Saunders, R. J., & Souva, M. (2020). Command of the skies: An air power dataset. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 37(6), 735–755.
We introduce a dataset on air power. Air power is the ability to inflict damage on an adversary through the air, and its successful application depends on achieving command of the skies. To achieve command of the skies, countries invest in a variety of types of military hardware and training, especially fighter aircraft. Our dataset contains information on the number, type and technological characteristics?including weaponry, avionics, speed, maneuverability and stealth characteristics?of each country?s fighter and attack aircraft for the period 1973-2013. We also introduce two new air power variables based on this data. The first is Country Air Power, a country-year measure of air power. The second is Expected Air Superiority, a dyad-year measure of which actor is likely to achieve air superiority in a military conflict. We illustrate the utility of this dataset by examining the relationship between air power and militarized dispute initiation, the duration and success of coercive bombing campaigns, and coercive behavior more generally. We find that command of the skies significantly affects conflict and coercive behavior.
(h/t whyvert)
Fivefold estimated gap between Russia/China and the US c.2013.
Commenter Annatar thinks it’s underestimated:
– Chinese have introduced so many 4th gen or higher aircraft since 2013 the graph is out of date.
– Also, graph even in 2013 seems wrong, looks like it assigns America 4.5x as many advanced jet fighters as Russia, ratio in 2013 as now according to my calculations is only around 3:1.
– Right now around 1000 4th gen or higher aircraft in Russian military vs 2,800 for America so 2.8:1 ratio.
Either way, it is generally in sync with my estimate of a general Comprehensive Military Power threefold superiority of the US over both China and Russia c.2015, which was likewise repeated in the Military Equipment Index for the same year.
The general trend in all of these indices over the past five years is for Russia to marginally improve its position and for China to gallup ahead, decidedly overtaking Russia and also rapidly gaining ground on the US.
This also constitutes support for the idea that the US will already have a very hard time checking China in their areas of likely confrontation and that this may become entirely unfeasible as early as the mid-2020s.
Please keep off topic posts to the current Open Thread.
If you are new to my work, start here.
Commenting rules. Please note that anonymous comments are not allowed.
The title is most excellent.
Only through quantification can there be measurement, only through measurement can there be comparison and control, and only through comparison and control can there be improvement.
The graph excludes the 2010s decade. Most new Russian new fighters were acquired within this decade. See Aircraft procurement here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Air_Force
Alternative plan to Taiwan invasion: make a deal with Taiwan’s elites to abandon gay policies, then annex it by pretending to get invaded and taken over by it. That would invalidate a lot of the border agreements the CCP made, when China was weaker, allowing for a greater China, as well as get around any objections the US could make.
I cannot foresee the US being willing to defend Taiwan at the cost of anything more than airstrikes. The USN hasn’t fought a major surface engagement since Leyte Gulf, and the last minor surface engagement was Preying Mantis. Under no circumstances do I imagine the US being willing to launch an amphibious landing to remove the PRC from a successfully invaded Taiwan.
A lot would depend on the willingness of US regional allies to support a defense. They might stay neutral.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EkXFpC7WAAM8sNK.jpg
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQdc8VrooiusFFdq3Ve_9V3mfHiWw3xU8ZCag&usqp.jpg
World Air Forces 2021
https://dfnc.ru/en/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/aviatsiya-vozdushnyj-flot.jpg
https://dfnc.ru/en/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/aviatsiya-rejting.jpg
Similar in some ways, different in others!
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQHSZb5Rf28_5kHLGr37qx_GI96-ylb4GI2iA&usqp.jpg
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRw3aH_PJQEnSn9rKinasEenl8s30JUMpR5xQ&usqp.jpg
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSRolomfMomiozzbo5tNvqPmcwA34_vXlhJMg&usqp.jpg
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTs6QXBY-y-2cM9wEEfPfIxDE71EksZXwQEOQ&usqp.jpg
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRpP3ObfgJbvVkPUMW4D6KsrCe5mlEys4yo-A&usqp.jpg
VS
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRfzKN1XAv3o99eeXZe9xaFkbfV_NSKbR9TqA&usqp.jpg
The language barrier with US/Iraq was significant. Very few Americans are fluent in Arabic, and the dual nationals that are, were often staunch opponents of the war. Nor did the US have any Arab countries as a co-occupier. The US was stuck relying on unreliable Iraqi exiles, the chaos of the war also convinced many non-Kurdish minorities to leave.
