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
MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions
- Thread starter Picdelamirand-oil
- Start date
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.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-darowww.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.
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.
This is inherently a Chinese problem where there is no land ownership. In India and democratic economies, land ownership is your ticket to financial freedom due to its stability and high growth rate.
In India, all you have to do is save up enough money to buy some land when your kid is born, by the time the kid is an adult, the land price will take care of the kid's future. Land is very expensive in highly urbanised areas but in the outskirts you get good deals. And because India's urbanizing, the outskirts become part of the main city by the time the kids grow up. That's effectively retirement too.
The stock market in India is more volatile, but at least it's fair, unlike in China. Investing in a large corporate firm that deals with energy or high-end construction for the long term will ensure stable growth for your stock if you aren't interested in taking risks. Western stock markets and exchange rates are even better.
Chinese neither have land ownership nor good stocks to invest in. The only good place to invest is in apartments, and that's one of the worst places to invest in for anything except rent.
To put it in perspective, I recently bought some land for 9 million INR, I negotiated it down from 10m. In 3 months, the value will go up to 12m. Doubling from initial investment is expected in less than 2 years. That's how fast growth can be. Just 1 month ago it was 8.5m. But last year I booked an apartment for 9m and it's only 10m after almost a year. It will take a long time to double, but it will give good rent.
The biggest threat of the j-36 is it's ability to fire pl-17 from its iwb.
Pl-17 effectiveness remains questionable beyond 200 km but it still makes it a threat. Also it's larger bay can carry their cruise missile arsenal.
It's a good design all the third engine positioning seems quite flawed for some reason.