1 I think it looks cool.  But I also have my pastel colored sport coat sleeves pulled up to my elbows.  And I'm wearing Vuarnet sunglasses.  And no socks.  And yes,  those a re Sperry Topsiders.

2 I just recently re-watched The Battle of the X-Planes NOVA special from 2003 or 2004, about the competition between the X-35 and the X-32. At one point it was mentioned that the JSF was intended to cost about 1/3 of the F-22. Now it looks like it's going to cost close to the same as the F-22. Insane.

Anyhoo, we can still mock the Chinese because at least the US has a fifth-generation fighter in service, while they won't have one until the end of the decade, even if what was shown wasn't just a photoshop.

3 The Air Force is unconstitutional.

4 There is, of course, probably only one certain way we'll know what they do or don't have.  Mark me down on the 'not crazy enough to want to learn the hard way' list, though.

Meh.  At the rate things are going, they won't even need it...to use against us, anyway.  Now, the next Sino-Russian conflict...

5 Chinese culture places a high value on compliance rather than individuality, and as a result, they invent nothing new. They make great copies of things, but try to think of a great Chinese invention. My list: Gunpowder, back in the 800s. That's all I can think of. So the worst thing we can do is sell them military technology, which Clinton did and O' will do soon enough. Scary thing is, as much as O' hates this country, can you imagine what he's going to do and who he's going to pardon once he becomes a lame duck?

6 There are fewer fighters because the concept has changed. Fighters are mainly needed to A: escort bombers to enemy B: protect your stuff from enemy bombers. With more guided missiles to replace bombers and better AA targeting systems to replace fighter defence there is simply less need for air control.

7 After looking at the pics...is it just me, or is that a rather large aircraft?  Maybe almost the size of the F-111 or such?  I think we may be talking about a strike aircraft, rather than a dedicated fighter here.  Not that the nasty feeling this thing makes in the back of my head gets any better for that fact.

Also interesting how some of the control surfaces look like they 'fold' away...why would that be so?  Intended for carrier use?  (Does the PLN even have a carrier force of note?)

Curiouser and curiouser...

8

 look at the average age of fighters themselves

Yeh, looks pretty new compared to the bombers I heard this morning.

9 Considering the air force is primarily focused on the Joint Strike Fighter, which incoporates many systems from the F-22, and is arguably more versatle, you shouldn't be too worried about this.

10 Posted by: Al at January 06, 2011 09:55 AM (nYMZn)

Which also appears to be a boondoggle, from what I read.

11 Those buck-toothed, bespectaled orientals could never mount an attack on the Fleet's home port. Just park the planes closer together, so the locals can't steal parts, and everything will be fine.

12 Yes, but it's farther along than a Chinese aircraft that, according to Danger Room over at Wired, doesn't even have an engine design yet.

13 Stealth schmealth. Ours is better by a long shot.

It has eco-sensitive unisex restroom facilities with mooslim footbaths in the rear cabin. ...and a fabulous walk-in closet.

14 Does the PLN even have a carrier force of note?

They don't have a carrier force at all.

15

I know the idea is that we don't need the same kind of fighters that we did need. However, every time we make these defense cuts I get worried that they aren't looking broadly enough at potential threats.

Interestingly, on one of those James Burke Connections videos, he said that the Chinese, because very early they had to master irrigation and thus had to regulate their society to accomplish the task, they pigeonholed people in such a way that smothered innovation being used across functions. For example, they developed gun powder for entertainment but the entertainment people couldn't morph into weapons people because of the stratification of society. In the west, a metal worker might talk to a fireworks guy and create a cannon but not in China.

So cali grump is right, they may do math really really well but don't tend to think analyticly. They stay in their strata.

16 Scary thing is, as much as O' hates this country, can you imagine what he's going to do and who he's going to pardon once he becomes a lame duck?

hopefully he'll have to pardon Eric Holder

17

The F-111 should not be included in that graph.  But, I digress.

I touched on a piece of this topic yesterday in the debt limit thread.  We are dangerously close to stagnating in our military posture because of bad choice structure.

It goes like this:  We recognize the threats that China is developing that could seriously affect our ability to respond in a crisis.  Anti-ship ballistic missiles, more effective submarine technology and more capable aircraft are the most visible of these systems.  Our responses are in the pipeline:  The F-22 and F-35, a new generation of conventional strike weapons that are almost strategic in impact and surface ship rail guns.

However, we project what the new systems will cost on top of the existing force structure, which needs a major re-think in light of already developing threats, come to a conclusion that we can't afford the new stuff and then keep both doctrine and forces in place that probably could win today--could possibly win in 2015--and probably would lose in 2020.

I'm as big a fan of the U.S. Navy as you will find, but we've put all of our eggs into the carrier basket and it's reminding me of pre-World War II days when the primacy of the battleship was assumed.  We need a shift in defense thinking:  Doctrine, systems, force structure and funding.

18 Twenty five years ago the state of PRC military aviation was absolutely laughable as their manufacturing technology was so low. The tubing runs for hydraulics and bleed air in their aircraft were made from the same kind of iron pipes you would find at Home Depot and they were installed with hammers and 2x4s. Since then they have been spying relentlessly on our defense industry and developing a strong manufacturing base. I think the results of all that activity will be truly terrifying.

19 O/T Maryland legislator pushing civil unions for everyone. Knew that was coming. Bet the gay lobby doesn't think it's good enough though.

20 O/T: I have posted the eval of those min-modular reactors as promised on the headline thread. Post 67.

21 "Before we start mocking the Chinese we'd better get some F-35s in inventory, or at least restore the F-22 buy that SecDef Gates canceled."

How about both, since that is what was intended in the first place.

The F-22 was designed to replace the F-15 Eagle, twin engined air superiority fighter with some air to ground capability.

The F-35 is in three variants, one for straight runways to replace the F-16, one for carrier service to replace the F-18C-D Hornets, and one STOVL version to replace the AV-8 Harrier for the USMC as well as the RAF and RN.

One thing that drives me nuts about this whole debate is that some politicians and media people began to talk about these two aircraft as if they were in competition with each other for the same role, when if you look at them it is clear they are not.
They were meant to be complimentary just as the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Falcon have been.

The fly-off head to head was between the YF-22, from Lockheed Martin, and the YF-23 from Northrop Grumman. Lockheed won the contract, so the Northrop prototype is now a museum piece.

The JSF program had another heat to head fly off of prototypes, with Lockheed's F-35 against Boeing's entry, I can't remember the designation number . Lockheed won that one too, so Boeing's prototype never went into production.

It really flummoxed me that among others, Secretary Gates and even Senator McCain were taking the "one or the other" line a couple of years ago.

Gates wanted budget cuts, while I think McCain favored the F-35 because the Navy and USMC were getting them, while the F-22 was strictly an Air Force acquisition.

