F-22 Raptor Thread

[Jura The idiot]

Why Bro

NB : i don' t know if he have do but a serious blogger have post it, so no comparison with Chinese fan boys... i have always see silly things for Chinese weapons never for other countries, sometimes view for futur equipments not exact ofc but not anything.

consider posting fanboish pictures in
Fan art, PS and CG images
Thread

 

[Jura The idiot]

In the event of a conflict, the Kadena airbase will obviously be a prime target. The latest RAND study analysis indicates that China would be able to close Kadena to fighter operations in a Taiwan scenario for four to ten days in 2010 and up to 16-43 days by 2017. The analysis is based on a bunch of assumptions that would be highly debatable, inappropriate for discussions and I would not labor on it.

Brumby since you posted

Air Force Officers Give New Details for F-35 in War With China

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

why not to quote from inside of that document (it's

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

), especially p. 6/10, right panel:

While CONUS-based fifth generation aircraft gear up for future combat missions, several squadrons of fifth generation aircraft rapidly deploy and disperse to numerous military and civilian airfields, effectively avoiding concentrating no more than a single squadron at any one location. Consequently, adversary planners and targeteers are unable to effectively use ballistic or cruise missile attacks to score a pre-emptive “knock-out” blow against forward deployed aircraft, and fifth generation missions continue with little impact.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Why Bro

NB : i don' t know if he have do but a serious blogger have post it, so no comparison with Chinese fan boys... i have always see silly things for Chinese weapons never for other countries, sometimes view for futur equipments not exact ofc but not anything.

Fan boys don't live in the real world Master Forbin, the F-22 and the F-35 are both very finely shaped for the real world, rest assured that every centimeter of each of these aircraft have been analyzed and reanalyzed for shaping for aerodynamic and RCS reduction, each part has to function as a whole, as well as serviceability. Teams of engineers pour over reams and volumes of data, computer generate, and then generate some more.

These designs are peer reviewed, and then subject to years and volumes of testing and, besides this fan-boy art often violates basic aerodynamic principles, so while some of it is quite good, and follow production aircraft closely, much of it is nonsensical, even if kinda kool.. LOL

Bottom line is the boys and girls at LockMart know what they are doing and why, before you even see a fraction of an engineering assaignment, you have already done the hard work preparation, much greater than an Olympic athlete, or even a "Tour-de-France" participant, and yes the tour has been crazy already this year.

 

[Brumby]

Brumby since you posted

why not to quote from inside of that document (it's

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

), especially p. 6/10, right panel:

I am aware of the Mitchell document. The discussions were not about mitigating actions that can be instituted to counter the ballistic and cruise missile threats which is the primary focus of the said document. The prevailing conversation was simply about the Kadena airbase and its importance given its unique proximity to a Taiwan scenario.

 

[siegecrossbow]

I am aware of the Mitchell document. The discussions were not about mitigating actions that can be instituted to counter the ballistic and cruise missile threats which is the primary focus of the said document. The prevailing conversation was simply about the Kadena airbase and its importance given its unique proximity to a Taiwan scenario.

View attachment 28885

I guess that's why tankers are so important in such an engagement.

 

[kwaigonegin]

In the event of a conflict, the Kadena airbase will obviously be a prime target. The latest RAND study analysis indicates that China would be able to close Kadena to fighter operations in a Taiwan scenario for four to ten days in 2010 and up to 16-43 days by 2017. The analysis is based on a bunch of assumptions that would be highly debatable, inappropriate for discussions and I would not labor on it.

Absolutely it will be targeted however I believe the risk is not significantly lessen if F22s aren't based there therefore to the point of the original discussion it's almost awash.
Based on this assumption I think USAF will most definitely consider the benefits of basing the Raptors there as oppose to flying out from Guam with all the operational gaps that come with it as stated before. In all honesty it will likely be both locations they will be operating from.

As to the RAND report well it's conjecture... Obviously in the event of a major conflict and with hundreds of fighters/bombers operating out of Kadena it will become a defensive fortress with all kinds of anti air and anti missiles defense systems covering it either on the island itself or surrounding areas. Everything from Patriot to Aegis shore base and Israeli systems like the Iron Dome would most certainly be employed. It will also be guarded by ABM Aegis ships and buncha of other fancy toys the 7th fleet brings to bear not counting defensive assets from JMSDF.