The mainlanders would not have this problem in a conquered Taiwan. The PRC has largely defeated the HK uprising, and the West has stupidly decided to let Anti-Beijing HK to emigrate.
Ideologically, the PRC must convince Taiwan to either re-integrate, or else be seized. As ideological subversion isn’t working, the military option becomes more palatable. The Party’s Mandate depends on both economic prosperity and nationalism. The increasing Woke trend in the West will only make Taiwan more intrasigent, and also an ideological threat to the Party’s rule on the mainland.
Does Tsai Ing-wen still have the Heart of a Warrior, as her Ancestors once did?
English Subtitles.
https://youtu.be/e-fbH6i_uyw
Quantification has a qualification all its own.
Taiwan has a history of Rainbow Warriors…it’s unfortunate how low they’ve sunk. Maybe if they stayed violent, Austronesian tribes dwelling in Jungles, they would have been more immune to this.
During the last thirty years of the Cold War, more Russians died fighting the Chinese than fighting the USA.
Increasing Chinese military power might end up being bad for Russia.
Taiwan’s bleeding-edge semiconductor design and fabrication capabilities are so economically and strategically valuable the losing side in a PRC invasion of Taiwan would seriously consider nuking Formosa to deny those capabilities to the victor.
If a successful PRC invasion of Taiwan wasn’t tac nuked it’s a fair bet they’d move on South Korean as well.
Remember, the UN forces didn’t do all that great in the ’50s when China was fresh off a civil war and didn’t have enough rifles to equip her troops or any worthwhile air support.
All the WW3-flashpoint daydreaming aside, the PRC’s political warfare efforts have been so effective that you are probably correct they have no need to physically invade Taiwan.
The USA did most of their damage after The Cold War “Finished”.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTa1FkNNaXHec5prS6bb14eZVQccubgBAnCQjQG1nBU6npzTBXJz0a9bN9y&s.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/eedVSqA.jpg
Don’t be so sure. Those F-15s and F-16s have logged so many flight hours that their air frames are not up to the challenge of modern warfare maneuvers (gotta love when academics think they understand violence).
So they tack on more racks under the wings, strap more ground bombs, relabel it a bomb-truck (or “strike fighter”) and delegate it to bombing runs (like the F-15E). Sure they’re great against some black pajamas but it ain’t gonna be pulling no high-G moves to dodge Ivans Su-27 or evade Ali’s high-copy S-300.
The US have to keep these planes in the air because it based its entire war fighting doctrine on using air power for basically everything, including air defence on all levels (tactical, operational and strategic). That strategy means half your air wings are going to be dedicated to CAP/escort and the other half to various missions (strikes, EW, interdiction, whatever). Air war is Americas war (TM)
Just look at all the US anti-air and artillery pieces. Ancient Hawks, piss-short Stingers and shaky Patriots is all I can think of…..
Air power has to fill that gap completely. Part of some retarded set-piece ‘air-land battle’ doctrine with Abrams, Apaches, F-15/F-16s and some other gay shit. To counter those godless communists in their T-72s no doubt.
The same is true for long-range artillery (rockets/ballistic missiles). Russia fields a literal menu of these systems for all ranges, all purposes, all designs. But for the US it has to rely on its air projection power to commit strikes that rightfully should be relegated to long-range rocketry or missiles. (M270, Tomahawk cruise missile and the HIMARS are the only rocket/missile artillery pieces I can recall….)
When you rely on your air force to do literally everything, from deep strikes, to air defence, to surveillance, to transportation, to intelligence gathering, to EW…. you’re gonna need a massive air arsenal.
What are his sources? I couldn’t find a great source for the Russian Air Force (and then you would have to add whatever aircraft the Navy has, though it’s way smaller than in the case of the US), but I think Russia has perhaps somewhat over 400 modern fighters. I don’t think older MiG-29s are in service any longer. Su-27s are also probably either modernized or in reserve.
Does the US still have not modernized early F-16s in service? If so, I wouldn’t count those together with the latest modernized versions.
The Hungarian Air Force used to operate MiG-29s without missiles and not much maintenance (yes, we had big brained politicians), so I guess the Russians would be doing better than those, but how much mileage can you get out of an early MiG-29? Those are pretty old by now.
