Rand Report

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
New RAND report. Obviously it has a very predictable theme with an intended agenda (need more $$$).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


RAND Study Suggests U.S. Loses War With China
By wendell minnick
Published: 16 Oct 11:45 EDT (15:45 GMT)
Print Print | Print Email

TAIPEI - A new RAND study suggests U.S. air power in the Pacific would be inadequate to thwart a Chinese attack on Taiwan in 2020. The study, entitled "Air Combat Past, Present and Future," by John Stillion and Scott Perdue, says China's anti-access arms and strategy could deny the U.S. the "ability to operate efficiently from nearby bases or seas."

According to the study, U.S. aircraft carriers and air bases would be threatened by Chinese development of anti-ship ballistic missiles, the fielding of diesel and nuclear submarines equipped with torpedoes and SS-N-22 and SS-N-27 anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs), fighters and bombers carrying ASCMs and HARMs, and new ballistic missiles and cruise missiles.
Related Topics

* Americas
* Asia & Pacific Rim
* Air Warfare

The report states that 34 missiles with submunition warheads could cover all parking ramps at Kadena Air Force Base, Okinawa.

An "attack like this could damage, destroy or strand 75 percent of aircraft based at Kadena," it says.

In contrast, many Chinese air bases are harder than Kadena, with some "super-hard underground hangers."

To make matters worse, Kadena is the only U.S. air base within 500 nautical miles of the Taiwan Strait, whereas China has 27.

U.S. air bases in South Korea are more than 750 miles distant, and those in Japan are more than 885 miles away. Anderson Air Force Base, Guam, is 1,500 miles away. The result is that sortie rates will be low, with a "huge tanker demand."

The authors suggest China's CETC Y-27 radar, which is similar to Russia's Nebo SVU VHF Digital AESA, could counter U.S. stealth fighter technology. China is likely to outfit its fighters with improved radars and by "2020 even very stealthy targets likely [would be] detectable by Flanker radars at 25+ nm." China is also likely to procure the new Su-35BM fighter by 2020, which will challenge the F-35 and possibly the F-22.

The authors also question the reliability of U.S. beyond-visual-range weapons, such as the AIM-120 AMRAAM. U.S. fighters have recorded only 10 AIM-120 kills, none against targets equipped with the kinds of countermeasures carried by Chinese Su-27s and Su-30s. Of the 10, six were beyond-visual-range kills, and it required 13 missiles to get them.

If a conflict breaks out between China and the U.S. over Taiwan, the authors say it is difficult to "predict who will have had the last move in the measure-countermeasure game."

Overall, the authors say, "China could enjoy a 3:1 edge in fighters if we can fly from Kadena - about 10:1 if forced to operate from Andersen. Overcoming these odds requires qualitative superiority of 9:1 or 100:1" - a differential that is "extremely difficult to achieve" against a like power.

If beyond-visual-range missiles work, stealth technology is not countered and air bases are not destroyed, U.S. forces have a chance, but "history suggests there is a limit of about 3:1 where quality can no longer compensate for superior enemy numbers."

A 24-aircraft Su-27/30 regiment can carry around 300 air-to-air missiles (AAMs), whereas 24 F-22s can carry only 192 AAMs and 24 F-35s only 96 AAMs.

Though current numbers assume the F-22 could shoot down 48 Chinese Flankers when "outnumbered 12:1 without loss," these numbers do not take into account a less-than-perfect U.S. beyond-visual-range performance, partial or complete destruction of U.S. air bases and aircraft carriers, possible deployment of a new Chinese stealth fighter around 2020 or 2025, and the possible use of Chinese "robo-fighters" to deplete U.S. "fighters' missile loadout prior to mass attack."

The authors write that Chinese counter stealth, anti-access, countermissile technologies are proliferating and the U.S. military needs "a plan that accounts for this."
 

Finn McCool

Captain
Registered Member
US needs to counter China fast. Otherwise it's so called technologically superiority and air superiority is gonna walk out of the door.

There is some truth in this; currently the US does not have military dominance over China in this scenario, and it's superiority even is highly questionable. But it's a matter of how much money we want to spend. Is spending billions to plan for a war that probably won't happen that we already have an okay chance of winning worth it when we are $9 trillion in debt? The bad economic postion the United States is in is imposing strategic opportunity costs. We can't have our cake and eat it too.
 

PrOeLiTeZ

Junior Member
Registered Member
More than you're everyday basic scare tactic, the US needs money to counter China. That simple. Why not build more air defences around the air base, provide more fighters to Taiwan, have more carriers in the area, improve reliability of AIM-120 missiles, have adequate training for every possible scenario.

US needs to counter China fast. Otherwise it's so called technologically superiority and air superiority is gonna walk out of the door.
What you say is true but America cannot pull that kind of money, they've got other operations to deal with. Have more carriers you know how expensive building carriers and maintaining them in constant battle readiness? Just keep them afloat takes a chunk of the US military budget. America has to keep their carrier groups in live war area's Iraq, Afhganistan, and have adequate enough at their own nation to defend themselves.

Training yes training, but training for every possible scenario even its never gonna happen is gonna run your budget dry, and is near impossible to counter every situation. Exporting fighter to Tawain, even if America says yes, Tawain cannot afford acquiring larger numbers its budget isn't large enough to sustain a large fleet for its airforce. Air defence systems aren't cheap, and once again Tawain budget is another factor.

In the end whats in it for America in pouring larger amounts of money for battle readiness over the Tawain strait against China? America gets nothing out of it, China could just keep stalling for time, and America naval group will soon run dry out of money. Its not America's fight they said they'll defend it if it happens, but not act as its bodyguard. In the end its America military budget spending, not Tawain's. And really America is getting bitten in the ass, and what they say to themselves, its not our fight, so why are we wasting so much of our budget while we can better defend our on nation, and pay off those debts.

In personal opinion, Tawain really needs more investment in their domestic technology department, just look at F-16 deal disaster if that didn't go through
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
When you get a budget, you have to prioritize. You can't outspend the mainland for example, in the sheer number and even the quality of future fighter aircraft. But what you can do is concentrate on certain things that can neutralize symmetric advantages. An example, which isn't going to cost that much to develop relative to manned platforms, are next generation SAM systems. Such systems can be moved to ships too, doubling your investment value.
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
Personally I agree that the IDFs should have been upgraded to the C/D standard.

I think the government suffers from colonial mentality just as you said. They need more self confidence on their own projects.
 

PrOeLiTeZ

Junior Member
Registered Member
I know its like their government doesn't trust or think that their own engineers are capable of producing something decent. Personally its a shame Tawain has many decent engineers that are well then capable of producing good military hardware, but they don't get funding or priority. In the long run, a domestic design has benefits, it can be use as a source of financial renvue, exporting their technology for cash, and then using that cash to design something more advance, and so on.

The governement reliance on America is too much, a nation must fend for itself, ally or no ally no nation is 100% trustworthy. Tawain economy is no way in quantity as China. Goverment needs to play smart not power. I would concentrate on jamming Chinese fighter equipment, rather then purchasing more fighters to go toe-to-toe in an aerial battle. China looses a fighter but they have infrastructure to build another, though Tawain doesn't.

Tawain is capable, but in the end its all $$$
 
Top