China doesn’t yet have the jet engine technology to compete with American 5th gen fighters. I certainly don’t think the US or anyone else should be complacent, but the US has a substantial lead for now.
Not sure fighters matter as much these days - Russia has air superiority in terms of jets over Ukraine - but it uses them infrequently - appears the problem is the ground based counter measures are quite effective and much cheaper.
If they want to attack by air - drones and missiles rather than planes appear to be the way to go.
Similarly aircraft carriers - they can only really be used now to bully small countries. To anybody with significant missile/drone tech they are just massive, slow, sitting ducks.
What matters is drones and missiles etc and how fast you can churn them out. Who would win that?
The US is going to have to find a way to live with countries like China and India, rather than trying to suppress them.
The current US policy of trying to dismant all the organisations that were set up post world war II in order to keep the peace is madness.
>Russia has air superiority in terms of jets over Ukraine
No, no they do not. Russia has more fighter jets than Ukraine yes but that's not what "Air superiority" is, let alone "Air supremacy" which is what the USA designs for.
If you cannot suppress air defense networks, you do not have anything close to air superiority. If you cannot fly missions in an airspace, you do not have superiority.
>What matters is drones and missiles etc and how fast you can churn them out. Who would win that?
Drones and missiles still don't replace airframes. Do not mistake "Is new and the battlefield is still teasing things out" with "Is dominant forever". China definitely doesn't seem to think they are replacing airframes, and in fact is doubling down on making platforms that are aligned with US doctrine, like modern stealth fighters, carriers, and networked battlespace management.
Torpedo boats did not kill Battleships. Battleships were only replaced when their job could be done from longer range by an Aircraft carrier.
>To anybody with significant missile/drone tech they are just massive, slow, sitting ducks.
Only China with their legit Hypersonic weapons has a strong case for nullifying the carriers. US doctrine has included "Defend from 200 incoming weapons targeting the carrier" since the 60s when the Navy first built an entirely automated and networked fleet system to ensure that those incoming get tasked appropriately, and anti-missile defense is never a guarantee, but it works well enough that the sinking of the Moskva was utterly shocking to those familiar with it, and implies terrible things about Russian naval readiness.
The previous threat model of these carriers was supersonic bombers launching high speed cruise missiles 200 at a time from 100 miles out. Shaheds are not a threat. That's why the Navy started running primary 5inch gun practice against them. They are the same threat model as a helicopter because they are slow.
>The current US policy of trying to dismant all the organisations that were set up post world war II
Agree
>in order to keep the peace is madness.
What? That's uh, not what they are doing. See Venezuela.
