Forum: F-22A Raptor

Recommended reading.

A Question of Balance
Political Context and Military Aspects of the China-Taiwan Dispute

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG888.pdf

Note the chapter on the Falklands War.

Below, couple of interesting excerpts on sortie rates and LERs.

B. Bolsøy
Oslo

F-16.net Sponsor

The biggest flaw in this example IMO, is that Guam and Iwakuni are out of realistic tactical range in deterrence against any such unfortunate, worst case scenario Taiwan Straits crisis - at least under such sortie rates shown. Kadena could, yes, although the base might require a few dozen more HAS and significant ATBM/IADS infrastructure to employ a more credible deterrence under such scenario. Yet Iwakuni, e.g., would conceivably support defensive scenarios over South korea or worst-case defensive scenarios to the North of Japan.

Anyway, I will have to read the full Rand study later. But I'm curious if it included pre-emptive (and sustained) TBM and cruise missile shot rates on Kadena, Guam and Iwakuni during any such hypothetical, future, crisis defensive operation? Iwakuni especially is a soft target with everything seemingly unprotected - most notably, the fuel storage? Surely, the noted infrastructure's broader equation must be taken into account when calculating plausible sortie rates and exchange ratios?

Perhaps it could be (or is being) contemplated, if it would be a more effective counter deterrence by Japan and even Taiwan in the near-term, to not rely universally on tactical counter air investments as such and rather diversify some of the invesments on a precision strike TBM and CM deterrence capability (and other asymmetrical means) of their own.. Very tragic reality of the growing Asian arms race.

That report, and China's success, are based off China establishing air-superiority in order to support a landing. But, it completely misses a lot of points that directly address that ability:

1. Cruise missiles (from subs) against Chinese airfields will reduce sortie rate.

2. Cruise missiles against radar facilities will takeout China's long range radar sites.

3. B-2, B-1, and B-52 raids using JASSM, JSOW, and JSOW-ER munitions against above airfield and radar sites.

4. Above planes could also target the naval forces massing for the landing thereby making the entire thing moot.

5. The US Marines will also have 50+ F-35B fighters (post IOC) that they could bring to the fight. They could be based at hidden, improvised sites throughout Taiwan and provide a rapid turnaround sortie rate up to 6.5 per day. Their effectiveness could be enhanced by serving as launch platforms for F-22 directed AIM-120Ds (they can carry 14 at IOC with 4 internal and 10 external). They also could be used to do naval strike duties (8 SDB each)

6. The USAF will also have 50+ Post IOC F-35s that could fly from Guam or Okinawa.

7. The report does not address reinforcements for the F-22s in Okinawa or Guam.

All,

I seriously ask not to promote heavily, start threads, etc, vis-a-vis public debate on hypothetical US vs China war (whether it's a unique topic or the Rand study or whatever). It's just not pro-active, nor supportive of policy even in such an apparently begnin discussion forum such as this. No offense, but it's just the way I see it and deeply feel in my gut, today.

But SM, you have your theoretical points which (I too fell into a trap briefly countering above - with agenda to support discredit of the study) but outside of PM, I'd just wish to suggest that no official study I've seen published thus far, seems to make rational scenarios or conclusions involving massive Air-Air engagements in the Region.

Respects-

works for me Smile

I doubt the Chinese are planning on fighting our war by our rules if it ever came down to it.
They've been investing heavily in ballistic missle technology. RVs that change trajectories
upon re-entery to defy anti-missile missiles, warheads designed to rip the decks off aircraft
carriers rather than try to sink them, and warheads designed to tear up airfields. They of course
are capable of building them in massive quantities. They probably already are. The Chinese have
been fairly good at fooling us in the past on the quanity of weapons they produce.

It would be silly of them to even try to complete with us and build a fighter that could take on the
F22 or F35. It's not going to happen. They're not stupid. The will do the easy thing and deny our
fighters the ability to operate in the region.

