MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions

[Hyperactive ADD]

Yup i too believe, if china eger wanted to invade and annex any sovereign territory it never claimed to be her then it must of myanmar

A nation with less than 60 million population, and some ethnicity shares w8th the tribes/ethnicity of china's south

And an internallly divided country, with no major power ready to have a war to save it

Myanmar as a country does not seems to exist far too in future

Too little cost and too much benefit, finally open to no chokepoint and no usa dominance, and compleete access to ocean, and obv untapped natural resources

If i were ccp president, then it will be tempting to select whats better ? Taiwan or Myanmar ?

A very developed country with own people but a superpower(usa) may came uo defend it along with japan

OR a huge natural resource country that gives unrestricted, unchallenged open ocean access and can not be blocked by any other country gives huge advantage in invading taiwan when usa may blocked china

But then risk being considered imperialist and basically the usa of asia

It can't be helped. I believe that without this kind of 'quantum leap,' China's future would be bleak. It would be one thing if we could truly maintain good relations with Japan and Southeast Asian countries, but the historical influence and control the U.S. exerts over them is simply too immense to shake

 

[PhotonVish]

The basic iterative process of aircraft development is as follows:
1. Initiate engine R&D (engine development takes roughly 25 years, whereas the airframe itself only requires about 15 years);
2. Advance conceptual design and preliminary research;
3. Prototype manufacturing;
4. Flight testing, commissioning, and entry into service.

The entire pipeline follows a universal principle adhered to by China, Russia, and the United States: 'Simultaneously serial-producing one generation, engineering the next generation, and conducting pre-research on the generation after that.'

The F-47 and China’s next-generation fighter jets were clearly conceived too early, failing to undergo the theoretical crucible of the Russia-Ukraine war.

In my view, the future mainstay fighter jet will feature a maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of 80+ tons, possess the ability to take off from a 300-meter Unimproved runway under full combat load, achieve a maximum speed of Mach 3, and reach a service ceiling of 30,000 meters. When cruising at Mach 2 its combat radius should reach 1,500 kilometers. Its core powerplant—perhaps a cluster of four AL-41F1S (117S) or AL-41F1 (117) engines—could suffice to achieve baseline operational functionality. It will feature automated rearward or all-aspect defensive gun turrets to enable all-aspect terminal interception of incoming air-to-air missiles and a baseline anti-drone capability. Emphasizing a non-stealth configuration, it will be capable of carrying heavy precision-guided glide bombs, hypersonic air-to-surface missiles, ultra-long-range air-to-air missiles, and real-time datalinks to guide surface-to-air missiles.

The auxiliary fighter aircraft will follow the paradigm of the S-70B Okhotnik: unmanned, equipped with a degree of autonomous artificial intelligence for flight operations, with its core mission centered on the deployment of heavy precision-guided glide bombs，
-------------------------------Most importantly, it has to be cheap, and there has to be a lot of it—an absolute abundance.

J36 is quite good in that regard, it can takeoff from the heart of china and can go long in range with usable load

Presion ammunition became mainstream so runway are in danger,

but long range precision ammunition are not that cheap (except shahid type drones which can be shot down easily if enough gun based, drone based interceptors and then lasers and small rocket based like india's bhargavastra)

And runways are easier to reapir, so constantly using millions of dollar missiles, many of whome will be shot down is very costly,

one has to use atleast 10 everday or two, milti million dollar missiles to make a defeneded runway to a remain disable

Very costly, and then 2 more problems
1) enough width tracks can also be used as runways, though sortie rate will be limited
2) ramped like in indian/soviat carriers , can easily support a heavy thrust aircraft

 

[Hyperactive ADD]

Yup i too believe, if china eger wanted to invade and annex any sovereign territory it never claimed to be her then it must of myanmar

A nation with less than 60 million population, and some ethnicity shares w8th the tribes/ethnicity of china's south

And an internallly divided country, with no major power ready to have a war to save it

Myanmar as a country does not seems to exist far too in future

Too little cost and too much benefit, finally open to no chokepoint and no usa dominance, and compleete access to ocean, and obv untapped natural resources

If i were ccp president, then it will be tempting to select whats better ? Taiwan or Myanmar ?

