The Threat From China - Real or Not?

[TankAss95]

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this before but I heard on the news a while back that China was requesting and supporting an idea of one single global currency. Just thought I'd mention it but I'm sorry if it is irrelevant.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

China, a threat? not even close. The whole idea of that China is a threat just reflect the cold war mentality and paranoia that grip america, this when you consider the fact that the world is becoming a post-america everyday.

I can understand where this comes from and the way candidates for the US presidency talk about the Chinese seems to prove it.


However, China is a threat.
Chinese know power and know that fighting is not the best way to take power.
Chinese are "investing" everywhere, they are gaining influence in Africa and already have a lot of influence in the US and Europe.

However the Chinese need the others, their system is producing and selling to others, but they will need a stable internal "consumption" core to survive.

So 16% inflation, might make them less competitive, but could indicate income of people is rising and that they might be good for stability.
On the other hand, it still seems that several regions have a poor workforce and production can still be moved to those areas for low cost.

So innovation from the west is a thread for China, at the time they run out of cheap labour, it is the most attractive product that will make it. That is if they did not buy the innovative companies by then. Maybe they are buying export markets so they can influence them and incite them to keep consuming.

 

[AMCNUT]

The Chinese are reading their first aircraft carrier for sea trials.

Based on the article I don't think their naval prowess will equal thier patriotic ferver but it's certainly a statement of intent. Somehow I don't think they'll take out the US fleet if push comes to shove though...

 

[hampus_dh]

Sounds like USA is paranoid simply because China wants to have a similar defense force to what USA have.

 

[ScouserInExile]

Sounds like USA is paranoid simply because China wants to have a similar defense force to what USA have.

In terms of manpower, the Chinese Red Army is more than 50% larger than the US' armed forced (over 4.5m,illion for China vs. about 3 million for the US) and, from what I've read, what they lack in tech, they make up for in fanatisism. Hell, if China ganged up with North Korea, they'd outnumber the US military more than 4:1.

 

[Crispy]

I heard on the news this morning China hacked two satellites operated by the U.S., as well as threatening to deploy more troops into Australia, which can be seen as a threat to piece.

I don't get why our government ties to talk about piece, piece is impossible with a government like the U.S. around.

 

[TheCracker]

However, in economical terms, China is becoming a global power. And that leads to politics. Their investment in Africa (I know more about Angola and Moçambique, for obvious reasons, but it's probably the same elsewhere) is impressive. And I bet expensive to pay also. Be it in money or in diplomatic power.

Like Keef mentioned, their economy is a tower of cards. It just can't be sustainable at it's current rate of growth. It's also very reliant on western economies keeping their heads above water, which at present isn't looking particularly bright.

 

[hampus_dh]

In terms of manpower, the Chinese Red Army is more than 50% larger than the US' armed forced (over 4.5m,illion for China vs. about 3 million for the US) and, from what I've read, what they lack in tech, they make up for in fanatisism. Hell, if China ganged up with North Korea, they'd outnumber the US military more than 4:1.

The tech is coming

Good example is F-22 Raptor vs China J-20.

On paper the J-20 should be a better air to air combat jet due to the larger wingspan and slightly less focus on stealth technology.

China is very quiet about their military and rightfully so i say.
Only the American goverment is paranoid for some reason when they at the end of the day should focus on their own country instead of maintaining "military superiority"

USA is starting to look like Brazil, in the big cities there´s a very high class but move out to the suburbs and it looks like favelas.

Or like an american told me once, "USA is a third world country with technology"

 

[Keef]

Hell, if China ganged up with North Korea, they'd outnumber the US military more than 4:1.

If they teamed up with NK it would do nothing but slow China down. NK is nigh incapable of defending itself from South Korea.

 

[TheCracker]

The tech is coming

Good example is F-22 Raptor vs China J-20.

On paper the J-20 should be a better air to air combat jet due to the larger wingspan and slightly less focus on stealth technology.

China is very quiet about their military and rightfully so i say.

