What we support and defend

[Ken White]

The Americans never really mastered this indirect rule and the setup of effective indigenous sepoy-like forces either.

True...

Only true empires that mastered the "empire" business get true empire benefits.

And I think you just responded to your own comment...

Carl:

Whipping trouble with foreigners is time honored way for police states to distract their people from internal problems. To go along with that it is time honored for some of those foreigners to say if we just avoid making them mad at us that effort will fail. I am skeptical of that.

Not only Police States, we aren't a police state -- yet -- and we excel at and indeed need to whip up trouble with foreigners for pretty much that reason...

Take a look at most of our excursions since WW II and you'll see they generally start in economic downturns and the party incumbent in the WH is either in trouble or trying to avoid some...

It was just a simple observation that when picking calibres for tank main guns, the Soviet powers that seemed to fixate on having a gun 10 mm bigger than the primary gun of the west's tanks, rather than looking at things like range, accuracy, penetration etc.

That's more a function of less sophisticated engineering, metallurgy and production, it's primarily to achieve nearly the same effect as the smaller, more efficient western weapons and ammunition. They also have long produced weapons with a slightly larger caliber so they can use captured ammo stocks (poorly and inaccurately but usable...) while the reverse is not true. Their 82mm mortar versus the German (and NATO) 81mm for example, the 115mm tank versus the 105mm tank guns, 125 vs. 120 etc., the 152mm Howitzer versus the Czech and German 150mm. The 120mm Gun though was purely a function of trying to equal the capability of the German 105mm. ..

And the J-20 is way bigger than the F-35, approx 70' x 42' vs. 51' x 35'.

And the more comparable F-22 of which there are far more than there are J-20s (and of which we have the capability of producing many more. Yes, I know the line is 'closed.') measures 62x44 -- and yet again, much, much better western engines, more refined techniques and metallurgy account for the only slightly smaller size.

I have to get used to be called panic stricken if my concerns differ from yours. I guess I'll have to get used to being called paranoid too.

Well, I don't think you're panic stricken. Over concerned perhaps but that's probably attributable to philosophic and opinion differences. Mildly paranoid a bit, perhaps -- but who isn't about something or other...

OTOH, it sometimes appears you think others are unconcerned about potential problems because they offer differing thoughts and opinions. That's probably as big a misperception as your being panic stricken could be.

[Fuchs]

(...)the 152mm Howitzer versus the Czech and German 150mm. The 120mm Gun though was purely a function of trying to equal the capability of the German 105mm.

Their 152 mm gun-howitzers were actually superior to German WW2 heavy howitzers. The small difference in calibre was more about metric vs other measurement system and history than anything else. Many official "150" mm howitzers of the era were in fact 149.1 mm pieces.

The only 120 mm guns used by Russians were IIRC WWI vintage guns. The calibre was a popular calibre pre-WWI and the Russians imported the design.
Their 122 mm gun has a similarly old history, being a traditional calibre and not really related to a competition with 105 mm.
122 mm is actually a superior calibre in comparison to 105 mm if you don't need light weight. 149-155 mm is relatively if you desire smoke or frag effect, yet 122 mm is much better than 105 mm for ICM and blast effect and achieves good range more easily than 105 mm (less V0, less barrel wear).

As of today I'd prefer a new 122 mm SPG over a 155 mm SPG because range isn't that important and most countries banned DPICM.

[carl]

They also have long produced weapons with a slightly larger caliber so they can use captured ammo stocks (poorly and inaccurately but usable...) while the reverse is not true. Their 82mm mortar versus the German (and NATO) 81mm for example, the 115mm tank versus the 105mm tank guns, 125 vs. 120 etc., the 152mm Howitzer versus the Czech and German 150mm. The 120mm Gun though was purely a function of trying to equal the capability of the German 105mm.

Ken, at the risk of incurring your ire, I'll buy that with regard to mortars but not tank guns. No way. If you just look at a 105 round meant to be fired from a rifled gun vs. a 115 round meant to be fired from a smoothbore gun it just doesn't seem like there is any way. You'll have to provide some references before I'll accept that.

The thing about exactly 10 mm was a point, IIRC, raised by the authors of the book I read.

http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Russian...tillery+design

..And the more comparable F-22 of which there are far more than there are J-20s (and of which we have the capability of producing many more. Yes, I know the line is 'closed.') measures 62x44 -- and yet again, much, much better western engines, more refined techniques and metallurgy account for the only slightly smaller size.

