines can pop any coastal sensor before it can muster a response. In the missile age, all they're good for is drawing fire from higher-value actual ships.

>>63911395 (OP)
>our main adversary has caught up with our carrier airwing technologically?
Implessive

>>63915764
>chinkshill gets mad when called out
didn't read your post, you're mad.
seriously bro, what are you doing here? everyone on this board is way smarter than you, your narratives don't hold water here, people respond to your posts purely to watch you sweat and humiliate yourself.

>>63912118
Ahhh yes, classic thinking of a People's Liberation Army Orbital Platform Army of the People's Air-Army Army agent.

Implessive

>>63915075
They don't have to be particularly effective if at least a few get through, which is what the last few years have demonstrated. And a mission kill on your enemy's carriers makes it cost-effective, doubly so when your enemy is reliant on carriers as one of their primary means of stopping you.