| Submit your comments on this article |
| China-Japan-Koreas |
| The Flanker Fleet -The PLA's 'Big Stick' |
| 2007-04-09 |
| The PLA's acquisition, since 1991, of nearly 300 Sukhoi Su-27/30 Flanker long range fighter aircraft, represents the single greatest investment in modern fighter aircraft seen since the Soviet re-equipment with the Su-27 and MiG-29 during the 1980s. With further growth in this fleet now inevitable, currently planned and deployed numbers are approaching 400 aircraft, making this fleet numerically competitive with the US Air Force fleet of 400 legacy F-15A-D fighters, and 200 F-15E strike fighters. By any conventional metric, the Su-27 and Su-30 represent direct equivalents to the US F-15C and F-15E, and offer superior capabilities to the US fighters in several key areas. The latest variants include all of the avionic and systems refinements historically exclusive to US and EU combat aircraft... Considerably more, and pics, at link. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #13 Would those in the Chinese cockpits have time to make noises of any pitch at a closing speed nearing Mach-8, Anonymoose? I know I could't see fast enough to figure out what was going on when Mr. Wife used to drive at 185 kmh on the autobahn. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-04-09 20:03 |
| #12 I still hope our skunkworks is producing an entirely new class of drone fighter aircraft as heavily armed for air-to-air combat as the A-10 is for CAS. Imagine the high-pitched farting sounds in the cockpit of Chinese aircraft when an entire wing gets engaged by something traveling at Mach-7 and single handedly engaging a dozen enemy aircraft at a time. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-04-09 19:30 |
| #11 Except when they accidentally run into them. |
| Posted by: Closh Slealing7392 2007-04-09 18:41 |
| #10 against unarmed P3s they are stunning and brave |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-04-09 18:35 |
| #9 Still the air combat skills of the PLAAF is beyond compare. That 60 hours a year adds up. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-04-09 17:52 |
| #8 And the fact you have to have those long flat things to land on. I think they call them "cruise missile magnets". |
| Posted by: Steve 2007-04-09 17:46 |
| #7 And Shieldwolf doesn't even address loss of pilot skills. takes more than bright and shiny toys to impress; you gotta know how to use them. |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2007-04-09 16:02 |
| #6 All the fancy avionics in the world cannot make up for Soviet-styled ground controlled air combat : the Syrians tried the same thing back in the 1980s when they had the "superior" MiGs against the Israelis, and look at the results of downed aircraft on the Syrian side. The problem for the Chinese is that they have those fighters, 300 of them, and about 3000 other older armed target drone class MiGs and the like. So, if the Chinese wish to threaten someone, they have to shift all 300 of the good aircraft over to the threatened side - leaving their other flanks exposed. Also, that assumes that the USAF is the only force going after the PLAAF : if the stuff hits the fan bad enough for a shooting war between the PLAAF and the USAF, the US Navy and Marine Air Wings are involved as well. Plus then, one has to factor in the AEGIS class destroyers, against which the PLAAF has NO experience (not even against a somewhat modern SAM defense belt like in Iraq prior to 2003}. One big problem for the PLAAF is that it has NO depth : there is no Nellis AFB equivalent in China. As the PLAAF loses aircraft, the losses have to be made up by new manufacture or transfer of less capable aircraft from existing wings. The USAF can have whole squadrons rebuilt from the Boneyard at Nellis in less time than it would take to build new aircraft. So in a shooting war that lasts over a few months, the PLAAF loses all of its new and advanced aircraft, with no hope of making up the losses in the short term - beyond what Chinese factories can turn out. Also remember the quality control issues that have dogged all Chinese licensed production of weapons since the 1930s - Chinese tanks and APCs have so many problems with welds and engines that most countries won't bother to rebuilt them when they get old, they simply give them away as military aid to even poorer countries or strip them and use them as targets on ranges. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2007-04-09 15:34 |
| #5 Wonder how many F/A-18s it would take to wipe out that "big stick". One thing we're vastly superior in is ECM. I do believe the PLA has bought a "lead sled", as we used to call the old F-4. The F-4 - proof positive that with enough power, even a brick can fly. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2007-04-09 13:36 |
| #4 Dear PLAF - Welcome to 1990. Love, The USAF |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2007-04-09 12:30 |
| #3 Please don't bring a "big stick" to a gun fight... |
| Posted by: flash91 2007-04-09 12:23 |
| #2 Individual airframe statistics don't mean much in a missile world. The efficacy of a fighter force is in the electronics and the training of the crews that use them. Only self-defeating rules of engagement let aircraft get close enough for anything resembling a dogfight. |
| Posted by: RWV 2007-04-09 12:16 |
| #1 Well, it's not like we'd sell 'em modern aircraft. Guess they have to buy the Russkie trash. |
| Posted by: mojo 2007-04-09 12:11 |