What works for guns doesn't work for airplanes. For your comparison to be valid the aircraft would have to be designed for the same mission and requirements. The Red Chinese haven't told us how the J-20 will be used or what its design requirements are but I strongly doubt they mirror those of the F-22. Those guys aren't stupid and the configuration of that airplane was mostly driven by what the requirements are. Less sophisticated material would only have something to do with it, not everything. That thing has an awful lot of internal volume.

Once a line is closed, that's basically it. You ain't going to get it going again in anything less than years and beaucoup bucks. The people all scatter to the four winds. The suppliers all are doing something else and their tooling may be gone. Their people are scattered to the four winds. That line isn't coming back

[Ken White]

Ken, at the risk of incurring your ire, I'll buy that with regard to mortars but not tank guns. No way. If you just look at a 105 round meant to be fired from a rifled gun vs. a 115 round meant to be fired from a smoothbore gun it just doesn't seem like there is any way. You'll have to provide some references before I'll accept that.

No ire, not least because I wasn't clear -- the tank guns are a question of effectiveness and engineering, not ability to use captured ammo. The 82mm Mortar and 152mm Artillery were the only ones so sized for that purpose. The 120mm Mortar which both the Germans and Russians used was not nor was the (hat tip to Fuchs) 122mm Gun and Howitzer -- that added size was to equal or surpass the German 105mm in effectiveness, which it did. So the tanks, the 120 mortar and the 122 mm had nothing to do with captured ammo.

It's also noteworthy that the primary tank gun in the USSR during WW II was an 85mm. Toward the end of the war, they want to a 100mm, both ten mm bigger than the US and German 75mm and later in the war US 90mm. The wild card is the German 88mm -- that probably killed more USSR tanks than anything, yet they didn't develop a 98mm...

What works for guns doesn't work for airplanes. For your comparison to be valid the aircraft would have to be designed for the same mission and requirements..,.

I know. I also know that applies equally to your comparison of the J-20 and F-35 which was my point...

Once a line is closed, that's basically it. You ain't going to get it going again in anything less than years and beaucoup bucks. The people all scatter to the four winds. The suppliers all are doing something else and their tooling may be gone. Their people are scattered to the four winds. That line isn't coming back

No it isn't -- but a new line with a better bird based on the old bird experience can appear given a need. Absent that need, as at the present time and in the foreseeable future, no way -- too expensive, etc. etc. . Given a need, it'll be "Hang the expense..."

We do a lot of dumb stuff lazily and with little coordination and often at cross purposes -- until there's pressure. Then we still do dumb stuff, just more of it, faster and harder with adequate coordination and some real SOBs appear and are allowed to eliminate most of the cross purpose stuff.

[carl]

Ken:

I see your points now but I can't agree on the re-opening the line. Things just won't work fast no matter how much money you throw at it. It takes time to train the workers, build the tooling, work out the bugs on the line and in the workers, design and integrate new parts because the old ones aren't made anymore and maybe can't be made anymore. That is just for the main line if you didn't modify the airplane to be a better model. So as far as putting the F-22 line back into production, I don't think it can happen, which is why shutting down that line was such a big deal. If the big tooling for the airframe is destroyed, putting the line back together is impossible. If it isn't it is almost impossible.

There is a better chance that exigencies, mortal, "we are going to die if we don't do something quick" exigencies would stimulate some original thinking and that might get into production with some speed. This is just wild thinking on my part but say you had to do something fast. You know an F-22 line re-opening isn't going to happen fast so you got to think of something else to protect tankers and C-17s flying to and from Guam, Japan, the Philippines over the ocean. So somebody figures to hang 25 AIM-120Ds on a 787 and come up with some kind of radar data link lash up to engage intruders out over the ocean. Something like that I could see happening fairly quick.

(That book about the Russian armor was great by the way.)

[Dayuhan]

you got to think of something else to protect tankers and C-17s flying to and from Guam, Japan, the Philippines over the ocean. So somebody figures to hang 25 AIM-120Ds on a 787 and come up with some kind of radar data link lash up to engage intruders out over the ocean. Something like that I could see happening fairly quick.

