Posted on 09/29/2008 5:27:55 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
War game argues that USAF fleet could be outmatched by Chinese
By Stephen Trimble
Rand's 90-slide briefing presented in August argues that the US Air Force's fifth-generation fighter fleet could be outmatched by hordes of lesser-skilled Chinese Sukhoi Su-27 pilots in a 2020 battle over the Taiwan Straits. In the Rand war game, China launches an air attack on skies above Taiwan. Using advantages of proximity and sheer numbers, the assault force consists of 72 Su-27 Flankers, 24 in each of three regiments. Operating from Andersen AFB, Guam, the USAF can muster only six Lockheed F-22s in the Taiwan Straits at any time.
As the engagement starts, Chinese Flankers outnumber F-22s by 72 to six. The F-22s are also heavily outgunned in the battle. Three Su-27 regiments carry a total of 912 air-to-air missiles, compared with 48 by six F-22s.
In the end, the simulation optimistically assumes no F-22s are shot down in dogfights, but enough Su-27s break through to wipe out the USAF's tankers. Since the F-22s lack the range to return to a friendly base, they are lost anyway.
Consider this, the former Soviet Republics in Europe will likely seek EU membership. And of course, being part of the EU, are obligated to defend member states. That is why Georgia sought EU membership. And the world supports the continued independence of the former Soviet Republics, especially the ones in Europe or adjacent to.
The world, on the other hand (including the US), does not recognize Taiwan and supports reunification. The only point of contention is that it must be done peacefully. And there are signs that it is already happening. The most obvious, is economic integration. But also, the current election of a president in Taiwan that is not as confrontational with Beijing as the previous one is a sign of things to come.
One has to also consider, that 1/4 of the 20 million people living in Taiwan are just as passionate about reunification as the other 3/4 are about independence (and it may actually be more balanced than what I am proposing).
In Georgia, there was none of the support I had mentioned above for Taiwan....and as the ol saying goes, the rest is history.
I didn't go through the slide presentation, but from what little I read I the article, the whole scenario is unrealistic to the extreme. It doesn't take into account the intel that we would have as to China's buildup. There are things that they must do well in advance to pull off something like that; that would give us plenty of lead time to have at least 3 carrier groups - with all their hornets - in place, plus have all the bases in Korea and Japan built up and ready with tons of F16s and F15s. Heck, if this is in 2020, then we'll have the JSF available too. That's just off the top of my head. The writer obviously just wondered what a 6 v 72 dogfight would look like, and then dreamed up a ludicrous scenario to fit it that isn't based in reality beyond the fact that China has SU-27s. He obviously has absolutely no clue as to how air battles are run and all the assets that are brought to bear.Upon deeper reflection, he's equating Chinese pilots to USAF pilots when there is absolutely no comparison. The tactics each side employs are as different as night and day. As soon as we take down their command and control network with some well placed cruise missiles (something that would happen early) then the few flankers that did get airborne would be completely lost because they are highly GCI (Ground Controlled Intercept) dependent and require ground radar to chose and guide them to their targets.
Don't even get me started on the logistics and time required to launch and marshal 72 aircraft without the benefit of aerial refueling - something the Chinese have tried, but are no good at and don't have the tankers to support it.
I'd better stop or I'll go on all day.
NO surface to air missile protection?
“German cruisers and battleships were state of the art, with perhaps the best armor, damage control, and gunnery control systems in the world, but the British Navy shrugged off their losses when they fought, and sank, or chased into port, the German surface fleet”
Was it the Graf Spee that was sunk by a torpedo launched from a WW-1 era bi-plane?
I think the point here is that sheer numbers of enemy planes can defeat a smaller number of F22s. Let the number be 20 F22s.... and let the Chinese put up (say) 150 or 200 SU27s, which I suspect is well within their arsenal... and you'd get the same result.
