Plaaf

**Officer of Engineers** · 29 Jun 07,, 14:15

Jimmy,

You do know that the PLAAF (as opposed to the PLANAF) has never left the sight of land.

**~~FiRepower~~** · 29 Jun 07,, 14:46

Originally Posted by wabpilot

Brutality is not good training, nor does it breed a high standard of discipline or even obediance to orders. In fact just the opposite.

Hours were not so plentiful for the Sovs. Because of that, their mishap rate was higher than anywhere in the west. Just as today for the Red Chinese. The mishap rate is high, the level of proficiency is low.

I said they had high discipline and their training was very brutal , with that said i meant their training was hard and difficult..
That is no secret , just look at the Red machine aka. Soviet hockey team , they won almost every championship in 40 years , their team was made from officers , they had soviet discipline and trained every day intense and they beat everybody , you can't claim to tell me that soviet army was badly trained son , that is just not true , their maintance was bad , they had lots of accidents true , because of this , but their army was well trained.

**Officer of Engineers** · 29 Jun 07,, 14:59

Originally Posted by FiRepower

I said they had high discipline and their training was very brutal , with that said i meant their training was hard and difficult..
That is no secret , just look at the Red machine aka. Soviet hockey team , they won almost every championship in 40 years , their team was made from officers , they had soviet discipline and trained every day intense and they beat everybody , you can't claim to tell me that soviet army was badly trained son , that is just not true , their maintance was bad , they had lots of accidents true , because of this , but their army was well trained.

You have alot of misconceptions here. Both Wabpilot and myself served during the Cold War and we were intimately aware of our enemy. We were well trained. The Soviet Army was well rehearsed. There is a big difference. We train to react to different situations. They rehearsed their battles. If they rehearsed right, it's gravy. If they rehearsed wrong, it's graveyard. And we trained to put every monkey wrench we knew into their schedule.

**~~FiRepower~~** · 29 Jun 07,, 15:06

Correct me if im wrong but rehearsing=training

Anyway thats what I meant , I meant rehearsing when I said training.
I agree on your point about training to react in different situations.

**Officer of Engineers** · 29 Jun 07,, 15:14

The biggest difference is the decision making levels between us and them. We have a substantially larger reserves than they do (2 up, 1 back for us vs 7 up, 1 back for them). That means that we can exploit any situation much easier than they can.

Here's a scenario. A battalion commander came upon a company level stiff resistance. For us, we'll take the time to probe and find out if we can go around. For them, they don't have the time nor the space. They'll either be stopped or plow right through.

**~~FiRepower~~** · 29 Jun 07,, 16:00

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

The biggest difference is the decision making levels between us and them. We have a substantially larger reserves than they do (2 up, 1 back for us vs 7 up, 1 back for them). That means that we can exploit any situation much easier than they can.

Here's a scenario. A battalion commander came upon a company level stiff resistance. For us, we'll take the time to probe and find out if we can go around. For them, they don't have the time nor the space. They'll either be stopped or plow right through.

With this I completly agree

**Jimmy** · 30 Jun 07,, 00:15

Originally Posted by FiRepower

Don't think Soviets had bad training , Soviet military discipline was the most brutal in the world , thats why soviet soldiers were known to be the most disciplined and obeying soldiers , and look at the flying hours of soviet pilots , they had nice training

I think their obedience had more to do with pretty much anybody getting shot for mouthing off, or any other infraction.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Jimmy,

You do know that the PLAAF (as opposed to the PLANAF) has never left the sight of land.

I never made the case that they're a threat anywhere except in their own little bubble. But if someone goes inside that bubble, watch out. You could shwack them 10-1 and still lose just through attrition.

**Scrapdog** · 30 Jun 07,, 01:46

Originally Posted by FiRepower

I said they had high discipline and their training was very brutal , with that said i meant their training was hard and difficult..
That is no secret , just look at the Red machine aka. Soviet hockey team , they won almost every championship in 40 years , their team was made from officers , they had soviet discipline and trained every day intense and they beat everybody , you can't claim to tell me that soviet army was badly trained son , that is just not true , their maintance was bad , they had lots of accidents true , because of this , but their army was well trained.