Protect them from what? From two prototypes using 80s-vintage Russian engines because the Chinese haven't got round to producing an appropriate power plant?

Earlier we spoke of how reflexive paranoia lead the Soviet Union to bankrupt themselves preparing for a hypothetical war. Would you have us do the same?

Have you ever asked yourself why the Chinese chose to release pictures of the J-20 when hey did? I think this guy has it about right on that score:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/MA14Ad02.html

[carl]

Protect them from what? From two prototypes using 80s-vintage Russian engines because the Chinese haven't got round to producing an appropriate power plant?

Earlier we spoke of how reflexive paranoia lead the Soviet Union to bankrupt themselves preparing for a hypothetical war. Would you have us do the same?

Have you ever asked yourself why the Chinese chose to release pictures of the J-20 when hey did? I think this guy has it about right on that score:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/MA14Ad02.html

Please Dayuhan, please. I was obviously commenting about the future, the future, years down the road. Things that may happen, not things that are.

The most critical planes in our inventory are the tankers, the big E aircraft and the C planes. They would be very hard to protect out over the open ocean because the open ocean is so far from land. So if, if the mission of the J-20 was to get those airplanes over water, it could do it no matter how far their engine tech lagged ours. It is a great big thing and that often means a lot of range.

Now that isn't a worry today, but in 6-8 years, it could be a big worry. Then you would need something to protect them since there won't be enough F-22s.

The comment was also a just a thought about what might be possible to do quick if the need arose. It was not an argument to go do that right now. And it was also an idea about how a very limited mission, protecting those big planes as they transited over the open ocean, could be done less expensively. Something like the 787 idea I posited wouldn't be good for much if anything else. Making something for a very limited mission can be a lot cheaper.

I have asked myself what the Red Chinese were up to by allowing the aircraft to be photographed when it was. One thing I believe is it was just good fun to stick to the big nosed Yankee. The other thing I, and others, asked is whether those were actually the first flights or just the first time they showed it. Also whether those are actually the only two flying right now. We mostly know what the Red Chinese want us to know, which I would guess isn't much.

I read the article you cited and I judged it to be more sniffing dismissiveness than not. It reminded me a little of an article in Air Progress magazine I read about the MiG-21 in 1964 or 65. That article concluded that the MiG would present little if any problem to our fighters over the DRV. The actual case was rather different. It also reminded me of some of the judgments of Japanese aircraft capabilities prior to WWII. My reading of history makes me a bit nervous when people are so cocksure that the other guy won't be able to do it.

One thing that may have been brought up before about the F-35 but needs to be kept in mind. The original title of the program was JSF, Joint Strike Fighter. Strike Fighter is a gold and silver winged zoomie code word for Light Bomber. They call it that because the zoomies would die of shame if somebody called them bomber pilots. The F-35 is primarily a light bomber, secondarily a fighter. It just doesn't have the performance for 1st class fightering. I don't really mean turn & burn performance, though I've read it doesn't have that either, I mean it isn't all that fast and can't go high. If you were up against something like a really long range MiG-31, it could not do anything about it but watch it go by. If, I say if again, the J-20 is sort of like that, the F-35 can't harm it because it isn't really reasonable to expect a light bomber to do that.

[Dayuhan]

Please Dayuhan, please. I was obviously commenting about the future, the future, years down the road. Things that may happen, not things that are.

Exactly. That's why all of this needs a does of calm, something that isn't achieved by stringing together long chains of hypotheticals aimed at the pre-ordained conclusion that we're in deep $#!t. Certainly one can imagine a situation that might require greater capacities than those now deemed affordable. One can always imagine such a situation. Acting as if those imaginings are real or likely to become real is not always advisable.

The most critical planes in our inventory are the tankers, the big E aircraft and the C planes. They would be very hard to protect out over the open ocean because the open ocean is so far from land. So if, if the mission of the J-20 was to get those airplanes over water, it could do it no matter how far their engine tech lagged ours. It is a great big thing and that often means a lot of range.

Now that isn't a worry today, but in 6-8 years, it could be a big worry. Then you would need something to protect them since there won't be enough F-22s.