We need them all, dammit.

Just look at the age chart, for crying out loud.

I remember stories of F-15s literally breaking in half mid-flight recently from metal fatigue cracks going undetected.

22 Developing a new aircraft, especially one as radical as the F-35, takes a lot of time. And often there are a lot of significant delays.

23 16 Does the PLN even have a carrier force of note?

They don't have a carrier force at all.
-------
Internet rumor has it they will be launching their first carrier sometime this year.

24 I'm as big a fan of the U.S. Navy as you will find, but we've put all of our eggs into the carrier basket and it's reminding me of pre-World War II days when the primacy of the battleship was assumed.

If you are talking about total force structure, no we haven't placed all our eggs in the carrier basket. The problem is that we have a lot of missions for those carriers. Currently they are the ONLY means we have of projecting force in most parts of the world. You can see that by over-worked they are and the fact that we are keeping some that are 50 years old in service.

We did have a force structure evaluation going on under Bush, but under Obama it has turned into how we can get rid of ALL of it study.

That is the problem.

25 21 O/T Maryland legislator pushing civil unions for everyone. Knew that was coming. Bet the gay lobby doesn't think it's good enough though. Posted by: dagny at January 06, 2011 10:04 AM (d2Pb5) IMHO that is the best solution to the problem. And I agree that it won't be enough for the gay lobby because, again IMHO, that lobby's agenda is not to provide the benefits of civil unions for gays, but rather to use the power of the state to force certain religions to modify their doctrines. Despite the fact that such action by the gov't is EXACTLY the reason the Establishment Clause was included in the 1st Amendment.

26 Considering the air force is primarily focused on the Joint Strike Fighter, which incoporates many systems from the F-22, and is arguably more versatle, you shouldn't be too worried about this. Posted by: Al at January 06, 2011 09:55 AM (nYMZn) That's wrong. The F-22 is a DEDICATED fighter for Air Superiority that is far ahead of anything in the world, including any version of the F-35. And the F-35 is far far far behind schedule. Some of it's variants, such as the Marine variant are already being considered for cuts by Gates. The Navy version is so far behind schedule that the Navy had to oder more F-18 Super Hornets and we are still going to face a server fighter gap in the Navy soon.

27 Considering the air force is primarily focused on the Joint Strike Fighter, which incoporates many systems from the F-22, and is arguably more versatle, you shouldn't be too worried about this. - - - - Actually, the F-35 is inferior to the F22, and the obsession with having a jack of all trades is precisely the problem. The F-35 sacrifices air superiority for ground support, but suffers from the same limitations as it's predecessor the F16, namely that it flies too fast and is too fragile to loiter over a target and get close enough to engage the enemy in the face of heavy ground fire. We'd be better off with a few hundred more F22s, and then a fleet of dedicated close air support craft, both A-xs and heavier gunships.

28 Since then they have been spying relentlessly on our defense industry and developing a strong manufacturing base.

But that $10,000 they gave my campaign was huge!

29 #25  Internet rumor has it they will be launching their first carrier sometime this year.

That refitted Russian piece of junk? 

I'm not worried about that so much as their advanced missile capabilities. 

30 Developing a new aircraft, especially one as radical as the F-35, takes a lot of time. And often there are a lot of significant delays. Posted by: JEA at January 06, 2011 10:08 AM (YNPwP) The big problem with the F-35 is the already failed concept of one plane for all missions. It has NEVER worked before and there is no reason to think it will work this time. This is a huge bundagle just waiting to explode.

31

Developing a new aircraft, especially one as radical as the F-35, takes a lot of time. And often there are a lot of significant delays.

This is how we talk ourselves out of things and if we are going to do that, then the logical thing to do is to look at what comes after the F-35.  The F-22 and the F-35 are probably the last manned airbreathing aircraft we will build.  This is precisely the kind of debate that I have in mind in post above.  Do we still want and need to send pilots into harm's way in our next generation of combat aircraft?  I would vote "no", but we have entire force structures and organizational cultures devoted to "yes."

 

32 Actually, the F-35 is inferior to the F22, and the obsession with having a jack of all trades is precisely the problem. The F-35 sacrifices air superiority for ground support, but suffers from the same limitations as it's predecessor the F16, namely that it flies too fast and is too fragile to loiter over a target and get close enough to engage the enemy in the face of heavy ground fire. We'd be better off with a few hundred more F22s, and then a fleet of dedicated close air support craft, both A-xs and heavier gunships. Posted by: Alex at January 06, 2011 10:11 AM (yO2tH) Absolutely right

33 My late Air Force pilot dad is spinning in his grave.  However, he actually began spinning when we put a Marxist douchebag in the WH.

34 31 #25  Internet rumor has it they will be launching their first carrier sometime this year.

That refitted Russian piece of junk?
------
Yes. The ship formerly known as Varyag.

35 "It looks like something that might have been designed in 1985." Thank Gaia for a Democratic Congress. If we don't upgrade our military, the Chinese have nothing new to steal.

36 Internet rumor has it they will be launching their first carrier sometime this year. That refitted Russian piece of junk? I'm not worried about that so much as their advanced missile capabilities. Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at January 06, 2011 10:12 AM (9hSKh) That is not correct. The old Russian Carrier they bought and fixed up was only for training their personal. The Chicoms are building a brand spanking new Carrier from scratch

37 Good thing we canceled the proven F-22 in order to buy over-budget, over-deadline F-35s.

38

Cancelling the F-22 just when unit costs were coming down will go down in history with Hitler's idea to use the Me-262 first and foremost as a bomber, delaying its use as a fighter for two years.  Or the notion enough machine guns on a bomber meant it would always get through.  That the Panther was a good enough jet for dogfighting over Korea.  Or that the Century Series were good enough for Vietnam...

There's only one thing which is always true in air power: going into the next war we will think our advantage is larger than it actually is.  

39

If you are talking about total force structure, no we haven't placed all our eggs in the carrier basket. The problem is that we have a lot of missions for those carriers.

Yeah, Vic--I should have phrased that differently.  We do have a force structure that can do other things, but it, too is taxed to the limit and is short on firepower in the case of the latest ship designs.

You power projection point is spot on.

40 The big problem with the F-35 is the already failed concept of one plane for all missions. It has NEVER worked before and there is no reason to think it will work this time. This is a huge bundagle just waiting to explode. Posted by: nevergiveup at January 06, 2011 10:13 AM (0GFWk) The "one airframe for all missions" fallacy is the the Pentagon what True Communism is to leftists. They know it's failed every time and every place it has been tried, but they believe that is because the people who tried were not as smart as they are.

41 The Varyag may be outfitted but the Chicoms are reportedly building aircraft carriers from scratch.

42 The Varyag may be outfitted but the Chicoms are reportedly building aircraft carriers from scratch.

How are they for submarines?