The most effective way to penetrate a multi layered system like that is something like a barrage of DF21Ds or an actual first strike but then that moots all arguments.

 

[FORBIN]

I guess that's why tankers are so important in such an engagement.

You guess well

Guam is a base too far for fighters.

 

[FORBIN]

consider posting fanboish pictures in
Fan art, PS and CG images
Thread

Please do

I am aware of the Mitchell document. The discussions were not about mitigating actions that can be instituted to counter the ballistic and cruise missile threats which is the primary focus of the said document. The prevailing conversation was simply about the Kadena airbase and its importance given its unique proximity to a Taiwan scenario.
View attachment 28885

Master Brumby can you provide a link please ?

Cr in average, Hi-lo-hi missions, medium payload especialy, only internal fuel for stealth in more F-35 don't have FT, to consider...

F-22, 460 mn whose 100 in SC or 630 max
F-16, 485
F-15E, 700
F-15C, 810 with only AAM.
F-35A : 580

Others mainly for comparisons :
A-10 : 240
F-35B : 460
F-35C : 620
Hornet : 380
Super Hornet : 485
AV-8B : 300
B-1B :
B-2 :

 

[Brumby]

Absolutely it will be targeted however I believe the risk is not significantly lessen if F22s aren't based there therefore to the point of the original discussion it's almost awash.

You are right. The original conversation wasn't about the risk to Kadena because of the forward presence of F-22's. It is about the notion that the Kadena being a prime target will likely be made inoperable for a defined period. How long this period will be is obviously highly subjective but it is recognised that the risk of closure will be higher as China's inventory of ballistics and cruise missile increases over time.



The scenario premised by the RAND study is that while the Kadena base is made inoperable, the USAF (including F-22's) will have to fight their way in relying on tanker support because of distance. Therefore it becomes an issue of logistics and a numbers game.

Based on this assumption I think USAF will most definitely consider the benefits of basing the Raptors there as oppose to flying out from Guam with all the operational gaps that come with it as stated before. In all honesty it will likely be both locations they will be operating from.

I agree that once the risk to the airbases and the corresponding air assets (including F-22's) are deemed acceptable then the deployment will shift closer to the theater of operation. A Taiwan scenario however assumes that during the initial window, the Kadena airbase will be made unavailable. The whole strategic discussion is about how long Taiwan can hold out before the US can resume air superiority over that airspace. If Taiwan is overwhelm before that can be established then it makes the whole exercise rather moot. China's A2AD is simply about extending that window to the degree that the strategic equation leans in China's favor. The battle is then won before it begins (at least on paper).

As to the RAND report well it's conjecture... Obviously in the event of a major conflict and with hundreds of fighters/bombers operating out of Kadena it will become a defensive fortress with all kinds of anti air and anti missiles defense systems covering it either on the island itself or surrounding areas. Everything from Patriot to Aegis shore base and Israeli systems like the Iron Dome would most certainly be employed. It will also be guarded by ABM Aegis ships and buncha of other fancy toys the 7th fleet brings to bear not counting defensive assets from JMSDF.

The most effective way to penetrate a multi layered system like that is something like a barrage of DF21Ds or an actual first strike but then that moots all arguments.

I agree it is a complex discussion but framed for simplicity. I have seen an analysis of the type of multi layered system required in the form of THAAD, Aegis and Patriots needed and it is significant. Unfortunately I have not been able to find that document to provide the data to this discussion.
The closure to Kadena is premised on many things including China willing to risk its entire (or majority) ballistic missile inventory on a single airbase. It is liken to a one trick pony and exposes China to a retaliatory strike from the US which will be thru multi facet platforms unlike what China can offer. In my view, the B-21 program is an important piece but that will be a digression.

 

[Brumby]

Please do

Master Brumby can you provide a link please ?

It is a series of RAND articles. The link below will provide you to a series of related articles to the 2015 study

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

As to the 2008 RAND study, you can try googling under "John Stillion and Scott Perdue, “Air Combat, Past, Present and Future” (RAND Project Air Force, August 2008)." The report was not released officially, but an unauthorized version has been available on the Internet since shortly after it was presented. Among the articles that discuss the report are Wendell Minnick, “RAND Study Suggest U.S. Loses War With China,” Defense News, October 16, 2008; Stephen Trimble, “Under Attack,” Flight International, October 14–20, 2008; and “The F–35’s Air-to-Air Capability Controversy,” Defense Industry Daily, October 12, 2008.