Again, you're assuming a situation and assuming a set of parameters that seems designed to advance a conclusion you've already reached. What makes you think such a situation will occur? What makes you so sure there won't be enough F-22s? What convinces you that such a situation can only be managed through deployment of large numbers of fighters that are superior to what you imagine the J-20 to be?

We mostly know what the Red Chinese want us to know, which I would guess isn't much.

Are you assuming that the US has no espionage capacity whatsoever? If so, on what basis do you make that assumption? If by "we" you mean those of us here on SWJ, you're probably right, but how much does that mean?

I read the article you cited and I judged it to be more sniffing dismissiveness than not. It reminded me a little of an article in Air Progress magazine I read about the MiG-21 in 1964 or 65. That article concluded that the MiG would present little if any problem to our fighters over the DRV. The actual case was rather different. It also reminded me of some of the judgments of Japanese aircraft capabilities prior to WWII. My reading of history makes me a bit nervous when people are so cocksure that the other guy won't be able to do it.

I would be more nervous if we were overreacting and churning out newer and better weapons to meet threats that we don't need to meet. Our domestic economic problems are a greater threat to us than any foreign power, and those are not going to be improved by charging into an arms race that we don't need to be in.

One thing that may have been brought up before about the F-35 but needs to be kept in mind. The original title of the program was JSF, Joint Strike Fighter. Strike Fighter is a gold and silver winged zoomie code word for Light Bomber. They call it that because the zoomies would die of shame if somebody called them bomber pilots. The F-35 is primarily a light bomber, secondarily a fighter.

On what do you base that conclusion? I seem to recall that in its day the relatively small, single-engined F16 functioned quite capably both as a fighter and in attack configuration. Why should the F-35 not do the same?

Of course if you choose to believe all the worst possible assessments of the F-35 and all the best possible assessments of the J-20, you'll come to certain conclusions. ow realistic those conclusions are is another question. When I hear someone in the aviation industry talking up how our aircraft are lame and somebody else's are soooo much better, I hear a bid for money, usually a whole lot of it. Such things must be taken with multiple grains of salt.

In any event a lot of what makes an air force effective isn't just about the plane, as described here:

http://defensetech.org/2010/12/31/j-...s-perspective/

I would gauge a modern combat aircraft’s capabilities by looking at the following features:

1. Access to offboard space, ground, and air-based sensors, particularly a capable AEW/AWACS system with a well-trained crew and robust data links.

2. Effective sensor fusion to allow the pilot to make use of all this information, as well as information from onboard sensors.

3. An integrated EW system.

4. An AESA radar with a high level of reliability.

5. Training and doctrine necessary to make effective use of all this data and equipment. Plenty of flight hours for pilot flight training, too.

6. Powerful engines (ideally capable of supercruise), with a high mean time between overhaul and failures.

7. An airframe with low-observable characteristics.

8. A robust air-to-air refueling capability (equipment, readiness, training).

9. Sophisticated and reliable precision guided weaponry.

10. A robust software and hardware upgrade roadmap, to keep this plane effective in 5, 10, and 30 years.

11. Maintenance procedures in place to keep the plane operating with a high mission-capable rate. And of course equipment that has been designed with easy access for maintenance and easy access for electronic diagnostic tools, and ideally a sophisticated health-usage monitoring system (HUMS).

This list is not in any particular order of magnitude. And I’m sure I’ve missed quite a few other key items.

The J-20 offers one item from this list (#7). I’m not convinced that the PLAAF has any other items from this list, although China seems to be making some progress with #9.

It’s kind of fun to watch the world fixate on this one item (#7). Then again, I still enjoy air shows, too. Pugachev’s Cobra maneuver, for example. Drives the crowd wild. Relevance to modern combat? Zero.

[wm]

So somebody figures to hang 25 AIM-120Ds on a 787 and come up with some kind of radar data link lash up to engage intruders out over the ocean. Something like that I could see happening fairly quick.

Nice idea, provided you could get all the 787 sub-assemblies that are made all around the world--France, India, Italy, Japan, Korea, and Sweden to Washington state to build more once the initial fleet was shot up by opponents with longer range systems than the 100 miles or so that a Slammer has. BTW, the AIM-120D costs about $700K/missile. Pretty hefty price tag. An opponent could surely spend a lot less money to equip some patrol boats (or even old freighters) with SAMs and send them out under the expected orbits that your protection force would need to fly to cover the tankers etc. That 787 would be unable to do much to counter that threat other than to use LAIRCM (another price item to add to the cost of your quick fix) and other devices to try to protect itself from the SAM threat.