43 My late Air Force pilot dad is spinning in his grave. However, he actually began spinning when we put a Marxist douchebag in the WH.
 

Posted by: Jane D'oh at January 06, 2011 10:14 AM (UOM4

My dad is in Arlington Cemetary facing the Pentagon next to the AF memorial. I am glad he missed the kenyan communist. I sorta fantasize about the whole place rising up and taking the govt back from the marxists. Wouldn't even be a horror movie, more of an independance day thing.

44 we heard the same nonsense during the good old cold war with the USSR ...  they were always one fighter away from air superiority ...  turns out their crap was just that, crap ...  I don't see the chicoms doing much better ...

45
Since then they have been spying relentlessly on our defense industry and developing a strong manufacturing base.

They've also been helping themselves to Russian defense technology and our semiconductor technology as well. There are going to be many issues with their defense technology/manufacturing base over the next 10 years, but once the bugs are shaken out, we're in trouble.

How about both, since that is what was intended in the first place.

Quite true - I should have written it that way.

That refitted Russian piece of junk?

The issue is not with the quality of the aircraft carrier, but that they're bothering with one at all. This means that they're looking beyond the acquisition of Taiwan to real regional hegemony.

46 Last I checked, the Chicoms had 8 nuclear-powered submarines and 55 or so diesel powered versions.

Could be old, though.

Anyone else?

47 44 How are they for submarines?
--------
I saw something the other day about them building a bunch more, but didn't pay  much attention.

Don't forget they surfaced one in the middle of one of our carrier groups a couple of years ago.

48

turns out their crap was just that, crap ...  I don't see the chicoms doing much better ...

1,000 craps will beat 50 fantastics almost every time.

49 we heard the same nonsense during the good old cold war with the USSR ... they were always one fighter away from air superiority ... turns out their crap was just that, crap ... I don't see the chicoms doing much better ... Posted by: Jeff at January 06, 2011 10:21 AM (A3tpD) Except unlike the Cold War days, we're shit canning our top of the line Fighter just for the hell of it and to nice?

50 #46

One could argue that the Chinese are better at stealing our crap and adapting it than the Soviets were.

51 The Chicoms are building up their Armed Forces more for regional hegemony than for world wide conquest. To bad Gates and Obama don't seem to care, or don't seem to think that is a threat.

52 1,000 craps will beat 50 fantastics almost every time. Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 06, 2011 10:22 AM (B+qrE) Or, as Lenin said: "Quantity has a quality all its own".

53 1,000 craps will beat 50 fantastics almost every time.

Which would be a good reason to invest more heavily in UAV fighters since they would be cheap by comparison and expendable.

54 OK, I'm curious.  We know the Chinese are working on some pretty advanced missile tech, and their electronics are probably fairly capable; some of the stuff I've seen seems to indicate those two are how they intend to deal with US carrier task forces if/when the time comes (I'm coin toss on that).

Presumably then, if they're working on a strike aircraft of some kind (and that's still what this thing looks like to me), what's it intended for?  Defensive installations in Taiwan?  Maybe, but given apparent state of doctrine, the need seems almost dubious...what else, then?

Why do I keep getting this nagging feeling we shouldn't be the only party worried by this...?

55 The issue is not with the quality of the aircraft carrier, but that they're bothering with one at all. This means that they're looking beyond the acquisition of Taiwan to real regional hegemony.

True.  I didn't mean to downplay the foreign-policy significance of the Chi-Coms looking into acquiring/building carriers. 

56 1,000 craps will beat 50 fantastics almost every time. Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 06, 2011 10:22 AM (B+qrE) Or, as Lenin said: "Quantity has a quality all its own". Posted by: Nighthawk at January 06, 2011 10:27 AM (02uN6) Well maybe. But see while the enemy will have thousands of fighters, we were suppose to have about 7-800 F-22s. The geniuses in DC now have cut that to around 178??????? Not counting losses from normal operational crashes. I'd say we might be fucked

57 @ dagny,

My maternal grandfather (and now grandmother as well) is buried in Arlington as well, within 200 feet of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and one row down from the Army private who designed it.

58 Reading of the Constitution coming up on C-Span.  Lib heads everywhere set to explode.  Joy Behar hardest hit.

59 #58

We were fucked the day the "Republican" SoD decided to not only go along with defense cuts, but promote them as if they'll benefit American security. He's become the poster child of bullshit cuts.

60 #55

We should invest in UAV fighters, too. But until we can work up a feasible option and mass-produce it, we should be keeping stock of proven and existing systems.

61 56 Presumably then, if they're working on a strike aircraft of some kind (and that's still what this thing looks like to me), what's it intended for?  Defensive installations in Taiwan?  Maybe, but given apparent state of doctrine, the need seems almost dubious...what else, then?
-----
MHO? Russia should be worried.

China needs women and Russian men seem to be intent on drinking themselves to death.

I've also seen something recently about Putin wanting to bring people from the far-flung rural areas into larger cities where it's less expensive to manage them.

62 60 Reading of the Constitution coming up on C-Span.  Lib heads everywhere set to explode.  Joy Behar hardest hit.
Posted by: Jane D'oh

Probably sounds like a giant popcorn popper in Berkeley,  CA.

63 We were fucked the day the "Republican" SoD decided to not only go along with defense cuts, but promote them as if they'll benefit American security. He's become the poster child of bullshit cuts. Posted by: Benson at January 06, 2011 10:30 AM (qzcNU) If your mean Gates, I'd call him a traitor. Any man that can serve 2 masters ( Bush-Obama) can't be trusted and never could be. I hated him for many years before he became Sec. Of Defense.

64

The Chicoms are building up their Armed Forces more for regional hegemony than for world wide conquest. To bad Gates and Obama don't seem to care, or don't seem to think that is a threat.

This is something that a lot of people don't seem to understand.  The Chinese aren't going to try and beat the US in WW3.  They just have to be able to beat 5-7 Brigades, with air support, in 30-45 days.  The reason is that any regional conflict will likely involve the disruption of U.S. communications networks, combined with attempts to restrict access by U.S. reinforcements to the theater of operations.  They won't be able to maintain this for very long, but if they can bring themselves to an advantageous position within the first month, they can then negotiate on their terms.

As a writer once pointed out, Western military thinkers view conflict through the prism of chess, where victory is complete with the distruction of a king, or a stalemate is equal for both sides.  Chinese military thinkers view conflict through the prism of Go, where both sides make gains, but the winner has gained more territory than his opponant. 

65

Why do I keep getting this nagging feeling we shouldn't be the only party worried by this...?

We're not.  But we have to calibrate our doctrine and forces to fulfill our obligations and protect our interests.