I think the Russian army is pretty good, especially relative to the US Army, which is not very good. The Russian army seems to be much better in terms of quality than the Soviet army was in its prime. But the US Air Force has been the gold standard of excellence for almost a century now, already during WW2, so I still think that they are very good. The Soviet Air Force wasn’t so good already during the Cold War, and the Russian Air Force might actually be better, but I would consider it inferior to the US Air Force even in training, let alone the quality of the toys, which is the source of never ending debates.
I remember a talk given by a former Israeli aircraft designer at the University of Michigan on the pace and cost of developing new aircraft and how military aircraft took longer and longer to develop and the costs grew even faster. He noticed how rotary winged aircraft developed faster and became more capable even though there being no great military impetus behind them such that what was in WW2 little more than single seat flying contraption had become a CH-47 in 20 years. On the civilian aviation side a DC-3 had become a 747 in the same time frame. Given his thesis it was no surprise to learn he had become the designer of America’s 1st generation drone aircraft.
Given the time, expense and political risk pilots pose it really makes no sense to persist with what Air Force commanders ( all former pilots ) want and give them what they need. NASA just put a rover on Mars that selected its own safe landing spot in real time. Put that technology on a drone and you just assign it the mission and let it decide how to do it.
Chinese admits that they would fail to conquer Taiwan.
https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2021/02/26/mainland-china-is-in-no-position-to-take-taiwan-by-force/
Your link doesn’t work for me.
I think it’s a different thing to say that there is some risk of failure (China is not yet so overwhelmingly stronger than Taiwan that it can be 100% certain in victory), and to say that it would be a failure. They are saying the former. As long as there’s a chance of failure, the Chinese leadership has no reason to risk it, as long as Taiwan (or the US) doesn’t give them a reason to do so.
They could add dispersion or concentratability as some measure of how much sky an aerospace force can effectively dominate at any one time. The US has pretensions of global air superiority, which is one reason they fund so much more capability, but it is unlikely they can control much of the airspace over central and east Asia or nothern and western Russia.
Russia (and China) compensate by having very powerful anti-air systems, so it’s not that much of a problem.
I can’t foresee China invading Taiwan, cost would be horrific.
Taiwanese graduates are turning to the mainland for jobs. China and Taiwan are re-integrating socially and economically, a trend which will continue.
As Sun Tzu would say, taking your objective without a struggle is supreme generalship.
Not necessarily.
https://topwar.ru/172126-protivostojanie-zrk-pancir-s1-i-tureckih-bpla-repeticija-vojn-buduschego.html
She has the Head of a Vegetable, so that’s something.
The MiG-29SMT is basically equivalent to the F-16MLU, which any objective observer acknowledges is a modern fighter.
Nailed it.
There is already so much interplay between Taiwan and China it’s a foregone conclusion they will pull closer, with a high chance of peaceful reunification.
The mainland has vast opportunities to offer talented Taiwanese in terms of compensation, all while speaking a very similar language and working in a very similar culture.
The West has nothing comparable to offer.
There are just a few dozens of those.
stupid F-35 screwing up the numbers for America!
anyway, does this ranking take into account drones? because air to air drones are about to become a thing for the US at least. air to ground drones for 15 years. US helicopters, maybe, about to get better with the pusher rotor helicopters about to show up.
i do wonder if they’ll be able to actually do the B-21 build out or will it be super slow, or a fiasco. they really gotta get rid of those B-1s. and, you would think, it would not be that expensive or hard to build B-52 replacements. yet they maintain a fleet of 50 year old bombers that are only useful against second rate opponents. couldn’t you build cheap versions of those with modern engines and electronics?
what is the feasibility of drone bombers? might be hard to get the lift and payload and range you need. might have to be controlled by satellites if they fly really far away into enemy airspace.
i would guess that cannons are borderline obsolete for CAS, so A-10 and derp F-35 are less relevant now for that. i’m no expert, but i would venture air to ground missiles are just a lot more effective now.
wonder if US Air Force will just start a serious production of F-15EX since F-35 can barely be used, by their own admission. General Brown (lol) said F-35 is like a Ferrari, only fly it on sundays. haha, good lord, America is in trouble when you have General Browns running the show.
what is the state of stealth versus radar? are F-35s pretty visible on latest generation radar? i don’t know much about RAM. but shouldn’t B-21 be less visible than B-2 and F-22?
it’s stupid that Marines have jet aircraft but Army doesn’t. that’s just flat out dumb, not the way CAS is actually used, and the doctrine is plain wrong. enough of the handshake agreement with Air Force about fixed wing aircraft.