Chinese military technology isn't what it's cracked up to be. Their aircraft carriers and fighter planes are mostly based on abandoned Russian projects which by definition, is already out of date tech. That's even if they can get it to work, which by most accounts they struggle to.

 

[Dotini]

There is nothing whatever that is subtle about US marines and B-52 bombers, is there?

http://news.antiwar.com/2011/11/16/u-s-expands-military-presence-in-australia-to-counter-china/
U.S. Expands Military Presence in Australia to Counter China
Despite impending defense cuts and exactly zero national security justifications, the U.S. is expanding the empire in Asia
by John Glaser, November 16, 2011

The United States will begin to permanently station up to 2,500 U.S. Marines in Australia, President Obama announced on Wednesday after finalizing a new bilateral defense deal with Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

In a move widely considered to be aimed at countering growing Chinese military and economic influence in the region, the deal also includes an increased presence of U.S. warships and military aircraft – including B52 bombers – to operate from Australian bases.

In announcing the expanded military presence President Obama said “it’s important for [China] to play by the rules of the road. We will send a clear message to them that we think they may need to be on track, in terms of accepting the rules and responsibilities of being a world power.”

Traditionally, the “rules and responsibilities of being a world power” is to act in a way that is subservient to U.S. power, thus the need for Obama to “send a clear message” of militaristic provocation to the Chinese that their growing influence in recent years are American prerogatives.


Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[ExigeEvan]

I don't see how 2,500 marines in Australia is considered a big deal when you consider there's nearly 30,000 personnel in South Korea and more again in Japan.


The only real question is how many US troops can stomach being stuck in a small town, in 40C+ with high humidity, snakes and spiders...

 

[hampus_dh]

Chinese military technology isn't what it's cracked up to be. Their aircraft carriers and fighter planes are mostly based on abandoned Russian projects which by definition, is already out of date tech. That's even if they can get it to work, which by most accounts they struggle to.

I doubt anyone of us, even the US military really has any idea on what the Chinese army are capable of.

Buying an old aircraft carrier is not a dumb thing to do. That´s pretty smart as they are re-building it and will probably cost them less then half of what it would cost to develop a completely new one.

There is nothing whatever that is subtle about US marines and B-52 bombers, is there?

http://news.antiwar.com/2011/11/16/u-s-expands-military-presence-in-australia-to-counter-china/
U.S. Expands Military Presence in Australia to Counter China
Despite impending defense cuts and exactly zero national security justifications, the U.S. is expanding the empire in Asia
by John Glaser, November 16, 2011

The United States will begin to permanently station up to 2,500 U.S. Marines in Australia, President Obama announced on Wednesday after finalizing a new bilateral defense deal with Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

In a move widely considered to be aimed at countering growing Chinese military and economic influence in the region, the deal also includes an increased presence of U.S. warships and military aircraft – including B52 bombers – to operate from Australian bases.

In announcing the expanded military presence President Obama said “it’s important for [China] to play by the rules of the road. We will send a clear message to them that we think they may need to be on track, in terms of accepting the rules and responsibilities of being a world power.”

Traditionally, the “rules and responsibilities of being a world power” is to act in a way that is subservient to U.S. power, thus the need for Obama to “send a clear message” of militaristic provocation to the Chinese that their growing influence in recent years are American prerogatives.


Respectfully submitted,
Steve

This is hilarious if you ask me

 

[Exorcet]

Good example is F-22 Raptor vs China J-20.

On paper the J-20 should be a better air to air combat jet due to the larger wingspan and slightly less focus on stealth technology.

Huh? Being less stealthy is a huge disadvantage. And I don't see any evidence for the J-20 having an advantage over the F-22 aerodynamically. Looking at wingspan (is it even much larger? I think you mean wing area, but the same applies) won't tell you much.

 

[Keef]

I don't see how 2,500 marines in Australia is considered a big deal when you consider there's nearly 30,000 personnel in South Korea and more again in Japan.