66 The major problem with our military procurement system is that it costs far too much and most of the time it produces shit.  Why is that?

Everything about it in actual practice is political. The members of congress fall all over themselves in forcing development and construction in a manner to benefit their district/State. Effectiveness for combat is secondary.

Couple that with the Democrats anti-military view and their belief that every dollar of the federal budget should be spent on socialism and you get what we have now.

67 Don't forget they surfaced one in the middle of one of our carrier groups a couple of years ago. Posted by: Anachronda at January 06, 2011 10:22 AM (6fER6) Most likely that sub was driven to the surface against its will.

68 This is something that a lot of people don't seem to understand. The Chinese aren't going to try and beat the US in WW3. They just have to be able to beat 5-7 Brigades, with air support, in 30-45 days. The reason is that any regional conflict will likely involve the disruption of U.S. communications networks, combined with attempts to restrict access by U.S. reinforcements to the theater of operations. They won't be able to maintain this for very long, but if they can bring themselves to an advantageous position within the first month, they can then negotiate on their terms. As a writer once pointed out, Western military thinkers view conflict through the prism of chess, where victory is complete with the distruction of a king, or a stalemate is equal for both sides. Chinese military thinkers view conflict through the prism of Go, where both sides make gains, but the winner has gained more territory than his opponant. Posted by: Alex at January 06, 2011 10:36 AM (yO2tH) Yup and once the Japanese realize we will not defend Taiwan, all bets are off. They will either become a nuclear power on their own or throw in with the chicoms for self preservation.

69

The reason is that any regional conflict will likely involve the disruption of U.S. communications networks, combined with attempts to restrict access by U.S. reinforcements to the theater of operations.

Underappreciated point.  We haven't faced that since World War II.

70 My first introduction to the fallacy of military procurement and defense needs was the so-called "missile gap". Kennedy won on that issue (ah those halcyon days when the Dems still believed in national defense).

After I went into the military a few years later I learned what a load of shit that "missile gap" was.

71 I think maybe we are comparing this thing to the wrong platform.

This is not the Chinese version of the F-22.  It is the Chinese version of the F-117, and probably optimized for the same sort of decapitation missions.

This might be another carrier-killer, and I would be more worried about whether the Aegis system can detect and kill this thing than how it compares to the F-22.

72 Most likely that sub was driven to the surface against its will. Posted by: eman at January 06, 2011 10:39 AM (0aJSF) No it wasn't. Now whether we knew it was there or not is still classified.

73 Brian72 - I thought they cut up the YF-23's -- are they in a museum somewhere?

74 I'm not an aircraft expert, but look at the exhaust nozzles on the Chicom  jet.
Looks like a large heat signature is possible.

75

Most likely that sub was driven to the surface against its will.

Nope.  It was quite a shocker.

76 The biggest threat to our success in any fight with China will be the Libtards here at home.

77 Here's an article at Asia Sentinel that talks about some of the things China is up to with their submarines, although it's focused primarily on the shoddy state of Taiwanese defense:

http://tinyurl.com/3yylm3c

78 We should invest in UAV fighters, too. But until we can work up a feasible option and mass-produce it, we should be keeping stock of proven and existing systems.

For many missions the need for a piloted fighter is not going away any time soon and if we are sending pilots up they should have the best platform we can build. That said if we are going to limit the quantity due to price we also need a cheaper force multiplier. The internal politics in the military are slowing the advancement of Fighter UAVs IMO just as politics lead the decision on the F22.

79 Nope. It was quite a shocker. Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 06, 2011 10:42 AM (B+qrE) What makes you say that?

80 This might be another carrier-killer, and I would be more worried about whether the Aegis system can detect and kill this thing than how it compares to the F-22.

The best way to shoot down an enemy aircraft is with an air superiority fighter, so the F-22 is still relevant.

81 Nope. It was quite a shocker. Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 06, 2011 10:42 AM (B+qrE) What makes you say that? Posted by: eman at January 06, 2011 10:44 AM (0aJSF) because the "unofficial" version is that we did not know it was there. I am not sure that is true, but that is the rumor. We certainly did NOT surface it ourselves.

82 No it wasn't. Now whether we knew it was there or not is still classified.

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 06, 2011 10:41 AM (0GFWk)

Ideally the squawking about the Chinese being able to sneak up on our carrier group is cover for our ability to detect them.

Hopefully.

83 46 we heard the same nonsense during the good old cold war with the USSR ...  they were always one fighter away from air superiority ...  turns out their crap was just that, crap ...  I don't see the chicoms doing much better ...

Posted by: Jeff at January 06, 2011 10:21 AM

In other words, yet another "Jeff" shows his ass at AoSHQ. 

Exit question:  Are the "Jeffs" or the "Christophers" the dumbest group of posters here?

84

Or, as Lenin said: "Quantity has a quality all its own".

Posted by: Nighthawk at January 06, 2011 10:27 AM (02uN6)

That was Stalin who said that, I believe.

85

eman, here's one account of the Sing-class surfaces within range of Kitty Hawk.

86

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 06, 2011 10:13 AM (B+qrE)

Until we can trust a UAV fighter with full autonomy... UAVs will not be adequate against any technicly competent Enemy...

People look at Afganistan and Pakistan as proof of the UAV concept... but we are using them in small numbers, against an enemy who does not have the technology to combat them...

Two things will kill a UAV fighter against a first line opponent...

Broadspectrum jamming from directional antennas... pointed at the Satys...

and the Lag inherent in Sat systems (can be up to 1/2 second, which is eternity in combat... and 1/2 second is forever in modern highspeed air combat).

87 The best way to shoot down an enemy aircraft is with an air superiority fighter, so the F-22 is still relevant. Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 06, 2011 10:45 AM (TpXEI) Well While I am a strong component of building many more F-22s, they are not the issue with defending Carriers. They are Air Force land based fighters, not ever meant to be Navy Fighters. Force Protection of the Carriers, and the Task Force, would fall mainly to the F-18 Super Hornets or the F-35s if they ever become operational.

88

Song-class

Dammit.

89 Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at January 06, 2011 10:46 AM (o2QOm)

No, this is a reasonable point of discussion. Are the Chinese capable of building a quality product at the cutting edge of technology?

Judging by the consumer products I have seen and used, and the many stories of sub-standard construction in China; my guess is that they would have a difficult time changing the focus of their manufacturing sector to produce the quality necessary for this plane.

90 The best way to shoot down an enemy aircraft is with an air superiority fighter, so the F-22 is still relevant.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 06, 2011 10:45 AM (TpXEI)

Nobody says it is not, but we don't have enough of them to be everywhere, and they are not the platforms that actually detect stealth planes, so the point about AEGIS still stands.

