Cole:
This is fun, alternating deconstruction of arguments
The crux of our differences is the efficacy of the F-35 vs. fighters like the J-20. You believe that it will be close enough to the F-22 to do the job. I think it won't. It was designed mainly to be a light bomber so it just doesn't seem, to my uneducated eye, to have the flight performance and size to even come close to the F-22 or J-20 or PakFA. You cite the F-22 above. With the small number we will have, will there be enough to be on the spot when it matters?
But if we are closer, aren't we more vulnerable to all those missiles the Chinese have, especially if our bases aren't hardened?
You mentioned pilot experience, not the totality of airborne combat power. The Indians and Chileans demonstrated that inexperienced pilots can dream things up to surprise us. If they can do it, so can others.
It might be a mistake to underestimate the cleverness of those guys.
I think figuring on how a the entire course of a conflict would play out is beyond the scope of this discussion. I am mainly concerned how the J-20 will threaten our plans in the future.
I hope so, but it may be folly to count on a 10-1 exchange ratio. 40-1 I think is dreaming; the Chinese may not be the Japanese Naval Air Force of May 1942, but they won't be an Arab air force either.
If we go up against an adversary who can match tech and numbers we have to have the things to fight them with. If we don't, we lose. I don't think we are really confronting the reality that our sweet deal with history that has lasted for the last 65 years (as Fuchs said) may be coming to an end, and it will be expensive.
Bookmarks