[carl]

Nice idea, provided you could get all the 787 sub-assemblies that are made all around the world--France, India, Italy, Japan, Korea, and Sweden to Washington state to build more once the initial fleet was shot up by opponents with longer range systems than the 100 miles or so that a Slammer has. BTW, the AIM-120D costs about $700K/missile. Pretty hefty price tag. An opponent could surely spend a lot less money to equip some patrol boats (or even old freighters) with SAMs and send them out under the expected orbits that your protection force would need to fly to cover the tankers etc. That 787 would be unable to do much to counter that threat other than to use LAIRCM (another price item to add to the cost of your quick fix) and other devices to try to protect itself from the SAM threat.

So I take that an off the wall idea I considered for about 10 seconds to illustrate the kind of thinking that might have to be done in an emergency should become an immediate national defense priority then do you. And here I thought I'd get a six figure consultants job out of it. Darn.

You got any ideas?

[wm]

So I take that an off the wall idea I considered for about 10 seconds to illustrate the kind of thinking that might have to be done in an emergency should become an immediate national defense priority then do you. And here I thought I'd get a six figure consultants job out of it. Darn.

You got any ideas?

I gave you an alternative in my response. If it would work for an opponent uit would work for us. Use a bunch of cheap shipping (not sure whether the mothball fleets still exist, if they do they'd be a source for the platforms) equipped with SAMs to provide a seabased AD umbrella as the equivalent of a CAP for the mission aircraft transitting/orbitting overhead. Much easier to protect the KC fleet than the basic C- aircraft as they tend to fly in fixed orbits vice long laps. Mix this with combat aircraft that attack the bad guys tanker fleet to limit the ranges at which US aircradft would need to be protected by the shipping. BTW, the AD assets on the freighters also provide self-protect from attack by enemy aircraft. Give them some anti-ship missiles and maybe a few cruise missiles (modified SLCMs) and you have a multithreat platform for both attack and defense. Prtobably won't float though as who wants to resurrect an old rust bucket when they could spend a bunch of bucks on some more Aegis cruisers.

[Fuchs]

It's also noteworthy that the primary tank gun in the USSR during WW II was an 85mm. Toward the end of the war, they want to a 100mm, both ten mm bigger than the US and German 75mm and later in the war US 90mm. The wild card is the German 88mm -- that probably killed more USSR tanks than anything, yet they didn't develop a 98mm...

85 mm was only important in late '43 to '45. most of the time the Soviets used much more of several 76.2 mm gun types (interchangeable ammo tank <-> field gun) and the 76.2 mm calibre remained very important until post-war (no wonder with more than 100,000 guns built!).

The Soviet 100 mm (D-10) proved to be superior to even the L/71 88 mm in post-War tests. the long 88 couldn't take on a T-54 frontally with an acceptable chance of success.
The U.S. insistence on 76 mm for a long time after the war was likely a result of the British great success with the 17 pdr gun (~77 mm IIRC) which equalled the German long (L/70) 75 mm gun in performance which in itself was almost identical to the early war (L/56) 88 mm in penetration. So basically the U.S. was stupid enough to stick for a decade with a gun that couldn't defeat an IS-2 or T-44 head-on and had at most adequate HE effect. South Korea would probably be gone if the North Koreans had had T-44's instead of T-34/85s in 1950. The normal (60mm) Bazookas were inadequate against T-44's from almost all angles.


About 98 mm; funny story. Due to the modern arms limitations treaty (forget the abbreviation, but it restricted all ordnance 100 mm or bigger), there are now a couple 98 mm mortars which are perfectly in between 81.4/82 mm and 120 mm in mortar bomb weight...
This makes as much sense as did all the Washington Treaty light cruisers; 10,000 tons but only 6" guns...

[Ken White]

85 mm was only important in late '43 to '45.

True -- but that's when WW II was 'decided.'

The U.S. insistence on 76 mm for a long time after the war was likely a result of the British great success with the 17 pdr gun (~77 mm IIRC) which equalled the German long (L/70) 75 mm gun in performance which in itself was almost identical to the early war (L/56) 88 mm in penetration. So basically the U.S. was stupid enough to stick for a decade with a gun that couldn't defeat an IS-2 or T-44 head-on and had at most adequate HE effect.

