That's hilarious. First Rumsfeld says we can beat anybody in the world by going smaller and higher tech and we lose in an exercise where we don't control all the parameters. Sort of like those anti missile tests until they starting changing the parameters until they worked. The logical extension of the argument for the winning side is we should be going to F-86's since we could afford to fill the skies with em. There's no guarantee any advanced fighter could win with three or four to one odds against it. Having all the best advanced fighters in the world doesn't matter if you get in a guerilla war, either, if you hadn't noticed. Right now, the Army is parking it's expensive Strykers way back because they are vulnerable to cheap, easily available RPG tech from the 80's.
I know....My dad cried when the USMC finally retired the Phantoms he worked on for so many years. Nothing will replace Tom's Cat. Nothing. The F-18 is an impostor to the throne. Fighter for wussies. Hayes, one correction, only Saudi, Japan and Israel operate -15's. The Taiwanese operate F-16's, an indigenous fighter called the Ching Kuo (kind of like a twin-engined F-16) and about 60 Mirage 2000's. The Chinese on the other hand have: 76 Su-30's, most of which are based within short range of Taiwan 76 Su-27's, single seat versions of the same fighter, also based near Taiwan. Add to that the literal thousands of obsolete/borderline obsolete airframes (J-7 [updated MIG-21's] and J-8 [one of them ran into an EP-3E recon plane and yet...it was the Orion's fault.) the Chicoms can fill the sky with and you have a serious recipe for trouble.
Right. f-16s. So they got 150 f-16s, 60 mirage 2000s (the same as India is flying), and lots of older planes (f-5s i think), PLUS whatever the US throws into such a conflict. The PRC has 146 modern fighters. I'm no math scholar, but that's not 2 or 3 to 1 odds like those discussed in the article.
There are only about 200 F-14s left, but I have a feeling they'll find a way to keep them in service longer ~ they're just too valuable. Besides F-14s are just a little too cool to cancel anyway...
doesn't Sir Edmund Hillary Rodham Clinton have some spare book royalties? you know, some that aren't hers, but ours?
If the SU30k is so much better, why not buy SU30k's for now, and save money and buy time for R&D? It's not like the Russians would mind the money. If anything it would be easy diplomacy. We could even get Putin to sign on to something contraversial in exchange.
But the sad thing about it and the point of this article...is that the 146 modern fighters are better or at least as good as ours, not a good thing. They will at least have 650 plus fighters total, so you're looking at 3-to-1 odds on THEIR side. That's not good.
Because the F-22 and F-35 will render every fighter plane in the world....obsolete when compared them. The F-22 and F-35 JSF can do several things no other fighters can do: A. Supercruise- Although modern fighter planes are considered "supersonic," for most of the time they are subsonic, because to go supersonic, they require afterburners, which drink fuel like Ted Kennedy drinks scotch. A F-22 and F-35 JSF can supercruise, which means they can use military thrust (max power sans afterburner) to go supersonic, which means they can fly around at supersonic speeds during most flight regimes. What does that mean in the real world? It means that they can deny (run away) or press an engagement (catch the enemy and destroy them). B. Instead of a display for the radar, a display for the ECM equipment a stores management display on various multifunction displays, the powerful computers in these two fighters combine all sensor inputs into one solid picture. It means the pilot can focus on flying the airframe and killing the enemy rather than being an information clearinghouse. A computer does it for him. C. They are stealthy and use LPI (low probability of intercept) radars. It means basically that they can see the enemy before they see them and shoot first, which is a key in air combat. Su-30's will be no different than the Gloster Gladiator biplanes in the early part of WWII that were chewed up by the powerful German Messerschmits. They were a generation behind the times. When we have the F-22 and F-35, no one will be able to catch us for decades. Add to that the UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) attack aircraft we're building, we will be the dominant power for the next 30 years at least. KC, unfortunately, the king of all fighters will be going away shortly. link
Bama, I am just a civilian with a passing Discovery Wings type interest in military aviation, while you seem to know an awful lot about it. So, what do you think of theis statement:
I agree with that statement. The Su-27 aerodynamically can outfly ANY fighter in the world, as will a Mig-29. But their failing was that their avionics and weapons systems were not as advanced as ours. Now that gap has closed considerably. The Russkies have the most advanced short-range AAM in the world, the Archer, which can be fired at targets BEHIND the aircraft thanks to cueing from a helmet-mounted sight, which none of our aircraft even have yet and the Russkie jets have had for years. They have the new Adder medium -range AAM that is as good as our AIM-120, which is the best in the world in that category. Now they have as good a stuff as our F-15's and F-16's, meaning we need a new generation to maintain our supremacy.
What? Luckily you're no math scholar either. In the exercise mentioned, the Indians had 2 or 3 to 1 odds with equal or almost equal fighters. The simply isn't the case with the only scenario you mentioned, Taiwan. First, between Taiwan and the US we would have MORE modern fighters than the PRC could muster. Second, you cannot glean ANY presumption that old ass fighters, even at more than 1 to 1 odds would have ANY substantial capability vs the modern US/Taiwan air forces. You're just throwing that out with no qualifications. If I attack a aircraft carrier with 1000 crop dusters can I reasonably say the numerical superiority makes a big difference? Of course not. That's absurd. Is it good that other countries are gaining in air technology? No. That much is true. But do these results (ala the article) mean we have to worry about getting hurt in a conflict? Not at all. As i've pointed out, there isn't a realistic scenario where we're facing 2 or 3 to 1 odds with similarly capable air forces. And even that assumes the REST of the military is even, which its not.