91 If anyone wants to gag go check out the front page of yahoo now. Top news stories include headlines "GOP breaks vows" and "GOP move olitical stunt?" While their headlines about Obama include "Obama first to wear sandals", "Michelles sculpted arms", and "Mrs. Obama's shoulders".

92

I'm not an aircraft expert, but look at the exhaust nozzles on the Chicom  jet.
Looks like a large heat signature is possible. ~sig

It's a prototype.  The engines are still in development.  The prototype is probably a platform for development and testing of the radar defeating skin on the airframe.

93 here's one account of the Sing-class surfaces within range of Kitty Hawk.

How even a diesel-electric sub can escape detection like this is something that better be studied.  Are we running out of sonabuoys?  Aren't the picket ships running active sonar?

94

Oh, and on the F-22 issue???

Cancelling the F-22 was like if the Army Air Corp, in 1938, had the F-86 fighter jet ready to deploy, and then cancelled it... because somone had an plan to build the Skyknight (Douglas F3D) 10 years later...  Do you really think Japan would have even considered Pearl Harbor under those circumstances???

One thing about Air Forces, is the enemy must FEAR them... to have a deterence factor.

95 Well While I am a strong component of building many more F-22s, they are not the issue with defending Carriers. They are Air Force land based fighters, not ever meant to be Navy Fighters

I didn't realize the F-22 was not designed for carrier service.  Mea culpa.

It does seem to me that an air superiority fighter for the Navy would be a good idea.

96 Judging by the consumer products I have seen and used, and the many stories of sub-standard construction in China; my guess is that they would have a difficult time changing the focus of their manufacturing sector to produce the quality necessary for this plane.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at January 06, 2011 10:50 AM

Well, I think the Soviets managed to produce some remarkably robust platforms despite specializing in shoddy industrial practices.  I don't think we can just dismiss recent Chinese military production as worthless junk.

97 The SuperHornets are still pretty bad assed machines.

98 "here's one account of the Sing-class surfaces within range of Kitty Hawk." Weak sauce. Unnamed sources, third-hand accounts. The worst thing for the Chinese sub commander to do would be to surface then.

99 How even a diesel-electric sub can escape detection like this is something that better be studied.  Are we running out of sonabuoys?  Aren't the picket ships running active sonar?

Posted by: toby928™ at January 06, 2011 10:52 AM (S5YRY)

Diesel boats on battery are quieter than Nuc boats... and what happened there is they laid in wait, near the bottom, silent, and let the Carrier Battle group run over them...

And no... on normal Peacetime cruises we don't run active sonar... because it bothers the Whales (and no, I'm no kidding).

100 I didn't realize the F-22 was not designed for carrier service. Mea culpa. It does seem to me that an air superiority fighter for the Navy would be a good idea. Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 06, 2011 10:53 AM (TpXEI) Because of the extreme stress of landing and taking off from a Carrier, the planes have to be designed with much stronger undercarriages for one thing.

101

Two things will kill a UAV fighter against a first line opponent...

Broadspectrum jamming from directional antennas... pointed at the Satys...

and the Lag inherent in Sat systems (can be up to 1/2 second, which is eternity in combat... and 1/2 second is forever in modern highspeed air combat).

I totally agree.  That's why we have to make the choices about our direction and we need to do it soon.  Should we devote the money, time and effort for something Gen 6 or do we simply allow politics (macro and Pentagon internal)to leave us vulnerable?

We're going to hit an inflection point in just the next few years, where our strategy for reinforcing Taiwan, Japan or the ROK is is going to increasingly dubious.

102 The progress of the UCAVs is going to kill the F-35; they may end up with some to save face - but the full TO&E is doomed.

103 And no... on normal Peacetime cruises we don't run active sonar... because it bothers the Whales

Whoa.

104 The old Varyag, which I think is now PLAN pennant "89" has all new sensors and a new power plant.  It has seemingly been stripped of all the old Russkie stuff.  Ghalran at ID has recent photos of the powerplant presumably being tested.  They also have a carrier island next to a runway someplace in Wuhan for testing.   It may be that their concepts have changed and greatly evolved, which accounts for the long evolution of this thing.  I seem to recall an early focus on VSTOL aircraft, but the early Russian experiences were so horrible that they may now be focusing on conventional ops post-Varyag.  They supposedly are looking at CATOBAR ships around 60,000 tons, but who knows. 

105 You guys do understand that the real UCAV development is in autonomous engagements - the lag and jamming are not factors. And, in an UCAV fight the emitters die first.

106 Diesel boats on battery are quieter than Nuc boats... and what happened there is they laid in wait, near the bottom, silent, and let the Carrier Battle group run over them... And no... on normal Peacetime cruises we don't run active sonar... because it bothers the Whales (and no, I'm no kidding). Posted by: Romeo13 at January 06, 2011 10:55 AM (AdK6a) Plausible, and suggests this tactic is most useful in surprise attack during peacetime. During wartime I assume our forces will turn on active sonar.

107 And no... on normal Peacetime cruises we don't run active sonar... because it bothers the Whales (and no, I'm no kidding). so, peacetime, becomes wartime when the pigboats are under the carrier?

108 Judging by the consumer products I have seen and used, and the many stories of sub-standard construction in China; my guess is that they would have a difficult time changing the focus of their manufacturing sector to produce the quality necessary for this plane.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at January 06, 2011 10:50 AM

Dangerous assumptions here.

Before WWII, many in our military were equally dismissive of the Japanese Air Force, deriding both aircraft and pilots.

Didn't turn out that way, at least until we got our own Air Force up to snuff. That's something the Osama Obama regime (along with the idiotic processes the modern Pentagon follows) is incapable of doing.

Even if the Red Chinese have crappy airframes, they have a singular advantage in that they can throw millions (literally) of bodies into any conflict. If you put an infinite number of monkeys into an infinite number of aircraft, the odds are good that their target will be hit.

I'm not particularly impressed by the computer-game thinking going on in military discussions ("Robot planes FTW! wOOt!) when they don't take reality into consideration.

109 Dems delaying the reading of the constitution in the House.  Proof positive on how anti-american they are.

110 107 You guys do understand that the real UCAV development is in autonomous engagements - the lag and jamming are not factors. And, in an UCAV fight the emitters die first.

Posted by: Jean at January 06, 2011 10:59 AM (7Jipo)

Yep, and I also know that the rest of the world will go Apeshit if we deploy an autonomous aircraft.... if there is no Human in the decision loop.

First time there is any type of freindly fire, or accidental fire, or misdiagnosis of the threat???  Whole program will get shit can'd due to Political reasons.

111 Do we still have subs protecting carriers? If yes I find it hard to believe that their towed array didn't detect the Chinese subs.  