It is a big deal when you consider the fact that all those troops in SK and Japan shouldn't be there in the first place. Now we're sending even more to foreign soil. British imperialism at its best.

 

[A2K78]

I don't see how 2,500 marines in Australia is considered a big deal when you consider there's nearly 30,000 personnel in South Korea and more again in Japan.

Why its such a big deal? Like any other country with an american military presence technically speaking this is an occupation that is goning on, but one geared more towards provoking China in this case.

Tell me this, but how you feel if another country wanted set a up a military base/garrison in on american soil, let your home town...i'm quite sure you'll be upset in both scenerios as you will see it as a form of occupation.


And for the record, in a perfect world I would want Japan and South Korea kick out any american military presence as both countries are capable of militarily, financially, and economically looking after their own defense as oppose to me(the taxpayer) continuing to finance it. To put it striaght, it make no sense for american taxpayers to defend rich countries, especially ones that are capable of defending themselves, Australia included because all we're doing is bankrupting ourselves in the process.

Overall I love how Ron Paul demonstrate the why foreign military bases are counterproductive:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul512.html

 

[A2K78]

US Global Empire...clearly not what the founding imagined or wanted..

 

[hampus_dh]

Huh? Being less stealthy is a huge disadvantage. And I don't see any evidence for the J-20 having an advantage over the F-22 aerodynamically. Looking at wingspan (is it even much larger? I think you mean wing area, but the same applies) won't tell you much.

Is it really? Especially considering we are talking about jets that are not very stealthy in the first place, just have a stealthy touch to them.
There are ways to catch stealth fighter on the radars if you can predict where they are coming from.
One f-117 was shot down and that airplane is way more stealth then the F-22 or F-35.
then you have the materials used to make it stealth. According to the man who built the A-10 bomber it only takes a 50 cal to shoot down a F-22/F-35.

Can´t find anything on the J-20, i think i saw a comparison in a tube clip.

 

[ExigeEvan]

It is a big deal when you consider the fact that all those troops in SK and Japan shouldn't be there in the first place. Now we're sending even more to foreign soil. British imperialism at its best.

Yeah I knew the US had bases in both those countries but when I saw this news I went to check out numbers. I was surprised how many troops they had in the area, which just further compounded why this isn't a big deal. One of the speculations is that these troops are positioned so they are out of Chinese missile range.

Why its such a big deal? Like any other country with an american military presence technically speaking this is an occupation that is goning on, but one geared more towards provoking China in this case.

America is occupying Britain? Germany? Kenya? Er, nope.

Tell me this, but how you feel if another country wanted set a up a military base/garrison in on american soil, let your home town...i'm quite sure you'll be upset in both scenerios as you will see it as a form of occupation.

First, I live in the UK. Second, I have no problem with allies in a mutually beneficial alliance having bases on each others territory. Australia gets US hardware (F18s, maritime patrol flights, and extra ships to protect it's vast coast) and the US gets a small strategic base. And quite frankly, Australia has a lot of free space for them if they want it.

And for the record, in a perfect world I would want Japan and South Korea kick out any american military presence as both countries are capable of militarily, financially, and economically looking after their own defense as oppose to me(the taxpayer) continuing to finance it. To put it striaght, it make no sense for american taxpayers to defend rich countries, especially ones that are capable of defending themselves, Australia included because all we're doing is bankrupting ourselves in the process.

And I understand that as an opinion. I see no reason why Britain or America has troops in Germany either.

Overall I love how Ron Paul demonstrate the why foreign military bases are counterproductive:

There are ways to catch stealth fighter on the radars if you can predict where they are coming from.

True. And a lesson well learnt by air forces around the world. Don't use the same bombing runs.

One f-117 was shot down and that airplane is way more stealth then the F-22 or F-35.

Source? Because all mine say the complete opposite. Or are you just judging by sight?

then you have the materials used to make it stealth. According to the man who built the A-10 bomber it only takes a 50 cal to shoot down a F-22/F-35.