If we are really serious about defending taiwan, we need to build battleships, not aircraft carriers. We
need ships that can keep afloat and keep fighting once their missile defense systems have been
overwealmed by wave after wave of anti-ship missiles.

Quote:

If we are really serious about defending taiwan, we need to build battleships, not aircraft carriers. We
need ships that can keep afloat and keep fighting once their missile defense systems have been
overwealmed by wave after wave of anti-ship missiles.

Those same battleships that were sunk on a regular bases by 300 knot propellar driven a/c back in the day?

I'm also fairly confident the USN will do their very best to not let those mighty Chinese missiles rip the deck off their aircraft carriers. Just out of curiosity, what do you suppose the US military would be doing while this mighty Chinese enemy was launching wave after wave of missiles as you say? Ya think maybe it is just possible the US will do something about where those missiles are coming from? And with planes off those helpless carriers maybe as well? Just curious.

Beazz

2 US battleships were "sunk" in WW2, both in Pearl Harbor. Technically, they were "lost in action" not sunk because both hit bottom before disappearing below the surface. The Oklahoma and Arizona were the only ones that were not back in service within a month.

Looking through a list atm.... So far, I've counted 17 aircraft carriers from WW2 that were either sunk or damaged beyond repair and scrapped. Most of these, looks like enemy subs, cruisers, or kamikazis got them...

And what are we going to do about it? Not much we can do. If the Chinese launched 1800 or so cruise and ballistic missiles into our fleet, there is little that our air and missile defense systems can do to cope. Even if only a small fraction hit targets, it could completely devistate our fleet of unarmored ships.

Lemme do some research. I'll post some unclassified reports the DoD has mode to Congress on this subject.

Annual Report on Military Power of the People’s Republic of China
http://www.dod.mil/pubs/pdfs/China%20Report%202006.pdf

Anyways, IMHO neither the aircraft carrier or battleship is supieror to each other. They are complementary systems each with their own strengths and weaknesses. Aircraft carriers have a long range and are versitile, but are easily damaged and put out of service and are expensive to operate as in dollars per pound of ordinance put on target. Battleships weapons are shorter range, but they are tough, can take alot of damage and keep on fighting, and can put a massive amount of ordinance on target in a very short period of time cheaply. Seems like an Iowa class battleship can put the equivilent pounds of ordinance on target as a B-52 strike every 30 seconds.

There have also been some remarkable developments in naval gun technology. A 16" version of this, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ms/ags.htm would be devistating. I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see anti-aircraft SAM's that can be fired out of naval guns in the near future. A future battleship may be able to fire upwards of 100 3000 lb SAM's a minute that would be all but invisible until they activated at 40,000 feet, 10 miles out from the ship. Such a ship could knock every aircraft from a super carrier out of the sky in less than 60 seconds.

Machi wrote:
"If we are really serious about defending taiwan, we need to build battleships, not aircraft carriers. We
need ships that can keep afloat and keep fighting once their missile defense systems have been
overwealmed by wave after wave of anti-ship missiles."

1. These are very different times than 1941. Today's battles fought by major powers, such as in invasion of Taiwan in the RAND analysis, will be decided long before your "super-survivable" battleships restored 1 month after being sunk.
2. I'm going to assume that you're aware that surface ships are toast without air cover. So even if someone decided it was a good idea to build battleships (or their modern equivalent i.e. DDG1000), they'll still need air cover - so it would have to be done without sacrificing naval air defense capability, which relies heavily on carrier aviation.
3. The roles a battleship would play are completely replaced now. The US currently has fielded - and is increasing - capabilities against saturation missile attacks by equipping more and more DDG's and cruisers with field-proven SM-3 capability, known for their ability to take out TBM's in the re-entry phase. And replacing the naval bombardament capability of the battleship are the far-more effective cruise-missile equipped attack subs and "new" SSGN's with 150+ cruise missiles on board each. Greater accuracy, greater standoff distance, plus stealth. SSGN's in effect ARE the new battleship.
4. Planned carrier construction rate today is just enough to maintain (not increase) current capability (we'll even go 1 short as-planned, [10 vs. 11 carriers] when Enterprise retires 3 years before its replacement, the Ford, goes to sea). Remember that 10 carriers = much lower number of actual deployable carriers at any given time, when taking into account units returning from deployment, in training, and most of all, in drydock for updates. All Nimitz class carriers will be down for a 3 year period at some point in their service lives for their refueling/complex overhaul, reducing the deployable number even more. This reason alone is a case to INCREASE construction rate of the Ford class, which won't require this 3-year period in drydock for refueling, plus their 20% reduction in manning requirements (cheaper for the Navy) and greater sortie rate capability.
5. Even the RAND analysis recognizes the force multiplier of having 5th gen fighter assets on-hand to counter the air threat of massed SU27/30 attacks from the PRC. Why reduce that number by potentially reducing the carrier (F-35C) force?

