F-16 Replacement

[carl]

The J-20 is a big target for the F-35 Distributed Aperture System if it gets close.

That may be true but why would it need to get close? If, if it is designed to stay high, fast and shoot missiles from far away it doesn't have to get close.

The result is that most potential adversaries cannot afford competitive fighters in great numbers. Heck, we can't afford them if they are F-22As.

The ability to afford something is a decision as to where you want to put your resources. We have enough resources to build lots of F-22s but we choose to put those resources elsewhere. If the Chinese make the decision to build lots of J-20s, they can. They will just have to give up something else. That is easier to do in a totalitarian society.

The F-35 is a more cost-effective compromise just as the F-16 was. The Russian and Chinese aircraft are cheaper, but not so cheap to sell many to any one rogue nation (with a sub $10 billion defense budget), and they remain unproven in actual combat. We know our pilot's are experienced. We know their's are not. We know nothing about J-20 capabilities other than that nations seldom advance decades in military know-how overnight.

The F-35 will be no compromise at all if all it can do is look at a J-20 and use that vaunted computing power to calculate exactly when the missile will hit. Our pilots are experienced, but that doesn't mean the other fellow can't think up something nasty for us. The Indians and the Chileans have both done us the favor of showing us up in the past. They weren't experienced. The J-10 first flew in 1998. The Chinese have been working on this stuff for decades. Besides, they may have every bit of data from our decades of work via their internet espionage work.

We will have many hundreds of cruise missiles and JASSM-ER, and we still have penetrating capability with B-2, F-22, F-35, and future UCAV/MC-X. At night the primary threat to these aircraft would be SAMs that we can jam or avoid.

Would there be enough of those things to shut down hardened bases, if the opponent chose to harden bases, for a long time? Would they have bases close enough that survive long enough to do any good? I don't know.

Agree that we could harden some bases further away from China, but Japan and Korea are too close. Let them pay to harden their own bases for their own aircraft.

...The ones who should have any inkling of worry are Japan, Korea, and Australia. They can all buy F-35s (not F-22) and Patriot missiles to assume more of their own aerial defense with our back-up.

I am not so sure we can be so easily dismissive of Japan, Korea and Australia. We could not afford not to have them in it with us.

A recent Australian study claimed a lowly 6:1 loss-exchange ratio between Chinese aircraft and our own. IMHO, that is ridiculously inaccurate considering how old most Chinese aircraft still are. Did that consider F-35s? Navy and shore-based SAMs also attrite threat aircraft. It is unlikely Pak FA or J-20s will be anywhere near as stealthy as our aircraft or that S-300/400/Chinese SAMs would withstand EA-18G and next generation jammers.

Shore based SAMS are only good near the shore or a little beyond. Way out to sea, not so much. Ship based SAMS are only good if there is a ship there and you can run them out of missiles. (I know there is a version of the Mk. 41 VLS that can be reloaded at sea but is that version on any of our ships?) I read too there is a shortage of naval missiles. Let's say you made each one of those old Chinese airplanes a drone and pointed them toward an American ship. They wouldn't have any warhead or terminal guidance. They wouldn't need it. Each would have to be engaged because they might be able to hurt you. Pretty soon, poof! No more missiles.

The sky is not falling versus China or Russia.

Maybe not. My point is there is a very serious problem on the horizon and we can't wish it away.

2000+ F-35s

I am skeptical we will buy anywhere near that many.