And the chances of anyone getting a .50 anywhere near a F-22/F-35 are slim. Unlike an A-10 that was designed to get low down and dirty.

*snip*

Why have you posted a picture of the PAK FA? An F-22 competitor that is at least 5 years behind the F22. Atleast.

 

[hampus_dh]

True. And a lesson well learnt by air forces around the world. Don't use the same bombing runs.

True, the question is if it´s the last one to be shot down though.

Source? Because all mine say the complete opposite. Or are you just judging by sight?

Yes sight i would say. Compared to the B-2 which is built solely to be invisible where the F-22 still has to take in other factors.

Source?

And the chances of anyone getting a .50 anywhere near a F-22/F-35 are slim. Unlike an A-10 that was designed to get low down and dirty.

Point is that it´s a highly delicate plane, unlike the A-10.

Why have you posted a picture of the PAK FA? An F-22 competitor that is at least 5 years behind the F22. Atleast.

Source? Both are 5th gen fighter jets.

 

[ExigeEvan]

True, the question is if it´s the last one to be shot down though.

Probably not, but the problem you issued shouldn't be on anymore.

Yes sight i would say. Compared to the B-2 which is built solely to be invisible where the F-22 still has to take in other factors.

Source?

And the B-2 was designed over 20 years ago. A massive time in low observation technology, materials and aircraft design

The F-22 represents a significant design evolution beyond the highly successful F-117A Nighthawk stealth fighter, with performance not achievable by today's front-line fighters. Low observable, or stealth, technology has advanced to the point where conventional aerodynamic configurations can be made incorporating low observability without compromising aerodynamic performance or increasing costs significantly. Design development risk was greatly reduced by the performance demonstrated in the dem/val program where angle of attack attitudes up to 60 degrees were flown. The validity of the low observability features of the F-22's design were confirmed by full-scale pole model testing.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-stealth.htm

Point is that it´s a highly delicate plane, unlike the A-10.

Relative to an A-10, yes. But the A-10 is a rare breed of modern combat aircraft. It's designed to get hit. Compared to other aircraft the F-22 is most likely no more delicate.

Source? Both are 5th gen fighter jets.

The F-22's first flight was 1997. The PAK FA was 2010. Now the F-22 had a considerable development period, so if the PAK FA is even 5 years behind I'd assume it's because the US has directed it's interests to un-manned vehicles far sooner than it had planned.

 

[Exorcet]

Is it really? Especially considering we are talking about jets that are not very stealthy in the first place, just have a stealthy touch to them.

F-22 is about as stealthy as they come. The F-117 is outdated junk by comparison. RCS for the 22 is said to be "marble sized" estimated at -40 DbSM, assuming head on engagement, the IRBIS (a 250 mile range radar) on a Flanker won't see it until it's 20 miles away.

Can't find the original source, but here's a forum thread that quotes it and the ensuing debate

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=49472

it only takes a 50 cal to shoot down a F-22/F-35.

Laughable. A single bullet of insignificant size is meaningless to a fighter unless you get that one shot that results from the proper alignment of planets. The only thing a .50 will do is put a hole in the plane. It could ruin the stealth, but the pilot wouldn't know about it unless he got out and looked. BTW, the F-35 uses different materials from the F-22, and they're trying to upgrade the 22 to make use of those materials to improve performance from a reliability/durability standpoint.

I've seen plenty of videos from the likes of Pierre Sprey where despite their qualifications, they make themselves look like idiots by spouting biased non sense. It's unfortunate, but some of them can't accept that they're wrong. I don't blame you if you think I'm the crazy one though seeing as to you, I'm some guy on a forum.

 

[hampus_dh]

Probably not, but the problem you issued shouldn't be on anymore.

That we don´t know though.

And the B-2 was designed over 20 years ago. A massive time in low observation technology, materials and aircraft design

True but the question still is if the F-22 is more stealth then the B-2 bomber.
It says nothing about the F-22´s stealth compared to the B-2 bomber, a plane built with the sole purpose of stealth rather then a plane that is built for many things.