112 98 I don't think we can just dismiss recent Chinese military production as worthless junk. ------- Saw a rumor on the net the other day that they had tried and failed to build their own SU33s for the Varyag, and are now negotiating with the Russians to buy some. Problem being that the Russians want them to buy enough to make it profitable for them. Building good jet engines also seems to be a problem for them. Doesn't mean I want to count on them not getting it sorted out, though...

113  so, peacetime, becomes wartime when the pigboats are under the carrier?

Posted by: Jean at January 06, 2011 11:01 AM (aemFw)

Believe it or not.... No...

We played games like this all the time with the Old Soviet Union... we'd shadow, and play tag... with both surface and subsurface units.

It could get... tesnse... when a Udaloy Destroyer was suddenly going flank speed through the middle of your Surface Action Group.... but until someone actualy started shooting??? Freedom of the Seas (an American Doctrine) would allow them to pretty much steam where they wanted...

114

Do we still have subs protecting carriers? If yes I find it hard to believe that their towed array didn't detect the Chinese subs.

It's my understanding that a fast attack still hangs around the strike groups.  But the diesel boats are quiet.

115 If the Froggies can sell Mistral-class LPHs to Russia, why not a conventionally powered Charles de Gaulle to the Chinese?  With Rafales?

116 The government overspends and wastes money on every program it engages in.  One area in which I am willing to overlook the waste is in items that kill our enemies.

117 Romeo13 - I meant from their perspective. They decide to go, the sub captain gets the honor of the first shot. CW is that the first shot will be missiles at airfields.

118

If the Froggies can sell Mistral-class LPHs to Russia, why not a conventionally powered Charles de Gaulle to the Chinese?  With Rafales?

Don't give them ideas.

119 Because of the extreme stress of landing and taking off from a Carrier, the planes have to be designed with much stronger undercarriages for one thing.

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 06, 2011 10:56 AM (0GFWk)

Yes, absolutely. Catapults and arrest wires are brutal on an airplane.

Navy carrier jets also have to have much more precise control at slower speeds, because they have to slow down for the landing much more than land based planes, and the target area they are aiming for is much smaller.

This is why the carrier variant of the F-35 has noticeably larger tail surfaces, both horizontal and vertical, and an increase in main wing surface area.

Setting a jet down on a nice flat long runway with plenty of room is one thing, but hooking the 3rd wire on a pitching deck at sea is altogether different.

120

Speaking of aging airplanes.  Some perspective from an Air Force maintenance officer.  Funny as hell.

http://tinyurl.com/2ctkut5

 

121

CW is that the first shot will be missiles at airfields.

In both directions.  The Chinese face a dilemma that then results in one for us.  I am certain they will be extraordinarily sensitive to our target selection (see the note on Drudge on their nuclear saber-rattling).  We won't be able to go Shock and Awe on them in turn.

Remember that the British only drew an exclusion zone around the Falklands back in 1982 and never really contemplated attacks on the Argentine mainland.  I'm not saying that mainland China should be off limits, but targeting the Three Gorges dam would have unforeseen consequences.

122 Just because because an aircraft looks stealthy doesn't actually mean that it is. For all we know this J-20 prototype could be little more than a Su-30/J11 that's had a cosmetic make over. Besides a lot more goes into producing an effective fith generation fighter than a minimal radar cross section. Especially when you consider critical elements like avionics, weapon systems, reliability, flight performance, tactics and pilot training time. Which are all things that the ChiComs aren't exactly known for when it comes to their air force and their fighter fleet in particular.

123 a top tier opponent would make flying UAV's in other than LOS mode inoperable. I disagree with you on this. Five years from now, could China do this to today's UAVs - Yes; could they do it to the next generation - No. Today's platforms are optimized for endurance and to discriminate crazy goatherders from relatively sane goatherders - they aren't designed to go downtown. Tomorrow's are. On the big boy battlefield, you have the quick, the quiet, and the dead -- those jammers are neither quick, nor quiet.

124 The chinese don't need stealth as much as they need range.

125 If I were the Japanese and South Koreans I would be looking at the Chinese Military build up very nervously.

Doubtless the Chinese would come up with some historical crap about Korea and Japan being traditionally part of the Chinese empire which broke away - to justify 'retaking' them. Who knows what happened 8000 years ago.

Doesn't much matter; with a dedicated Marxist in the White House the US would be looking to play instant surrender Monkey in any sort of major conflict.

The only long term silver lining to the horror of what is going on in the world is that when we inevitably get nuked by Iran/China/North Korea/Russia/Pakistan or who ever - it will greatly reduce the core insane liberal voting blocks in this country since the attacks would be on major US cities. Outside of major cities people aren't as insulated from reality and liberal thinking never catches on.

126 One more point on the initial subject of the post:  There is nothing stealthy about the engines on that plane.

127 The problem with fighting the Chinese in a conventional war is that they are way over there, as are their interests.

Logistics still wins wars.

128 I understand that Jean, but China can take out satellites, now, which would severely hinder our C2 of UAV's.

Posted by: CDR M at January 06, 2011 11:28 AM (5I8G0)

We can retaliate by taking out their satellites too, but I'm guessing at the end of that exchange our forces would be the worse off due to our higher dependence on our satellites. Correct?

129 Fighters for force protection, UAVs for attacks. Discuss.

130

We can retaliate by taking out their satellites too, but I'm guessing at the end of that exchange our forces would be the worse off due to our higher dependence on our satellites. Correct?

This is another area on which we need some clear thinking.  We have to win in space, too.

And yes, Brian, I'd even say that we are overly dependent on satellites.

131 130:  Interesting how Japan is building subs like crazy.  And small helicopter carriers that presumably are primarily ASW platforms.

132

And yes, Brian, I'd even say that we are overly dependent on satellites.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 06, 2011 11:33 AM (B+qrE)

I have a feeling that despite all the talk about not militarizing space, we have already done it years ago. A hunter/killer satellite can't be that hard to secretly design, build and deploy. I bet something offensive is already up there.

Surely someone has been working on space based missile defense to protect the most critical satellites from an assault by ground based missiles.

If not, then we are governed by bigger idiots than I had hoped.

133 Circa (Insert Year Here) - I wasn't advocating that the F-35 shuold be canceled. I was pointing out that it is likely going to take a lot more time to develop than people would like.

The DOD had to pick between the F-22 and F-35, and they picked the F-35. The USAF needs CSAR helos and refueling tankers too, to replace the very old fleet it has now.

They weren't going to get two big, expensive fighter programs.

134 They weren't going to get two big, expensive fighter programs.

Posted by: JEA at January 06, 2011 11:52 AM (YNPwP)

All because of the ridiculous spending of Obama and his band of criminals. Grrr

135 I remember once seeing something that the old Sovs/Russians didn't go for the GPS bit like we did, instead sticking with INS and other non-satellite dependent systems.  Something about not being confident the satellites would last long if things went all out.  I'm starting to think this may have been a wise decision, if true...