When Taiwan is taken, all those traitors should be sent deep into mainland, it wouldnt even be a case of ethnic cleansing, for how Han can ethnically cleanse Han? Ha ha ha! Couple decades of hard lab…, erm I mean vocational training and community service will redeem such Hanjians.
The old strategic bombers still works for carrying huge payload. They might not be good enough for contested airspace but that’s fine. The question is if it’s worth building a few dussins of new strategic bombers for the price of hundreds of new multirole fighters.
Taiwan should get nukes
Military training for Taiwan used to be no joke up until the early or mid-90s, you can find out about it in old films, and the term of conscription used to last for 2 years before 1990.
The US preemptively destroyed the Taiwanese capacity for nukes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chang_Hsien-yi
Gee, I wonder what happened to the KMT.
Not a refutal as neither of them let their ground-based ADs operate alone.
Depends on what drones are used.
Drone threat against main Russian base in Syria was successfully neutralized by the ground-based air defense.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT7rg8rWwv6GPQqBOOhJMGND0n6xl8UOyx75g&usqp.jpg
Key question is how involved will be the other parties, especially— Japan
We just passed anniversary of 2/28 1947 incident, in which Taiwanese rose up against KMT, who were seen as more venal and less competent than their previous Japanese colonial rulers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_28_incident . So historically Japs really have a stake in there.
Currently bulk of Japanese exports pass through Taiwan Strait so they are keen to not see it fall in PRC hands. But at same time if PRC makes a move, Japan would be at pains to be compelled to respond unless US/Europe/Aussie also do. If Japan makes any move they risk waking up alot of sleeping dogs…
In the Second Sino-Japanese war, China was pretty overmatched in terms of industrial capacity. If anything China wants avenge for is the First Sino-Japanese War, when Qing China had the latest state-of-art Made in Germany battleships, and still lost fair and square https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Yalu_River_(1894)
They are regarded total losers and cucks in both PRC and Taiwan. The GOP of Sinosphere. Chiang is turning in his grave. Only redemption is make common causes with CCP in a Third United Front in case of another Jap incursion.
The air defense in Syria usually had to deal with primitive drones. Did Turkey try to use Bayraktars against it? I don’t think so.
But the comment wasn’t about drones, it was about whether a weakness of the air forces could be compensated for by having stronger air defenses.
I think it was Daniel Chieh who wrote that they democratized in order to secure a higher level of international support. It became especially pressing after the nuclear program was cancelled under American pressure.
That is why I noted that the type of drone matters.
They can.
The improved Egyptian performance in the Yom Kippur War after the disastrous Six-Days War was partially the result of having a much better ground-based air defense than in the previous war.
If they maintained the same party platform as Chiang Kai Shek they would not even get 1 percent of the vote? BTW interesting how jet fighters have become progressively heavier, that a jet fighter like the F-15EX or Su-35 weighs as much as a Cold War MBT.
They still lost eventually.
I should clarify that it can compensate to an extent, but not fully.
Well, there would be no vote.
F-15EX and Su-35 have like ~15% heavier max takeoff weight compared to the basic F-15 and Su-27. That’s mostly afforded by having better engines. Honestly, things hasn’t changed that much, fighters around 30 ton has been common for over half a century.
The drone versus air defense argument is interesting.
The recent Azeri-Armenian conflict is instructive as to what can be achieved by a prepared, innovative drone user versus an opponent stuck in prior modes of warfare.
Yes, the Azeris had a great deal of help from the Turks and Israelis.
The USA’s only “safe” option in case of invasion of Taiwan:
The PRC’s most important wargame-factor for invasion of Taiwan:
IMHO there won’t mudfights between surface combatant groups. It’s all USN SSN vs PLAN SSK/SSN and sub-hunters.