Uh, no. That's rather incorrect...

The US had adopted the 90mm as Standard A in late 1943, production started on the 90 mm M3 towed antitank gun, on the M36 Tank Destroyer and on the M24 Tank. All were in full production when the war ended. The lines were closed at Congressional insistence -- that meant reliance on the many still around but now obsolete M4A3E8s with the 76 up until early in Korea when M24 / M26 production was restarted and by mid '52, the M4s were history.

South Korea would probably be gone if the North Koreans had had T-44's instead of T-34/85s in 1950. The normal (60mm) Bazookas were inadequate against T-44's from almost all angles.

Not likely, most NK Tanks in 1950 were destroyed by Aircraft. The 2.36" / 60mm Rocket launchers were not effective against the T34 unless the Launcher gunner was less than 100 meters away due more to inaccuracy of the weapon than anything else, though few RLs work against any real degree of frontal armor with a decent slope -- glacis plates are thick for a reason. Both better training and the arrival of the 3.5" / 89mm Rocket Launcher (relatively accurate to about 200 m) fixed that by early to mid 1951. In the interim, after September of 1950 when they arrived in theater, after being pulled out of storage, those 90mm Towed AT guns were used with Tungsten hyper shot and they would literally blow a T34 apart.

About 98 mm; funny story. Due to the modern arms limitations treaty (forget the abbreviation, but it restricted all ordnance 100 mm or bigger), there are now a couple 98 mm mortars which are perfectly in between 81.4/82 mm and 120 mm in mortar bomb weight...
This makes as much sense as did all the Washington Treaty light cruisers; 10,000 tons but only 6" guns...

Very little makes much military sense -- too much political involvement...

[Fuchs]

True -- but that's when WW II was 'decided.'

In the American world view ... because they showed up too late to play a role in the widely recognized turning point battles...

Uh, no. That's rather incorrect...

The US had adopted the 90mm as Standard A in late 1943, production started on the 90 mm M3 towed antitank gun, on the M36 Tank Destroyer and on the M24 Tank.

Aside from the M24 being equipped with a 76 mm* (based very much on the first quick-firing gun ever; a rather weak calibre comparable to the T-34 M1940's gun) and 90 mm guns playing no role in U.S. WW2 mediums, I think you read a bit more into "insistence" than I meant to.
The U.S. kept 76 mm as a calibre in the M41 and in some post-war prototypes, and the ~76 mm-equipped Shermans were the almost exclusive medium tank of the U.S. until the Korean War wartime production mode kicked in.

*: I think you meant M26, which saw WW2 only in prototype-like quantities.

[Ken White]

In the American world view ... because they showed up too late to play a role in the widely recognized turning point battles...

Which, aside from Kursk was really what?

Aside from the M24 being equipped with a 76 mm* (based very much on the first quick-firing gun ever; a rather weak calibre comparable to the T-34 M1940's gun) and 90 mm guns playing no role in U.S. WW2 mediums, I think you read a bit more into "insistence" than I meant to.
The U.S. kept 76 mm as a calibre in the M41 and in some post-war prototypes, and the ~76 mm-equipped Shermans were the almost exclusive medium tank of the U.S. until the Korean War wartime production mode kicked in.

]*: I think you meant M26, which saw WW2 only in prototype-like quantities.

I did indeed mean the M26 -- that should also have been M26 and M46 with reference to Korea.. I'm old...

The M26 was indeed only in theater in small quantities but it did see combat and was headed for major production runs when the war ended and Congress stopped the procurement

The M24 didn't have a 76, it had a 75. The M41 did have a 76 but both were light tanks, scouting tanks to some and were not intended to engage other nations main battle tanks -- that was the job of the M26, 46, 47,(90s) 48, 60 (90 / 105) and 1 (105 / 120). We both agree that the Sherman was the principal de facto US tank until mid 1952 -- but that was because there was no war and, in the view of Congress, no need to produce more powerful tanks until then. Korea obviously changed that but still, once again, the US Army went to war with obsolete gear from the last war. My point was and is that is true but it was NOT because the Army wanted it that way and no one was stupid about it -- except Congress.

Nothing new in that.