It could be that these new technologies help the F-22 to be very stealth but the question is just how stealth compared to a proper stealth plane where the whole design of the plane is made with stealth in mind only.

Relative to an A-10, yes. But the A-10 is a rare breed of modern combat aircraft. It's designed to get hit. Compared to other aircraft the F-22 is most likely no more delicate.

Relative to most other jet fighters that don´t have the stealth technology.
The A-10 was not designed to get hit, no plane in the history of mankind has been designed to get hit.

It might be designed to take a hit but not to get hit.

The F-22's first flight was 1997. The PAK FA was 2010. Now the F-22 had a considerable development period, so if the PAK FA is even 5 years behind I'd assume it's because the US has directed it's interests to un-manned vehicles far sooner than it had planned.

PAK FA is still in development though. I can´t see how it can be 5 years behind if the aircraft was designed long after then F-22 Raptor. If anything it would be the F-22 that is the older brother here.

On 3 March 2011 a second prototype was reported to have made a successful 44 minute test flight. These first two aircraft will lack radar and weapon control systems, while the third and fourth aircraft, to be added in 2011, will be fully functional test aircraft. On 14 March 2011, the aircraft achieved supersonic flight at a test range near Komsomolsk-on-Amur in Siberia.

Although most of information about the PAK FA is classified, it is believed from interviews with people in the Russian Air Force and Defense Ministry that it will be stealthy, have the ability to supercruise, be outfitted with the next generation of air-to-air, air-to-surface, and air-to-ship missiles, incorporate a fix-mounted AESA radar with a 1,500-element array and have an "artificial intellect".

The Moskovsky Komsomolets reported that the T-50 has been designed to be more maneuverable than the F-22 Raptor at the cost of making it less stealthy than the F-22.[62] One of the design elements that have such an effect is the Leading Edge Vortex Controller (LEVCON).

WIKI,

 

[A2K78]

Yeah I knew the US had bases in both those countries but when I saw this news I went to check out numbers. I was surprised how many troops they had in the area, which just further compounded why this isn't a big deal. One of the speculations is that these troops are positioned so they are out of Chinese missile range.


America is occupying Britain? Germany? Kenya? Er, nope.

Regardless of number, the presence of a military for force either defensive, offensive, or strategic reason IS AN OCCUPATION. There foreign troops on american soil, however those are mainly for training purposes as oppose for the reason why america has an empire of bases worldwide.

On the issue of britian having american troop/bases, there are tons of those in the UK and it has been so ever since WWII.

First, I live in the UK. Second, I have no problem with allies in a mutually beneficial alliance having bases on each others territory. Australia gets US hardware (F18s, maritime patrol flights, and extra ships to protect it's vast coast) and the US gets a small strategic base. And quite frankly, Australia has a lot of free space for them if they want it.

You should have a problem with the presence of a foreign military forces on your soil. Economically, YOU the taxpayer technically have to foot part of the bill for it, security-wise your country technically becomes a legitimate target along with said base in the case of hostility.

In the case of Australia(and the same goes for any other country), americans taxpayers shouldn't be in the business of supplying them with arms nor in the business of defending rich, especially ones that have a capable military. If Australia want to defend itself China, it shouldn't be depending on me the taxpayer.

you should also read this:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...-with-ron-pauls-controversial-foreign-policy/

 

[ExigeEvan]

True but the question still is if the F-22 is more stealth then the B-2 bomber.
It says nothing about the F-22´s stealth compared to the B-2 bomber, a plane built with the sole purpose of stealth rather then a plane that is built for many things.

But why are you comparing a long-range strategic bomber with a fighter jet?

Relative to most other jet fighters that don´t have the stealth technology.
The A-10 was not designed to get hit, no plane in the history of mankind has been designed to get hit.

It might be designed to take a hit but not to get hit.