A very developed country with own people but a superpower(usa) may came uo defend it along with japan

OR a huge natural resource country that gives unrestricted, unchallenged open ocean access and can not be blocked by any other country gives huge advantage in invading taiwan when usa may blocked china

But then risk being considered imperialist and basically the usa of asia

Of course, there is another possibility: to overhaul the vested interests of the ruling elites and redistribute the wealth of the rich. As the population collapses and the country gradually withdraws from the global OEM/outsourcing system, it could return to a path of internal resource circulation. The reality is that China's grassroots live harder lives than Mexican laborers; the elites have pocketed all the profits from the WTO and the global supply chain. Many people feel life is tougher now than in the 1990s. Consequently, ordinary people fantasize about returning to the 80s or 90s—they don't even dare mention the 70s—where factory workers and directors earned similar wages, and a worker could walk into the director's office to demand change. In those days, exams relied on merit, the state assigned jobs upon graduation and provided pensions, and housing was allocated by the factories. Everyone was equally poor, but the pressure for survival was far less than it is today.

J36 is quite good in that regard, it can takeoff from the heart of china and can go long in range with usable load

Presion ammunition became mainstream so runway are in danger,

but long range precision ammunition are not that cheap (except shahid type drones which can be shot down easily if enough gun based, drone based interceptors and then lasers and small rocket based like india's bhargavastra)

And runways are easier to reapir, so constantly using millions of dollar missiles, many of whome will be shot down is very costly,

one has to use atleast 10 everday or two, milti million dollar missiles to make a defeneded runway to a remain disable

Very costly, and then 2 more problems
1) enough width tracks can also be used as runways, though sortie rate will be limited
2) ramped like in indian/soviat carriers , can easily support a heavy thrust aircraft

Regardless, given the three-engine setup, it would be more effective as a UAV. The redundant air-to-air radar and missile systems should simply be scrapped

 

[Hyperactive ADD]

J36 is quite good in that regard, it can takeoff from the heart of china and can go long in range with usable load

Presion ammunition became mainstream so runway are in danger,

but long range precision ammunition are not that cheap (except shahid type drones which can be shot down easily if enough gun based, drone based interceptors and then lasers and small rocket based like india's bhargavastra)

And runways are easier to reapir, so constantly using millions of dollar missiles, many of whome will be shot down is very costly,

one has to use atleast 10 everday or two, milti million dollar missiles to make a defeneded runway to a remain disable

Very costly, and then 2 more problems
1) enough width tracks can also be used as runways, though sortie rate will be limited
2) ramped like in indian/soviat carriers , can easily support a heavy thrust aircraft

For nations like China and India, the utility of fixed runways and airbases is highly questionable. Due to the extreme population density and the ubiquity of smartphones, there is virtually no security or secrecy to speak of. In wartime, aircraft must be dispersed to primitive farmlands or rotated across highway strips. Consequently, the capability for Short Take-Off and Landing (STOL) on unpaved runways is an absolute necessity.

 

[batman]

For nations like China and India, the utility of fixed runways and airbases is highly questionable. Due to the extreme population density and the ubiquity of smartphones, there is virtually no security or secrecy to speak of. In wartime, aircraft must be dispersed to primitive farmlands or rotated across highway strips.

This sounds good and all in paper but in real world, we need such airbases for fuel and weapons storage, maintenance facilities, spare parts, command and control, air defence etc. Except for short skirmishes, you won't be running a sustained air campaigns from random farm fields.

Consequently, the capability for Short Take-Off and Landing (STOL) on unpaved runways is an absolute necessity.

It is certainly good to have but not an absolute necessity, else the F22, F35A, Rafale, Typhoon, J20 etc would be having it. But I agree with you to a certain extend, a good rule we can follow to survive missile attacks is not being where the enemy expects us to be even though it is becoming increasingly difficult with advancement in surveillance technology which we may or may not be able to neutralise in case of war, Sweden is famous for this concept. During the Cold War, Swedish fighters such as the Saab 37 Viggen and later the Saab JAS 39 Gripen were designed to operate from dispersed road bases because Sweden assumed its main airfields would be attacked.

We can employ similar methods along with building hardened shelters, air defence systems, decoys, fast runway repair methods, mobile logistics etc

 

[randomradio]

Of course, there is another possibility: to overhaul the vested interests of the ruling elites and redistribute the wealth of the rich.

That's never a good thing. Countries collapse when this happens.

The right method is to bring in reforms that allow the rich to redistribute wealth on their own with profits in mind, and the only way to do that is by increasing consumption.

As the population collapses and the country gradually withdraws from the global OEM/outsourcing system, it could return to a path of internal resource circulation.