Their air force doctrine and training is one of the most, if not the most archaic methods of training. Their training is very scripted and the "thought process" is completey taken away from the pilot and put into the hands of the ground radar intercept controllers. Most of the times, the Russian pilots won't even turn on their radar (they're not allowed to) until told by the ground controllers a few miles before the merge. Their set ups involve mainly 1 v 1 and 2 v 2 intercepts...with little to no manuevering - very, very basic...the stuff a US fighter pilot learns the first few months of fighter training.

The US training on the other hand is 180 degrees out. We routinely train at the 4 ship level, and are almost always outnumbered. The thought process for the tactics is put almost exclusively with the pilots and we put little to no cuffs on our red air. We also train in multiple large force exercises throughout the year (Red Flag at Nellis, Cope Thunder in Alaska, and Maple Flag in Canada) to name a few...with those exercises number in 8 vs. 20 or more red air.

**tphuang** · 30 Jun 07,, 04:48

Originally Posted by wabpilot

I agree, the ROC is as far as the Peoples Republic can project power. I have real doubts about anything in the PLAAF inventory other than the Su-27s and 30s can even operate in the vicinity of Taiwan. I question the PLAAF's ability to provide GCI coverage that far from the mainland. Without GCI coverage everything but the Sukhois are blind.

they have about enough AWACS for the Taiwanese scenario. J-10 and JH-7A can both operate in Taiwan. In fact, JH-7A will be tasked with much of the SEAD missions in the early part of the war.

**~~FiRepower~~** · 30 Jun 07,, 10:57

Originally Posted by tphuang

they have about enough AWACS for the Taiwanese scenario. J-10 and JH-7A can both operate in Taiwan. In fact, JH-7A will be tasked with much of the SEAD missions in the early part of the war.

Don't overestimate chinese power projection

**Officer of Engineers** · 30 Jun 07,, 13:22

And why don't you shut up and learn from the experts.

Jimmy who has never took a real good look at the PLAAF got more than enough correct insights than you amateur ramblings.

Colonel Ken Allen, USAF, former defence attache to Beijing who has more than a few friends within the PLA has written extensively on the PLAAF. The PLAAF's job is not air superiority. It is air denial. They don't want to win the skies. They cannot win the skies. Even against the RoCAF. What they want to do is to prevent enemy birds from crapping on their bellycrawlers. As long as enemy birds are busy with PLAAF birds, they cannot crap on PLA bellycrawlers. Even if the PLAAF is swept from the skies, the enemy still has ground based AD to contend with and even here, the idea is to prevent enemy birds from deciding the action. Ground based AD has the job to prevent enemy birds from making an impact and that includes being a target themselves. For every bomb dropped on the AD means one less bomb dropped on the bellycrawlers deciding the action.

Don't be ignorant. You know alot less than you pretend to know.

**Bluesman** · 30 Jun 07,, 17:30

Originally Posted by Scrapdog

Their air force doctrine and training is one of the most, if not the most archaic methods of training. Their training is very scripted and the "thought process" is completey taken away from the pilot and put into the hands of the ground radar intercept controllers. Most of the times, the Russian pilots won't even turn on their radar (they're not allowed to) until told by the ground controllers a few miles before the merge. Their set ups involve mainly 1 v 1 and 2 v 2 intercepts...with little to no manuevering - very, very basic...the stuff a US fighter pilot learns the first few months of fighter training.

The US training on the other hand is 180 degrees out. We routinely train at the 4 ship level, and are almost always outnumbered. The thought process for the tactics is put almost exclusively with the pilots and we put little to no cuffs on our red air. We also train in multiple large force exercises throughout the year (Red Flag at Nellis, Cope Thunder in Alaska, and Maple Flag in Canada) to name a few...with those exercises number in 8 vs. 20 or more red air.

One of my favorite sayings:
'Show ME a commie fighter pilot with some initiative, and I'll show YOU a Foxbat in Japan.'

**HistoricalDavid** · 21 Nov 07,, 16:12

^^^^
Belenko Say: Gold!!!!

**Shadowsided** · 23 Nov 07,, 02:33

Originally Posted by WECIV

I am pretty sure those number are quite a bit low. Do not have my desktop with me or I could give you exacts, but those are not correct at all.

W

That could be very easily managed with things like flashdrives,del.icio.us and the firefox browser with the del.cio.us plug in.

Back to the topic, those numbers are quite low and I'm unsure of China's GCI and C4I infrastructure. The Chinese AF is definetely not an air force to under estimate in terms of defense.Their modernization process seems quite interesting such as the new flankers and possible upgrades to them.