See China's new fighter jet in action

Skybird · 11-01-16, 05:39 PM

The mhigher advanced general technology levels become, the smaller the tech gap between leading and trailing powers becomes.

And the more irrelevant pilot quality becomes. In WWII and Korea, dogfighting skills and team tactics were of paramount importance. With the ground-launched SAMs and plane-carried missiles, this importance already suffered a blow in Vietnam. Retraining pilots and adapting to the new thgreats, restablished that to some degree, but today missiles have a fail-safe quota and manouverability where human bodies and minds cannot compete anymore. Tehcnical adaption became even more important in defense against thgese wepoaons, but the more high tech gets distrubvuted on the globe, the lesser the advantages of those who technologically adapted first will be, and will shrink. The relevance of stealth fighters is niot as big anymore as it once was, thre advantage the Us had with these, is not as big anymore now that potential enemies have adapted to that in radar and missile technologies claimed to be potent enough to find stealthed aircraft (Russia).

I dare to make two predictions.

First, the decive wepaon of the next big wear will not be stealth aircraft and stealth ships, but RC-drones, cyberweapons, maybe even already autonomnous drones by then. The current fith egneraiton of fighter aircraft developed, possibly will be the last manned fighter aircraft ever being developed.

Second, the charm of superior numbers will become more important once again: the question who can suffer bigger losses without getting knocked out by them, the ability to replace losses, to be present in several places simultaneously - in physical, battle-potent presence. Tech advantages can compensate inferior numbers only to this or that degree, and not beyond that. And only if the tech leadership is sufficient enough. The smaller this lead is, the more relevant numbers become again.

(And numbers mean money. And money means the fiscal system and the messy state it is in. I think the forces needed to be victorious against China, the West will find impossible to fianbnce, since these forces must be buzild in peace times when the attractiveness of doing that is low - during war, the losses will increase rapidly, due to the lethality the next war will be fought with, and the aggressiveness).

The - I agree: very uncomfortable - conclusion? Logic demands that if this war is seen as inevitable anyway, we should launch it now while we still have a minor chance to win it. In the future we will find it impossible to win, most likely. If then we would not fight war and accept defeat, and we anticipate that already now, we agree already now in the porsent moiment to accept defeat and to give it all up and accept enemy's victory. Or does anyone believe China will hold back their ambitions? I once did, many years ago. I do not believe that anymore.

Life can be a bitch. But I am just stating the obvious conclusion.

11-01-16, 05:39 PM	#14
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,654 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	The mhigher advanced general technology levels become, the smaller the tech gap between leading and trailing powers becomes. And the more irrelevant pilot quality becomes. In WWII and Korea, dogfighting skills and team tactics were of paramount importance. With the ground-launched SAMs and plane-carried missiles, this importance already suffered a blow in Vietnam. Retraining pilots and adapting to the new thgreats, restablished that to some degree, but today missiles have a fail-safe quota and manouverability where human bodies and minds cannot compete anymore. Tehcnical adaption became even more important in defense against thgese wepoaons, but the more high tech gets distrubvuted on the globe, the lesser the advantages of those who technologically adapted first will be, and will shrink. The relevance of stealth fighters is niot as big anymore as it once was, thre advantage the Us had with these, is not as big anymore now that potential enemies have adapted to that in radar and missile technologies claimed to be potent enough to find stealthed aircraft (Russia). I dare to make two predictions. First, the decive wepaon of the next big wear will not be stealth aircraft and stealth ships, but RC-drones, cyberweapons, maybe even already autonomnous drones by then. The current fith egneraiton of fighter aircraft developed, possibly will be the last manned fighter aircraft ever being developed. Second, the charm of superior numbers will become more important once again: the question who can suffer bigger losses without getting knocked out by them, the ability to replace losses, to be present in several places simultaneously - in physical, battle-potent presence. Tech advantages can compensate inferior numbers only to this or that degree, and not beyond that. And only if the tech leadership is sufficient enough. The smaller this lead is, the more relevant numbers become again. (And numbers mean money. And money means the fiscal system and the messy state it is in. I think the forces needed to be victorious against China, the West will find impossible to fianbnce, since these forces must be buzild in peace times when the attractiveness of doing that is low - during war, the losses will increase rapidly, due to the lethality the next war will be fought with, and the aggressiveness). The - I agree: very uncomfortable - conclusion? Logic demands that if this war is seen as inevitable anyway, we should launch it now while we still have a minor chance to win it. In the future we will find it impossible to win, most likely. If then we would not fight war and accept defeat, and we anticipate that already now, we agree already now in the porsent moiment to accept defeat and to give it all up and accept enemy's victory. Or does anyone believe China will hold back their ambitions? I once did, many years ago. I do not believe that anymore. Life can be a bitch. But I am just stating the obvious conclusion. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.