MIG-21's with modern radars and good AAM's are not crop dusters. There won't be 1-to-1 odds, because they can throw a least 500 of those FISHBED copies, maybe more at our forces. Let's just say for the purpose of argument the Taiwanese have 150 F-16, 70 Mirage 2000 and 150 Ching Kuos, all modern fighters. That's 370 aircraft. Add in a couple of our fighter wings and maybe a CVBG's fighters and you have around 500 modern aircraft. But then you add their modern aircraft (150 or so and within a few years likely double that figure) and the advantage of flying over home airspace only a short hop away from their targets (allowing their aircraft to be turned around rapidly), you have a serious force-multiplier. Also you are ASSUMING that all of the modern Taiwanese aircraft would survive the first strike from Chicom fighter-bombers, cruise missiles and short-range, SCUD type ICBM's that would proceed any invasion attempt. I think even with their modern defenses they'd lose half their forces and shoot up half their missiles on the first day alone, especially with the numbers the Chicoms could throw at them. Even the vaunted Israelis lost a ton of aircraft when they were caught by surprise during the opening stages of the Yom Kippur War. And their aircraft were all modern U.S. types of the era. If not for our airlift, the Israelis would have collapsed.
Yeah, i've read a lot of this stuff ~ it's just a hunch of mine, but I really feel they will extend the service life to at least 2015. The reasons being major investments in structural/cockpit upgrades in the late 90s (around 2.5 billion) and the unique role the F-14 can play. Everything i've read says sometime between 2007-09 the F-14 will be retired. Like so many other military aircraft though I think they will scale it back, but continue to use it in certain situations (A-6 Prowler/Intruder - B-52 etc.). _________________ Bama I grew up by Ellington Air Force base and one of my soccer coaches was a Colonel in the Air Force ~ when the F-4 phantoms would fly over (they were always flying over) he would 'lovingly' refer to them as 'flying bricks'. The F-18 Hornet is nothing but a glorified T-38. End extended derail.
Well....500 to 650 is still not 2 or 3 to 1 odds, to start with. So again, the base assumption you take from the article is that we are in serious trouble, and again you can't name a scenario where we'd actually face that kind of deficit. And as I pointed out previously, even RAND says that threat is more than a decade, most likely two, away. None of this discussion, btw, deals at all with our other military options to stop a PRC invasion of Taiwan. We could sink every ship they float - submarines, cruise missles, B-2s from North America, Carrier Battle Groups, etc. Your next assertion is that flying over your home airspace is an advantage. If that were true then certainly the Taiwan/US alliance would have the advantage, since the battle would be taking place OVER TAIWAN. If you think the US is going to engage the PRC over Taiwan and NOT make the same type of strikes (can you say Tomahawk?) then you are seriously mistaken. The PRC isn't going to be able to peaceful load missle and fuel onto wave after wave of fighter/bombers. I would say its a wash but it really isn't with our superior capabilities vis-a-vis missle strikes. Remember the PRC hasn't ever used these systems in combat, and we have. A lot. It simply would be highly unlikely, at best, to think the PRC could move their ENTIRE airforce, all of the necessary troop transport, divisions of the PLA, and all of the necessary NPLA ships without notice. It's just not plausible. The Taiwan air force is not sleeping on Palm Sunday, ok. They only have one threat to worry about, the PRC. And if there WAS a big old sneak attack and the PLA was on Taiwan before we knew it, it wouldn't matter what kind of planes we had...would it?
Has anybody factored in high altitude combat/basing capabilities? Cause if the unlikely event of a full scale conventional war over Taiwan occurs, me and Richard Gere and the rest of us liberal enlightened folks aren't stopping this sh-t until we free Tibet.
The problem is that most of the Chinese AF is based within easy reach of Taiwan. So there would be no movement neccessary for a sneak attack. What if it happened right now as we read this. We couldn't do diddly poo except b**** to the UN and wave our lizards at them. I agree with the RAND assessment and your point that it will take PRC time to build up the advanced hardware to blockade the seas around Taiwan, but I think they will be able to do it before we realize it. Taiwan is a very militarized country, but still, can you shoot down hundreds of SCUD-type ICBMs overwhelming your defenses with huge conventional warheads? I think you seriously underestimate their C3 capabilities. The Chicoms have AWACS planes and jamming platforms just like we do. The difference is....theirs are over there and ours are mostly sitting on the ramps in CONUS. Sure, we have a wing of F-16's in northern Japan (Misawa) and another in Korea plus a wing of F-15's down in Okinawa, but do we have the tankers over there to allow them to have any loiter time over the threat area? Would Taiwanese bases be in good enough shape after the inital onslaught to host our aircraft? Would our NCA feel free with sending our carriers over there when our Navy's ASW capability has gone down the wringer because "we don't need it any more?" The Chicoms have ultra-quiet subs designed specially to go after our carriers. For one of them to be sunk would be a defeat for us of epic and biblical proportions. We haven't lost one since WWII. They don't come cheap. And so many would die if one went down. I just see a lot in this scenario that would present us with some big problems.