136 They weren't going to get two big, expensive fighter programs.

Bean counters get people killed.

137

All because of the ridiculous spending of Obama and his band of criminals. Grrr

Yeah, even at $200 million a plane, the Crapulus could have bought 5,000 F-22s.

138 CDR M - hence the X-37. We want China to play SIGINT war, not mass ground formation war.

139 140 I remember once seeing something that the old Sovs/Russians didn't go for the GPS bit like we did, instead sticking with INS and other non-satellite dependent systems. Something about not being confident the satellites would last long if things went all out. I'm starting to think this may have been a wise decision, if true...
__________

They do have a competitor for GPS, GLONASS

140

Wonder sock powers, DEACTIVATE!

 

141 That would be a lot more comforting if it wasn't true of the F-22, as well. The Demonstration/Validation part of the F-22 development program was started in 1986. Not only the design is old, of course - look at the average age of fighters themselves

Yes, but there's quite a difference between a Soviet design circa the mid-'80s when they were a dying, hollowed out shell of an evil empire and an American design from the same time period.

142 144:  Ah, I did not know about that.  Interesting.  Have to wonder why their deployed later...

143 re: UCAVs

Hopefully some Dale Brown Dreamland fans work on this stuff.  Now the Reaper is a satellite RC micro-bomber but we ought to be able to get out of counter radar missile range semi-autonomous control of multiple UCAVs to win the air superiority fight.  Getting all the goodies close enough with the low #of F35s, really low #s of B1s, and my age B52s could be a problem.

How about we take some D5s sideways from Global Prompt strike and instead of sticking AGMs on the top we fill it full of AMRAAMs?  That'd fuck somebodys Historical province move all up.

144 Yeah, I remember how terrified people were of the vaunted Russian Army and its durable, cheap and easy to use equipment. Which got demolished in seconds two wars in a row in Iraq.

145 110 "Even if the Red Chinese have crappy airframes, they have a singular advantage in that they can throw millions (literally) of bodies into any conflict. If you put an infinite number of monkeys into an infinite number of aircraft, the odds are good that their target will be hit."

This is one thing that most people don't seem to get.  Last time I looked at the numbers, their women's army alone had more soldiers than we have people in the entire country.

But then again, we also have a history of inflicting enough damage to the human wave to be more combat effective with fewer troops, often with equipment not designed for the conditions its being used in.  E.g. at Chosin we had elements of 1st, 3rd, and 7th Marine divisions, along with some of the 41st Commando Royal Marines essentially decimate the Chinese 9th Army while retreating from said Chinese Army.

146 Regarding the issue of quiet diesel-electric subs, I needs to be put some fuckin' knowledge:

I'm assuming the reason the diesel-electrics subs are quieter (when running on batteries) is because the reactors and cooling systems in the nuke subs is the noisy part, and you can't just shut a nuclear reactor down at the drop of a hat like you can diesel engines and allow a nuke sub to run silently on batteries. Am I wrong here? And if I'm correct, why can't we use some diesel-electrics, at least for the attack boats if not the missile boats? And if I'm wrong and there is some way to just shut a reactor off, why can't we put batteries on them and make 'em quiet? I'm also curious about what kind of reactors (RE moderation and cooling) we use for propulsion if it's not classified.

Also, how long can the diesel-electrics operate before they need to fire up the engines to re-charge the batteries, and wouldn't they be noisy as hell and sitting ducks when they do re-charge?

147 Based on size they're estimating 75,000 pounds gross takeoff weight and size equivalent to the F-111.

And we all know what an air combat barn-burner that one turned out to be.  According to E-M evaluations done by John Boyd, there was no altitude or speed at which it would not be bested by a MiG.  Any MiG.  The only recorded air-to-air kill a F-111 ever notched was an EF-111 that had an Iraqi Mirage on its tail -- the Mirage flew into the ground.  Crediting that one to the EF-111 is, well, generous.

This is most likely not a plane intended for ACM.  They have those, the J-10 and the Su-27 knockoff they fly.  This is most likely a low-observable missile truck, which will fly to the edge of the battle area hoping to be unnoticed, drop a passel of Kh-31s and skedaddle.  China is all about countering the carrier, and a low-observable jet that makes that more likely is a good alternative to firing an ASBM at a carrier group.  

Me personally, I'm thinking that I'm not going to wait to see if the IRBM has a maneuvering KE-only payload, if there is something ballistic in the air from China the assumption needs to still be that it's nuclear and the response needs to be commensurate.  China needs to understand that all the escorts in the way of an ASBM will probably belch out their TLAM-Ns before they are potentially sunk, one counter to China firing IRBMs at carriers is to remove their ICBMs as a threat, or if we're having a bad day, their population centers and C4I around them.

This is where Obama's professorial mein is not helpful.  Bush had that Mel Gibson twitchy eye from "Lethal Weapon", he might just hurt you and far worse than you were thinking you were going to get hurt.  For good measure, he might hurt you worse than he intended, at which point he'd shrug and say that you deserved it.

148 123 Circa (Insert Year Here) ... targeting the Three Gorges dam would have unforeseen consequences. The BBC did a retrospective on the Dam Busters recently. According to them, the Geneva Conventions now prohibit attacks on dams (though not during WW II).

149

'Dwindling' is a correct way of describing the modern fighter force, due to an irony brought about by ever advancing technology.  Decades back, when there was no really good way to determining how long an aircraft could keep flying, the designers would over-engineer the aircraft to compensate.  That is why old birds can keep flying after all these years - they were built tough to make-up for the uncertainty of how long they can fly.

These days, technology allow us to design aircraft to fly far more hours than the 'official' flight hours for older designs.  The downside is - once you hit that maximum flight hour, you have to park the modern aircraft because they can sturdy enough to fly anymore.  All the structural wear and tear means the aircraft is no longer safe to fly.  So that is why you see very modern fighters like the F-15 being parked, and the early production runs of the F-22 being taken out of service, because they reached their life-span.  Since they are not over-engineered like older designs are, the maximum flight hours they have are all that they will have.

So simply flying the aircraft is reducing the numbers in the Air Force, and the procurement to replace them are not near enough.  Hopefully, they still have the machine tools to re-start the F-22 line if necessary, or they will work out the bugs on the F-35, because we need a good air superiority aircraft soon.

150 The main problem with the short-range F-35 is it's the wrong airplane for a carrier. The Chinese have already rolled out their carrier-killer DF-21D Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile before even the first F-35 naval variant has been fielded.

The Navy wanted a stealth fighter to replace the F-18, the USAF wanted a replacement for the F-16, and the Marines wanted a replacement for the Harrier V/STOL. Hence, the one-size fits all, and political imperative to keep the program going. Oh, and let's not forget the international customers. That should tell you how capable (or not) this aircraft is.