It's mission brief is design entirely around putting it in harms way. It's design is based around surviving that hit. How you wish to word that I don't care, but it does not change the fact the A-10 is a ground attack aircraft with little to no air-to-air capability (though I believe it has an AIM-9 kill to its name), and you're comparing it to 5th gen air superiority fighter.

PAK FA is still in development though. I can´t see how it can be 5 years behind if the aircraft was designed long after then F-22 Raptor. If anything it would be the F-22 that is the older brother here.

Because you don't design an aircraft and then stand around saying what a good job you've done. Especially in the first 10 years of operation. You're adding new systems, perfecting existing ones and preparing upgrades before it's even seen combat.

 

[Exorcet]

True but the question still is if the F-22 is more stealth then the B-2 bomber.
It says nothing about the F-22´s stealth compared to the B-2 bomber, a plane built with the sole purpose of stealth rather then a plane that is built for many things.

It could be that these new technologies help the F-22 to be very stealth but the question is just how stealth compared to a proper stealth plane where the whole design of the plane is made with stealth in mind only.

The F-22 is the fighter equivalent of the B-2. The B-2 is designed "only" for stealth as much the F-22 is. The B-2 needs to carry a certain bomb load a certain range, then find a certain target and bomb it accurately. It also needs to fly stably while being a flying wing that has yaw authority challenges which complicates overcoming the natural pitch/yam/roll coupling of a plane.

What are you basing your stealthiness ideas on anyway? It's pretty difficult to tell from looks, and pretty much every source out there puts the F-22 on par with the B-2 at least.

Relative to most other jet fighters that don´t have the stealth technology.
The A-10 was not designed to get hit, no plane in the history of mankind has been designed to get hit.

Flying rams have come and gone a few times, though I guess that's technically trying to "hit something else".

PAK FA is still in development though. I can´t see how it can be 5 years behind if the aircraft was designed long after then F-22 Raptor. If anything it would be the F-22 that is the older brother here.

Russia has been trying to get an F-22 competitor since it was the USSR. The Su-47 and MiG MFI were the first attempts, but struggling with the USSR break up pretty much ruined the planes and sent the Russian behind decades. They don't have the stealth or engine technology to match the F-22 in all likely hood. The same goes for China.

 

[hampus_dh]

But why are you comparing a long-range strategic bomber with a fighter jet?

What? Have you forgotten how the discussion started?
I said claimed that the F-22 was not as stealthy as B-2 which is a purpose built stealth fighter.

You said your sources says the opposite. The one link you posted did not say anything regarding the stealth capabilities in comparison to the B-2 bomber.

It's mission brief is design entirely around putting it in harms way. It's design is based around surviving that hit. How you wish to word that I don't care, but it does not change the fact the A-10 is a ground attack aircraft with little to no air-to-air capability (though I believe it has an AIM-9 kill to its name), and you're comparing it to 5th gen air superiority fighter.

Yes that might be true but it still doesn´t change the fact that a A-10 is not designed to get hit.
Nor the fact that stealth aircraft are much more delicate then conventional jetfighters.

Again, the point was simply that the F-22/F-35 are delicate planes. the latter is a strange hybrid that is created to do everything but as usual when you create stuff like that you don´t make it excellent in those areas.

Because you don't design an aircraft and then stand around saying what a good job you've done. Especially in the first 10 years of operation. You're adding new systems, perfecting existing ones and preparing upgrades before it's even seen combat.

Exactly. And from what i can recall, the F-22 has been cancelled but the PAK FA and J-20 have not.

 

[Exorcet]

Again, the point was simply that the F-22/F-35 are delicate planes. the latter is a strange hybrid that is created to do everything but as usual when you create stuff like that you don´t make it excellent in those areas.

They are only delicate in two ways:

1 - conditions, ie sand and temperature, etc. N/A to F-35 as much though

2 - Stealth takes careful shaping. A bullet will do virtually no harm to a stealth plane except make it less stealthy.

Exactly. And from what i can recall, the F-22 has been cancelled but the PAK FA and J-20 have not.