Population won't collapse, it will reach a bottom and then climb up again. We just don't know what that bottom is.

 

[randomradio]

This sounds good and all in paper but in real world, we need such airbases for fuel and weapons storage, maintenance facilities, spare parts, command and control, air defence etc. Except for short skirmishes, you won't be running a sustained air campaigns from random farm fields.

It is certainly good to have but not an absolute necessity, else the F22, F35A, Rafale, Typhoon, J20 etc would be having it. But I agree with you to a certain extend, a good rule we can follow to survive missile attacks is not being where the enemy expects us to be even though it is becoming increasingly difficult with advancement in surveillance technology which we may or may not be able to neutralise in case of war, Sweden is famous for this concept. During the Cold War, Swedish fighters such as the Saab 37 Viggen and later the Saab JAS 39 Gripen were designed to operate from dispersed road bases because Sweden assumed its main airfields would be attacked.

We can employ similar methods along with building hardened shelters, air defence systems, decoys, fast runway repair methods, mobile logistics etc

Su-57 is designed for both.

Using dispersed airfields is called ACE, Agile Combat Employment, where the main base and the airfields follow a hub and spoke model. Transports, helicopters, and trucks can carry the required crew and equipment.

Su-57 can also land and take off in less than 500 m of unpaved runway due to Russia's undeveloped landmass. But J-20 will operate in extremely well-developed environments.

US and India are heavily dependent on ACE while PLAAF is planning to implement it soon.

The PLA Air Force's Efforts Toward Agile Combat Employment - Jamestown

jamestown.org

 

[Hyperactive ADD]

That's never a good thing. Countries collapse when this happens.

The right method is to bring in reforms that allow the rich to redistribute wealth on their own with profits in mind, and the only way to do that is by increasing consumption.



Population won't collapse, it will reach a bottom and then climb up again. We just don't know what that bottom is.

If you were given a money printing press, tell me, would you use it with restraint? I think that as long as you still have a shred of human nature in you, you absolutely would not.
Therefore, that first path is completely unfeasible. As for the population, when will it hit rock bottom? There is absolutely no historical precedent for a recovery among advanced nations. Consequently, whether it is China or India, there will be no rebound. Survival is a fundamental human instinct, but destruction is a fundamental human instinct as well

Once people become educated and civilized, they feel a profound sense of responsibility toward their offspring. If you maintain the current system of ownership—where wealth is passed from father to son, and from son to grandson—then the naturally logical strategy to ensure the next generation lives a better life is to have fewer children. This should be a universal consensus among all parents.
Having more children is for oneself; having fewer children is for the sake of the children.
Therefore, population collapse has nothing to do with economic levels; it has to do with human nature. This process is irreversible.
Unless, as I just mentioned, this entire system of ownership is completely razed to the ground and the state steps in to raise your children, it is absolutely impossible for the population to rebound

 

[randomradio]

If you were given a money printing press, tell me, would you use it with restraint? I think that as long as you still have a shred of human nature in you, you absolutely would not.
Therefore, that first path is completely unfeasible. As for the population, when will it hit rock bottom? There is absolutely no historical precedent for a recovery among advanced nations. Consequently, whether it is China or India, there will be no rebound. Survival is a fundamental human instinct, but destruction is a fundamental human instinct as well

The Indus Valley Civilization is the only civilization known that has decreased income inequality with increased prosperity.

Inequality declined in the Bronze Age city of Mohenjo-daro | Antiquity | Cambridge Core

Inequality declined in the Bronze Age city of Mohenjo-daro

www.cambridge.org

At least in India, the Nationalists follow this culture. Modi and many of the Nationalist leaders chosen to lead the party do not have wealth or intend to have families and children to prevent dynasties, nepotism, and corruption.

Once people become educated and civilized, they feel a profound sense of responsibility toward their offspring. If you maintain the current system of ownership—where wealth is passed from father to son, and from son to grandson—then the naturally logical strategy to ensure the next generation lives a better life is to have fewer children. This should be a universal consensus among all parents.
Having more children is for oneself; having fewer children is for the sake of the children.
Therefore, population collapse has nothing to do with economic levels; it has to do with human nature. This process is irreversible.
Unless, as I just mentioned, this entire system of ownership is completely razed to the ground and the state steps in to raise your children, it is absolutely impossible for the population to rebound

This is true, but the threshold is still high. When people become educated and civilized, they tend to have 2-3 children, even 5 at times, not 10-15.