Here’s Russian resources on their air tech:
https://aviation21.ru/sostav-boevogo-aviaparka-vks-rossii-na-2020-god/
Frequent mentions that the airforce modernization was quick-started after the analysis of the 2008 war with Georgia.
https://voinskayachast.net/vozdushno-kosmicheskie-sily/voenno-vozdushnie-sily/vvs-rf
Russia-US comparison
https://yandex.com/turbo/samoletos.ru/s/samolety/sravnenie-vvs-ssha-vks-rossii
With English language illustrations
https://dfnc.ru/c106-technika/world-air-forces-2021-voennyj-aviapark-rossii-vtoroj-v-mire/
https://www.mk.ru/politics/2021/01/11/forbes-podschital-boevye-samolety-i-vertolety-vks-rossii.html
Russia military airplanes in 2000–2000
In 2020–1200
Russia military helicopters in 2000–700
In 2020–400
Allegedly much (75%) of the newer smaller airforce is “new or modernized” though. Including new Night Hunter and Alligator hellicopters.
However, in all resources the US F-35 is taken at face value.
There is also mention of Russia lacking war drones or cheap precision guided ammunition.
Here’s Russian resources on their air tech:
https://aviation21.ru/sostav-boevogo-aviaparka-vks-rossii-na-2020-god/
Frequent mentions that the airforce modernization was quick-started after the analysis of the 2008 war with Georgia.
https://voinskayachast.net/vozdushno-kosmicheskie-sily/voenno-vozdushnie-sily/vvs-rf
Russia-US comparison
https://yandex.com/turbo/samoletos.ru/s/samolety/sravnenie-vvs-ssha-vks-rossii
With English language illustrations
https://dfnc.ru/c106-technika/world-air-forces-2021-voennyj-aviapark-rossii-vtoroj-v-mire/
https://www.mk.ru/politics/2021/01/11/forbes-podschital-boevye-samolety-i-vertolety-vks-rossii.html
Russia military airplanes in 2000–2000
In 2020–1200
Russia military helicopters in 2000–700
In 2020–400
Allegedly much (75%) of the newer smaller airforce is “new or modernized” though. Including new Night Hunter and Alligator hellicopters.
However, in all resources the US F-35 is taken at face value.
There is also mention of Russia lacking war drones or cheap precision guided ammunition.
Point is, the functioning military was a KMT relic. Taidu certainly won’t do it, which makes their caterwauling ever more ridiculous.
As per the article I linked, Turkish drones are just impressively high quality. They’re out of range of the majority of normal air to air devices, and the Turkish apparently utilize repeater drones and multiple technologies to deal with electronic warfare.
Ukraine is purchasing their drones.
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/economy/ukraine-expects-to-buy-turkish-drones-this-year/2097636
A Taiwan conflict could also lead to some actions by North Korea, to prevent the US from redeploying its sizeable contingent in ROK.
Sinking the PLAN assets in the straits is incredibly difficult because most Chinese subs are diesel-electrics designed for the green water. The US has nothing like this, but ROK and Japan do.
Taiwan’s existing submarines are obsolete, and the new submarines won’t be in service for a few more years.
The US should consider developing a drone aircraft that performs ASW.
Turkey has a surprisingly robust indigenous electronic and industrial manufacturing base. They are able to manufacture their own networking and fiber optic gear.
On the defense side, Aselsan is able to produce the full range of comms, avionics, and electronic warfare equipment.
I’ve seen Hidromek earth moving equipment up close and in operation. It does not seem inferior to brands like Komatsu or Caterpillar.
Everything impressive about them is from imported Western components. Making a long endurance drone isn’t hard. The hard thing is the surveillance and targeting system and that’s all imported.
That’s cope. Why isn’t Somalia making military export drones then?
Not part of NATO. I think L3Harris probably has some restrictions on who it’s allowed to sell military equipment to.
Maybe you know about this. Chiang’s post WWII policies to Japan, 以德报怨 „To repay grievance with magnanimity“
https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BB%A5%E5%BE%B7%E5%A0%B1%E6%80%A8_(%E8%94%A3%E4%B8%AD%E6%AD%A3)
This did not go unappreciated, as Yasuji Okamura and some other senior officers would form an advisory group that followed Chiang to Taiwan 白团 „White Regiment“
https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%99%BD%E5%9C%98
Part of this was realpolitik as he needed Japanese assistance against CCP. And he goes way back with IJA since his days of military school in Tokyo. But I’d definitely attribute at partly to Chiang’s character and long-range vision. This was the same guy who refuse to give up in 1938 after losing Shanghai, Nanjing and Wuhan. My sense is that he would be furious at the way Taidu is carrying themselves now.