The F22s may well shoot down a lot of the Chinese planes ... but there will also be losses of F22s, which are essentially irreplaceable. The math would increasingly favor the side with the most airframes.
The F22s may well shoot down a lot of the Chinese planes ... but there will also be losses of F22s, which are essentially irreplaceable. The math would increasingly favor the side with the most airframes.
Please see my post at #62.
It's not just math, because there's a lot more involved than sheer numbers.
China wouldn't stand a chance.
The Bismark's rudder was disabled by a torpedo launched from a torpedo biplane, which was designed in the '30s and introduced in 1936.
Graf Spee was damaged by German ships, docked in Montevideo, Uraguay for repairs, and was then scuttled by her captain, who realized his ship would be destroyed once it left port.
The Bismark's rudder was disabled by a torpedo launched from a Fairey Swordfish torpedo biplane, which was designed in the '30s and introduced in 1936.
Graf Spee was damaged by German ships, docked in Montevideo, Uraguay for repairs, and was then scuttled by her captain, who realized his ship would be destroyed once it left port.
Sheesh... British ships....
Gee ... those are pretty big assumptions. I might suggest to your brother that overconfidence in the inabilities of his adversaries is not an optimal approach.
Don't even get me started on the logistics and time required to launch and marshal 72 aircraft without the benefit of aerial refueling - something the Chinese have tried, but are no good at and don't have the tankers to support it.
Manned spaceflight used to be beyond them, too.
Now, your brother is obviously closer to the topic than I am, but I can't help wondering if he's not just a bit too dismissive of the Chinese. Especially given that any war we fight against them will be a) closer to China; and b) long.
I think if he's even just a little bit wrong, the F22's qualitative superiority may not prevent losses; and as losses occur, they will be hard to replace; and the Chinese will continue to inflict losses.
As for me, I'd sure feel better if we had a crap-load more available airframes than we actually do.
Wouldn’t they have to see the Raptors in order to shoot them down? I thought the F-22 has a very low radar profile and other stealthy bits built into it. Stealth coupled with the ability to lock on to multiple target simultaneously and the ability to shoot from a distance makes a pretty formidable package.
Not assumptions; observations. As I wrote, he is in a position to know.
The author of the simulation/study thingy is the one who was making big assumptions. There's much more to consider than simple numerical and/or technical superiority of the aircraft involved. That was my brother's point.
Manned spaceflight used to be beyond them, too.
It still is.
Now, your brother is obviously closer to the topic than I am, but I can't help wondering if he's not just a bit too dismissive of the Chinese. Especially given that any war we fight against them will be a) closer to China; and b) long.
Not so much dismissive as informed. Fear is born of ignorance. The author doesn't know many of these things, so he makes incorrect assumptions and reaches an incorrect conclusion.
I added my brother's comments to shed the light of actual knowledge on this discussion. I'll trust knowledge over speculation every single time.
“And we have no other assets in the battlespace? Like a carrier, for example?”
Or any of the Ticonderoga or Burke class ships that would go along with the carrier.
It still is.
Oh... Ok. :-\
From the little I've heard, this sounds like a reasonable assumption.
Whatever accomplishments they've made in this area have come just as their accomplishments in all of recent history: Theft.
The actual technology is always developed by someone else, usually American, then stolen by or for the Chinese.
Manned space flight is still beyond the Chinese, without the technology they've stolen from us.
Ok, fine.... Let's assume you're correct about that. Now take a moment to place that comment within the context of this discussion.
See what I'm saying?
See what I'm saying?
Umm.... that the Chinese might have stolen our superior logistics technology? That's where this particular tangent began, after all.
They couldn't get and keep the number of planes in the air that the scenario calls for. That's the point.
What planes they could get and keep up into the air would be easily outmatched by the F-22 and all the other firepower we'd bring to the fight.
His scenario is nothing more than a bit of surface skimming fantasy.
The only thing that China has in their favor is the extreme range of their AAM’s that are in many cases double the range of ours.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.