I also laugh in the face of the idea that stretching out the program, as Gates has proposed, will save money. Extending development time almost always results in higher per-unit and lifecycle costs, because the program becomes unaffordable and DoD cuts the buy. This is, in fact, what helped cancel the F-22.

Not only, that but the F-35 is a panting dog. The wing loading is huge so it bleeds energy, it can't carry much (hardly anything internally for stealth mode). They had to design an off-boresight weapon for it because it can't turn worth s**t. Oh, and they're dropping the STOVL variant, so all that money that went into that capability was wasted (it's not that great a concept anyway--logistics support in the open countryside? Forget it.)

When we finally get some generals and admirals that care more about combat capability than lewd morale videos, we will fix this problem. Until then, the beancounters will continue to rein.

151 While we can't seem to make progress with much else, we can make progress with our fighters, so we should do that.  There are those on the political left who do not want America to make any progress at all.  To hell with those liberals - let's get the better fighters for the sake of our country, and cut the commie/lib entitlement programs to pay for them.

152

#154, there's essentially a A-10 production line going right now, rebuilding A models to the C standard. New wing spars, etc, etc.

Boeing still has the '15 line open for export orders, so I think upgraded Eagles could be cranked in a hurry should the '35 fail us.

153

So the Chinese fighter looks like it was designed in 1985---well, I have a news flash, the F-15 airframe was designed around 1970 and the F-16 and F-18 around 1974.

Let's re-open the F-22 line and ramp up to about 60 or 80 a year for a few years, once we have about 300 or so in the inventory and t line is still going in case we need more--- maybe we can sneer..

154

re all the talk about the JSF F-35 and its multiple missions.  Anyone who studied the TFX and McNamara would have predicted this cock-up.  That the F-111 became a stellar workhorse is a small miracle since the USAF had five wings of F-111s, one for each model and almost no commonality in parts or training.

As for the Hornet Mafia.  The RINO Super Hornets can be outflown by their older, smaller C/D model Hornets.  So thinking of them as something to wrest air superioty from another first-tier power is asking alot of pilots to die.  And by the way there are no common parts between Hornets and Super Hornets.  Yes the EF-18G has come online to replace the EA-6B Prowlers, but still using the same jammer system.  And still no sign of a dedicated tanker bird for the wings.

As for the Jian-XX[probably will be called the Jian-12 if deployed].  It looks like a YF-23 with changes.  Just like the Jian-10 is a cross between a Typhoon and a Lavi.  But if they deploy the Jian-XX is numbers similar to the Jian-10, 300, then it will require a re-evaluation on F-22 needs since you will need a stealthy fighter to deal with another semi-stealthy fighter.  Back in 2004, USAF said they needed 381 F-22s to meet all requirements including training, testing, and depot work.  Then the Obama admin tells Gates to cut the numbers and last December Aerojet delivered to Boeing the last central boom for the F-22s. So if we are to ramp up again, we need to do it right now before the supply stream switches over to making other things.  Time is running out, especially when it takes a year or more to produce some parts.

155

www.fashionspaceonline.com  is one of the great resource for brand new fashionable clothing, shoes and accessories.
Here are the main products that we deal with:

 

Shoes: Nike Air Jordan, Air Force 1, Nike Air Jordan AFJ Fusion, Dunk SB, Nike Air Max, Air Shox Running Shoes, Nike Air Zoom Dunkesto, Air Yeezy, Nike Work Boots, ACG, Nike Foamposite, Gucci, Prada, Puma Ferrari, Supra, Ato Matsumoto, Lacoste, James, Kobe, Converse, Creative Recreation, CR DICOCO, Ed hardy, Evisu, Mauri, Coogi, Dsquared, Ice Cream, New Balance, Greedy Genius, Clae Shoes and Sneakers.

 

Jeans: Evisu, Gucci, Armani, Bape BBC, Red Monkey, G-Star, Levis, Diesel, Versace, Prada, Louis Vuitton, Ed Hardy, True Religion, Coogi, Christian Audigier, Affliction, Laguna Beach, Iceberg, Crown Holder, Roca wear, Dolce & Gabbana, Artful Dodger, Blac Label, Rock & Republic Jeans Shorts and Pants.

 

T-shirt: BBC, Bape, G-Star, Evisu, Coogi, Armani, LV, 5ive jungle, Akademiks, Smet, A & F, Affliction, Ed Hardy, Christian Audigier, Blac Label, Polo, Lacoste, Crown Holder, Dolce & Gabbana, Versace, Ecko, Gucci, Adidas, Nike, Levis T-shirts and dress shirts.

Other Accessories: Chanel, Chloe, Coach, Dior, Gucci, Fendi, LV, Juicy, Prada, D&G, Ed Hardy, Christian Audigier Leather Handbag, Purse and Wallets.
Rolex, Breitlint, JACOB & CO. Cartier, Gucci, Ed Hardy Watches.
D&G, Okley, Fendi, Coach, Chanel, Gucci, Prada, Armani, Versace, Burberry, Ray.Ban, Ed hardy, Louis Vuitton, Christian Dior, Cartier Sun Glasses
Armani, CK, D&G, LV, Versace, Ed Hardy, Diesel, Gucci, polo, Prada, Puma, Versace, G-star Underwears.
Juicy, Bikini, Ed Hardy, A&F, Polo, Christian Audigier Swimming Wear, Bikini, Bathing suits.
Bape, Ed Hardy, New Era, Coogi, Gucci, New era with light, Louis Vuitton, Monster Energy Caps
DSQ, D&G, LV, Bape, Armani, Gucci, Chanel, Boss, Affliction, Versace, Ed Hardy, Christian Audigier Belts.
Welcome to contact us by MSN: babydress898@hotmail.com .Thanks!

156

On this page you will find the various styles of womens jordan heels , the Air Jordan knit boots  combines a classic prep school pattern and a cozy sweater knit for the coolest, most comfortable. The shoe is as unique as any other Jordan model relative to the rest of the field. Starting at the toe, the toe cap has Michael Jordan's signature embossed. The side of the shoe features a stitched pattern that gives the shoes strength in addition to cosmetic effect.

157

Have you ever seen such fashion of Chanel online store ? In comparison with sporadic release in last few years, this year is really good for Chanel lovers. We have informed Chanel shoes online  of new released discount Chanel boots  autumn/winter collection 2010 to our customer. Luckily, we have get large inquires on it. We are so glad to hear from all over the world.

158

The Chanel pumps was so Fashion and beautiful that when you saw then at first time, you will not want to miss it. The Chanel shoes are a great combination of the Jordan shoes with Chanel shoes online. Features full-grain leather upper and full-rubber outsole and style design! Chanel shoes online combined both fashion and comfort ability perfectly, which will make you become the focus in the street.