Weißt du darüber?
https://www.ifz-muenchen.de/heftarchiv/2003_3_4_chen.pdf
BND had an advisory group on TW until Chiang’s death
Of course he’d be.
My family is closely associated with KMT military elite. To say that he’d be furious is an understatement, of course.
Agree that having only a strong Anti-Air component is bound to fail.
But having strong AA plus offensive strike is a hard combination to beat.
You need good AA to keep your airfields clear to counter attack.
That is why USians worry about the PLA’s IADS.
https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/2021-02/Lonnie_Henley_Testimony.pdf
This suggests that US air power declined in the last decade.
AN AIR FORCE FOR AN ERA OF GREAT POWER COMPETITION (2019)
https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/CSBA_AFAIS_Report_v9.pdf
I wonder what Russia’s record on maintenance is. From what I understand – the Sukhoi jets require less maintenance and have a higher rate of battle readiness. Of course – many of China’s jets are iterations of Sukhoi jets that Russia licensed them to produce on their own.
You win… Best comment on the thread. Big laugh for the day – LOL…. Accurate actually too. Taiwan are the descendants of those who lost the Chinese civil war… Can’t be too hard on them.
“If a successful PRC invasion of Taiwan wasn’t tac nuked it’s a fair bet they’d move on South Korean as well”
Where do you guys dream this stuff up from??? The Taiwan issue is an unfinished civil war. South Korea? Huh?!?! Why on earth would the PRC do that? Fact is that the reason Kim in NK has nukes is precisely because he stopped trusting China because China and South Korea he felt were becoming too chummy at his expense – so he didn’t trust China to protect him if the US invaded. He only slowed down his nuke expansion – not because of meeting with Trump – but because China and Russia publicly stated they would protect NK if it got invaded (but would NOT help if he attacked a 3rd party).
Taiwan is a China issue – South Korea isn’t. You might as well have claimed Japan since South Korea has no desire to join the US if it attacked China… Japan would though. But no – China is not going to invade Japan unprovoked. That’s a bad dream.
Japan is the only country that could realistically ally with the Taiwanese to fight off a mainland invasion. These fantasies some people have of a U.S./China war over Taiwan are just that.
Too bad most Americans have no clue who that man is. Then they would know he worshipped the Japanese Bushido spirit and then VOLUNTEERED for Imperial Japan to fight for them. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if he actually killed Americans in the Pacific Theater. But just because he was anti communist – he was able to get a US education afterwards and then off course was a mole in the KMT who is the first person to talk about Taiwan independence – in direct confrontation with the KMT itself. American officials even paid him respect at his death since he “helped bring democracy to Taiwan”. If the average American had any clue – I think they might be just a little upset.
Like I alluded to before Japs are not keen on riling up bad blood, so if they intervene, it may have to be on some pretense of protection/evacuation of expats.
But the main thing is that Taiwan is being used as a pawn by US and Europe to provocate.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/3/4/german-warship-to-sail-through-south-china-sea
Japan knows this very well and is not gonna want to go in without a coalition and be left holding their dicks in the wind
IMO, it is not realistic – Japanese don’t have nukes. They are not going to mobilize their military to fight a nuclear power.
In a similar vein, the US is not going to want to trade nukes. At least, if it has rational leadership. The diplomatic turnover with Taiwan should be treated as a proxy for military commitment to defending it.
Russian jets are far far more maintenance intensive than comparable western jets.
We only have comparable track records of 4th gen fighters.Su 57’s maintenance needs in service are unknown.
The Mig 29 burns through parts like crazy and the engines which by design have a shelf life of less than half of western counterparts start creating problems half way through their design life.
The Mirage 2000 by contrast is designed like the Kalashnikov.It never let’s you down.
During the Kargil war we flew them at a rate of 5 sorties per day for more than a month since they were then the only planes which could drop precision munitions at himalayas heights.Not one Mirage 2000 had maintenance issues.
Mig 29s otoh which was providing fighter escort to the Mirage could barely manage 2 sorties a day with constant maintenance headaches.
Service life supposedly increased substantially in later improved engine versions. India got their MiG-29s in the 80s which had the early more “expendable” engines. Kargil war was in 1999 and India got their MiG-29s upgraded sometime after 2006. Is there any numbers on service life improvement after that?