If we're to maintain current doctrine of having a enough naval assets on-hand to effectively defend Taiwan from attack, we cannot afford to sacrifice naval aviation for capability growth in any other aspect of naval power.

Sorry for the long-winded post.
Jetnerd

One other very important advantage to the battleship is that you can bring them into foriegn ports. What happened to the Cole would never happen to a battleship. The crew would merely have to hose terrorist guts off the side. They can defend themselves in port. Worst case scenario is the battleship would have to flatten the city it's docked in. This is great PR Smile

Aircraft carriers are next to useless while in port or in confined waters.

Your understanding of naval strategy is "skyhigh".

Jetnerd, let me respond to your points.

1. You say today's battles end in less time than it takes to repair a battleship. Um...Afghanistan 8 years and counting...

2. You say battleship's toast without aircover. WW2 battleships, especially the iowa class had devastating anti-aircraft abilities. Don't think in all of WW2 an enemy pilot survived getting within 5 miles of one. The enemy basically ran from our battleships. Upgrade this ability with modern technology, you create a dead in 15 seconds zone out 20 miles from a battleship, and a if you turn around now you might live zone of death about 100 miles out from the ship.

3. As for naval bombardment, an iowa can put 30,000 lbs of ordinance on target every 30 seconds. Translate that into B-52 firepower, assume a B-52 turnaround of 1 sortie every 8 hours to be generous and you get the equivilent of 1 iowa = around 960 B-52's in bombardment ability. Of course that is < 20 miles range, and I don't think they carry that many shells. The ship would have to be reloaded after a few hours of that.

4. Comparing them to a sub. Yes subs have stealth, but are expensive. An iowa can put as much ordinance on target in a minute as a sub can in total before sailing back to port to reload. And subs are dangerous. Lot of men have died in them in real war. A stealth aircraft can run if spotted. Subs are dead if spotted.

5. I like aircraft carriers. We need to keep them. The problem is we have no plan B. What do we do if an enemy overwhelms us with hordes of cheap harpoons/exocets? And we really don't have the fire support for the Marines. We've had to bring the iowas out of mothballs every major engagement. Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War. And the Iowas were designed in the 20's. I can't imagine how powerful a modern battleship would be.

Not that I actually care, machi, but pray tell us where subs would play a part, or do we scrape all of them to build the battleships?
Fisk
Rolling Eyes

That's silly. Subs are very useful. What I'm saying is there is a missing piece in our overall stratagy, not that we should throw away other parts.

Battleships have(had) capabilities that no other weapon has. The battleship may even be a better match for the F-35B than an amphibious ship. They used to always carry seaplanes for spotting. It would be fairly straight forward to build a skijump flight deck on the back of a large battleship. The F-35B's would be used for early warning radar, patrol, observation, ect. rather than as fighters. This would make up for their weakness in ability to carry ordinance. If the B's encountered the enemy, all they'd have to do is try to get them to chase back into the battleship's zone of death.

Forum: F-22A Raptor

RAND China-Tawain analysis