2-3 children is the norm. What forces them to end up with 1 is career advancement and financial pressure. Women have been tempted away from having children in exchange for a career. But if a girl child grows up in a well-adjusted family and has a responsible husband, she will end up with more than 1 child.

In developed countries, especially in the West, large companies have bought family homes and inflated rent. This forces parents to divert money away from children, so they end up having just one. So it's a governance problem. If companies are kicked out of the 2 and 3 bedroom markets and housing construction is deregulated, parents will have more kids. But the Western govts don't want to do that 'cause Bolsheviks are in control.

In India, both homes and schools are expensive. Homes can't be helped at the moment due to rapid urbanization. But wealth growth is somewhat commensurate with growth in real estate. Once urbanization stabilizes, only with good governance can society ensure homes are affordable. The other factor is private schools. Half the children in India today go to private schools and many in cities have very high fees. Modi has deregulated private schools, so in time it could get cheaper as more and more schools come up in neighborhoods that currently lack schools. So these two have to stabilize for families to grow.

But whether your country is developing or developed, good governance is the key. Education, housing, and access to credit are the key metrics for having children. This requires common and gender-specific education, private property and land ownership, deregulated banking and housing sectors. The US used to have all of this until the 1980s, after education and housing reforms. It's also when they started their climate change rhetoric. This is essentially when the Bolshevik takeover began. After seeing how the real estate bubble damaged Japan, they recreated those conditions in the US, India, and China.

 

[Hyperactive ADD]

The Indus Valley Civilization is the only civilization known that has decreased income inequality with increased prosperity.

Inequality declined in the Bronze Age city of Mohenjo-daro | Antiquity | Cambridge Core

Inequality declined in the Bronze Age city of Mohenjo-daro

www.cambridge.org

At least in India, the Nationalists follow this culture. Modi and many of the Nationalist leaders chosen to lead the party do not have wealth or intend to have families and children to prevent dynasties, nepotism, and corruption.

You should take whatever politicians say with a grain of salt—and the same goes for celebrities. You might think they're unmarried, but in reality, they often have multiple wives and a bunch of kids; it's just that legally, none of it is tied to their name.

This is true, but the threshold is still high. When people become educated and civilized, they tend to have 2-3 children, even 5 at times, not 10-15.

2-3 children is the norm. What forces them to end up with 1 is career advancement and financial pressure. Women have been tempted away from having children in exchange for a career. But if a girl child grows up in a well-adjusted family and has a responsible husband, she will end up with more than 1 child.

In developed countries, especially in the West, large companies have bought family homes and inflated rent. This forces parents to divert money away from children, so they end up having just one. So it's a governance problem. If companies are kicked out of the 2 and 3 bedroom markets and housing construction is deregulated, parents will have more kids. But the Western govts don't want to do that 'cause Bolsheviks are in control.

In India, both homes and schools are expensive. Homes can't be helped at the moment due to rapid urbanization. But wealth growth is somewhat commensurate with growth in real estate. Once urbanization stabilizes, only with good governance can society ensure homes are affordable. The other factor is private schools. Half the children in India today go to private schools and many in cities have very high fees. Modi has deregulated private schools, so in time it could get cheaper as more and more schools come up in neighborhoods that currently lack schools. So these two have to stabilize for families to grow.

But whether your country is developing or developed, good governance is the key. Education, housing, and access to credit are the key metrics for having children. This requires common and gender-specific education, private property and land ownership, deregulated banking and housing sectors. The US used to have all of this until the 1980s, after education and housing reforms. It's also when they started their climate change rhetoric. This is essentially when the Bolshevik takeover began. After seeing how the real estate bubble damaged Japan, they recreated those conditions in the US, India, and China.

In developed countries, the middle class generally caps their family size at two children, with the vast majority having only one. The logic is incredibly simple: if your only child marries another only child, the resulting family structure becomes an 8-4-2-1 inverted pyramid. The wealth of ten elders will eventually be concentrated and passed down to you. While this might not single-handedly guarantee a leap into a higher social stratum, it ensures that your daily life will be largely free of major financial strain.

If you are the parent of an only child, you absolutely would not want your child to marry someone from a family with multiple siblings. Of course, it's a completely different story if you have more money than you could ever spend, but those people are the exception. This reality is fundamentally dictated by the dynamics of wealth distribution and inheritance relations.