United States was probably smarter using the same engine for F-15 and F-16. Feels like USSR/Russia would’ve been better off having a slightly lighter fighter than MiG-29 that instead uses a single AL-31.
Well one of US analogs to the Mig 29 is the F-18 whose land based variant has been extensively exported and is even more reliable than the F-16.
The relatively brand new Mig 29 K is also giving our Navy a lot of grief in the serviceability department.Its so bad that the navy will not even consider the Mig 29K for our new carrier presently under trials and is in addition asking our MoD to transfer these to the airforce and replace it with something more reliable.
Sukhoi Flanker serviceability is much better than the Mig 29 but nowhere near Mirage 2000,Rafale or even our very own LCA.The only peer aircraft of the Flanker in the 4th generation i.e. the F 15 also has superior serviceability.
Sukhoi had a project which was a single engine complement to the Flanker known as the S 55 which was offered to both the PRC and India in the 1990s but neither was interested in paying for the entire development of a foreign 4th gen aircraft back then.
You are talking about Indians using Russian jets. Not the same thing at all. I don’t gamble – but if I did – I would bet a whole lot on Russian jets operated by the Russian military being far more efficient in service. I know the Chinese have far more Sukhoi’s than India and love them so much they based 2 versions of their own (J11 and J15/16) which are the most numerous of the class in the world. So it must be the Indian military that has the issue. As I said – I want to know about Russia’s records.
Russian jets(gen 2 thru 4) are known to require more maintenance than comparable Western jets.
This is the uniform experience of countries operating both western and Russian jets.Germany which operated Mig 29 for over a decade post unification,Finland which operated Saab Drakens as well as Mig 21s etc.
This is a different measure from ruggedness.The Mig 29 is more rugged than the F16 and can take off from dirt strips,tolerate poor quality fuel etc but still requires much more maintenance per flight hour and consumes spares at a much faster rate.
I will try to find data of Russian maintenance stats but I have never heard the argument that a Russian Airforce Su 30 SM overall requires less maintenance per flight hour than a USAF F 15 E or the like.
The PRC didn’t exactly have the option of procuring or basing their 4th gen heavy fighter design on an alternative like say the Mirage 4000 or the F 15 and has AFAIK not operated any non Russian origin foreign fighter aircraft so the Flanker is the best fighter they have fielded in numbers and they logically based their initial 4th gen heavy fighter projects on the Flanker as that was the only plane they could procure besides the fact that a cash strapped Russia was prepared to transfer technology and help set up local production.
Still, many years ago I recall a detailed discussion on Sinodefence on how Russian planes require an unacceptably large maintenance train and the J 10 and other modern Chinese designs consciously try to greatly improve on this aspect.
India’s ability to buy western jets in addition to Russian ones – is a net negative for India’s industry in comparison to China…
But if Russian planes have such horrible maintenance requirements as you suggest – then why are they so popular? Why does India still try to buy new ones then since India can buy from the west?
Russian jets have certain advantages, including a lower price, but lower maintenance requirements are certainly not among the advantages.
One reason why countries keep buying Russian planes is because the Russians are unlikely to sanction anyone not at war with them, so countries wary of American interference are going to buy at least some Russian tech. That’s certainly the case with Indonesia, Egypt, and perhaps India as well.
In India’s case there’s the issue with Pakistan. If India stopped buying from Russia, Pakistan would be happy to step in and buy from Russia, because it no longer has access to up-to-date American technology anyway, and Russian tech might be better than available Chinese tech. Then India would be in a difficult position, because it doesn’t want to be dependent on America, but it wouldn’t want to buy from a country which is an important supplier of Pakistan. (All Western technology has American components, so any Western technology can be cut off by the Americans. Not to mention that countries like France are American vassals themselves.)
Russian technology can be a good buy even absent these political considerations (I have already mentioned price, and the technology can also be competitive), so overall it can be a good choice even without these, but this was to show that demand for Russian weapons is not necessarily a full endorsement of their quality. Though obviously they need to be at least somewhat good.
India’s last major purchase of Russian aircraft was the Su 30 Mki when relations with Washington were frosty as they had been since the 1950s.Its only after the mid 2000s that relations have improved significantly.
It is a good heavy weight fighter especially with all the French and Israeli avionics and it will be upgraded further using Indian components like the Uttam AESA radar etc.
