This blog has obtained the RAND briefing described in so many reports this week. You can download it here by scrolling on the image below (thank you, Apture).
After a long review, I can understand why the heads of the program were mystified at how this briefing was used as the basis to attack the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The F-35is mentioned only in passing [CORRECTING:] is described as "double-inferior" to Russian fighters on one back-up slide (#80), and but RAND's analysts make no attempt to deconstruct the aerodynamic performance of any of the aircraft involved in the wargame.
At the same time, the briefing does not back up this remark by Maj Gen Charles Davis : "The exercise involved basing capacity around the Pacific Rim. It was a logistics and deployablility exercise, not a battle."
That's not quite fair either. RAND's analysis shows that a Taiwan Straits air war in 2020 exposes alarming concerns about the limits of US reliance on stealth, forward basing and beyond visual range combat. (Spoiler alert: the Chinese win.)
The analysts assume Kadena is wiped out by short-range ballistic missiles within the first minutes of the conflict. [ed: Bummer. I'm Kadena HS alum, class of '93.] That leaves Andersen, in Guam, to launch a counter-attack.
Operating from Andersen, RAND says that only six F-22s carrying a maximum of 48 air to air missiles can remain on station above Taiwan at any one time.
Chinese respond by launching three air regiments -- 72 SU-27s carrying 912 air to air missiles -- across the straits.
For the purposes of discussion, RAND assumes the most optimistic outcome: Every missile fired by the F-22s find their mark, and none of the Chinese missiles shoots down an F-22.
Still, enough SU-27s escape the F-22 screen to attack and shoot down the F-22's orbiting tankers. The F-22s now lack missiles and fuel, and have no hope of landing at a friendly base.
The Chinese win.
The F-35s are mentioned only one slide and as an excursion. I'd be interested to read your opinions, but their involvement doesn't appear to change the odds of success. More US aircraft are simply lost.
After a long review, I can understand why the heads of the program were mystified at how this briefing was used as the basis to attack the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The F-35
At the same time, the briefing does not back up this remark by Maj Gen Charles Davis : "The exercise involved basing capacity around the Pacific Rim. It was a logistics and deployablility exercise, not a battle."
That's not quite fair either. RAND's analysis shows that a Taiwan Straits air war in 2020 exposes alarming concerns about the limits of US reliance on stealth, forward basing and beyond visual range combat. (Spoiler alert: the Chinese win.)
The analysts assume Kadena is wiped out by short-range ballistic missiles within the first minutes of the conflict. [ed: Bummer. I'm Kadena HS alum, class of '93.] That leaves Andersen, in Guam, to launch a counter-attack.
Operating from Andersen, RAND says that only six F-22s carrying a maximum of 48 air to air missiles can remain on station above Taiwan at any one time.
Chinese respond by launching three air regiments -- 72 SU-27s carrying 912 air to air missiles -- across the straits.
For the purposes of discussion, RAND assumes the most optimistic outcome: Every missile fired by the F-22s find their mark, and none of the Chinese missiles shoots down an F-22.
Still, enough SU-27s escape the F-22 screen to attack and shoot down the F-22's orbiting tankers. The F-22s now lack missiles and fuel, and have no hope of landing at a friendly base.
The Chinese win.
The F-35s are mentioned only one slide and as an excursion. I'd be interested to read your opinions, but their involvement doesn't appear to change the odds of success. More US aircraft are simply lost.
Recent Comments