Please, DO NOT perpetuate this insane rumor. How 187 flying, fighting, operational, and continually upgraded planes are canceled, I don't know. They can't keep building them indefinitely.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Regardless of number, the presence of a military for force either defensive, offensive, or strategic reason IS AN OCCUPATION. There foreign troops on american soil, however those are mainly for training purposes as oppose for the reason why america has an empire of bases worldwide.

It's not an occupation to have a non-combat base in an allied nation. The American troops have no authority over local civilians, the American forces are there under the terms of the resident government.

To call it an occupation is entirely false.

You should have a problem with the presence of a foreign military forces on your soil. Economically, YOU the taxpayer technically have to foot part of the bill for it, security-wise your country technically becomes a legitimate target along with said base in the case of hostility.

Don't tell my what I should have a problem with.

Why wouldn't I support my taxes supporting a mutually supportive military relationship. I know full well that if the Argies' decided to invade the Falklands again we wouldn't be able to re-take them. I also know the Americans won't help us out and the Argies' think that, but they don't know that.

In the case of Australia(and the same goes for any other country), americans taxpayers shouldn't be in the business of supplying them with arms nor in the business of defending rich, especially ones that have a capable military. If Australia want to defend itself China, it shouldn't be depending on me the taxpayer.

They supply them with arms that are paid for by Australians and built by Americans. It's simple economics.

Do you want the American army to protect you or your lifestyle?

I'd argue many Americans are happy for the military to protect their lifestyle. Secure oil supplies from the middle east, cheap electronics from the far east and protection of traditional allies.

Americans are in uproar when their fuel prices rise, and I'm sure the same would be said if their computer and phone prices shot up by 50%.

What? Have you forgotten how the discussion started?
I said claimed that the F-22 was not as stealthy as B-2 which is a purpose built stealth fighter.

You said your sources says the opposite. The one link you posted did not say anything regarding the stealth capabilities in comparison to the B-2 bomber.

Sorry! I was in a rush for a pub quiz. But yes, sorry for skewing the debate.

Yes that might be true but it still doesn´t change the fact that a A-10 is not designed to get hit.
Nor the fact that stealth aircraft are much more delicate then conventional jetfighters.

My interpretation from an engineering back ground is an A-10 is design to go where it will inevitably take a hit.

Again, the point was simply that the F-22/F-35 are delicate planes. the latter is a strange hybrid that is created to do everything but as usual when you create stuff like that you don´t make it excellent in those areas.

But again it's all relative. Delicate to an A-10, yes, delicate to an Eurofighter, no.

Exactly. And from what i can recall, the F-22 has been cancelled but the PAK FA and J-20 have not.

Again, how has it been cancelled? They're fully supporting the relatively large number they've already produced and it'll still complete a full life cycle.

The PAK FA and J-20 aren't even complete, they haven't even been signed off. But to say they are superior because they are later to the game is blissfully ignorant of the last 50 years of US v USSR/Russian aircraft development where the US has typically led and produced better aircraft.

 

[Villain]

In terms of manpower, the Chinese Red Army is more than 50% larger than the US' armed forced (over 4.5m,illion for China vs. about 3 million for the US) and, from what I've read, what they lack in tech, they make up for in fanatisism. Hell, if China ganged up with North Korea, they'd outnumber the US military more than 4:1.

More personnel != stronger military.

In a conventional war (without either side resorting to nuclear missiles/bombs), the Chinese would not stand much of a chance against the United States armed forces. It's important to remember that as it stands today, the US is a strictly volunteer military and Congress, in necessity, could reinstitute a draft and increase manpower pretty rapidly.

Also important to remember is the military technology and ability to project power. China has one measely aircraft carrier (a refurbished, obsolete Soviet boat) and an air force that wouldn't be able to fly much farther than it's own borders. I'm being realistic when I say that the United States doesn't have anything to fear from China from a strictly convential war viewpoint.

Economics, on the other hand, is a whole different discussion.



As to the North Koreans? The United States could obliterate them tomorrow if they truly wanted to.