The Russian Su 30 SM is basically a russified Su 30 mki with Russian avionics replacing foreign ones.
We have opted out of the PAK FA program and are concentrating on our own AMCA fighter program instead.
We are similarly not interested in joining the BAE Tempest program.
Countries buy Russian planes because they are cheap to procure,rugged and often the only option available as in the case of China.Also Russians are relatively loyal allies and don’t have an entertaining political system which imposes sanctions on countries in an erratic unpredictable fashion.
They do not do so because of ease of maintenance and superior serviceability rates which becomes exponentially important as the size of the fighter type increases.
I think an Indian Navy order for F 18s or Rafales this decade will be the last manned fighter purchase of India.Which is how it should be.
India’s ability to buy aircraft,sub systems and technology from both the West and its East Asian allies and Russia is a net positive for the country.Would the Chinese not have liked the option of playing Sukhoi against Dassault or Saturn NPO against Snecma or Rolls Royce while seeking technology for their fighter and engine programs in the early 2000s when the state of Chinese tech was roughly comparable to India today? Would not China’s military jet engine programs have advanced further today if it could simultaneously interact with Russian,British, French,German and US suppliers instead of just Russian ones ?
What do you make out of MiG-35? It feels like Russia prefers Su-35 so MiG-35 mostly exists to sell to countries which operates MiG-29. Russia has something like 6 of them and hasn’t made any large orders.
It’s basically an upgraded MiG-29 with new avionics right? It still uses RD-33MK and I don’t think Russia is developing any new updated RD-33 engine so that won’t change. That’s an old engine compared to AL-41 and will be ancient compared to the new Su-57 engine (izdeliye 30). It just seems like it would be a much more natural for Russia to develop a single engine fighter with Al-41/izdeliye 30 instead.
The benefit with MiG-35 is less development costs. But apparently it uses a new modified airframe so how much of the old MiG-29 machinery can be used?
https://i2.wp.com/www.globaldefensecorp.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/MiG-35-vs-MiG-29M2.jpg
Mig 35 is basically an upgunned Mig 29.It didn’t fare well in the MRCA contest and the IAF hates the Mig 29 for being the ultimate hangar queen aircraft.
Also Klimov seems to be focusing on helicopter engines as part of the UEC.
Mikoyan despite rumors of a new super interceptor project to replace the mig 31 seems to only have UCAVs in its non vapourware pipeline.
Russian future manned fighter strategy is unclear.
China won’t have need for Russian engines by the end of this decade and will outprice and replace them in their export markets except India and Vietnam.
We won’t be buying any more foreign jets by the end of the decade and our component level imports will be from Israel and the West and Vietnam is increasingly looking at the Korean KFX fighter.
So without any significant export market it is looking only at its domestic demand which is insufficient to justify investment in a new manned fighter program.
No European country going forward can justify a national manned fighter program let alone two.UK Sweden Italy are banding together on the Tempest and France Germany Spain on the FCAS.I think we will see a merger of these two programs by the end of this decade as the finances of the BAe Tempest appear shakier than the TSR 2 ever did.
“Would not China’s military jet engine programs have advanced further today if it could simultaneously interact with Russian,British, French,German and US suppliers instead of just Russian ones ?”
Actually no… It would have retarded development further. Part of the reason China has advanced so fast militarily and space was is because it has been cut off from the west.
“Russian jets have certain advantages, including a lower price, but lower maintenance requirements are certainly not among the advantages.
One reason why countries keep buying Russian planes is because the Russians are unlikely to sanction anyone not at war with them, so countries wary of American interference are going to buy at least some Russian tech. That’s certainly the case with Indonesia, Egypt, and perhaps India as well.”
Again – where is the evidence? We know the B1B – B2 – F22 – and even the naval F14 programs in the US have stopped production because maintenance/running costs were too high. The F35 faces the same problem now as well (now the British are scheduled to cut orders 50-65%). So where is the evidence Russian systems face the same issue? Show me one Russian system that has stopped production because of running costs.
As to India… Actually Russia has started to sell to Pakistan as India turned west. The more it does – expect Russia to sell more to Pakistan. Pakistan is already buying more from China.
As I suspected – Indian manufacturing and maintenance is the problem. As I though – Russia and China don’t have the same issues with the same planes.
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/india-s-su-30mki-costs-almost-twice-as-much-as-russia-s-new-su-30sm-here-s-why