From DefenseNews

 

RAND Study Suggests U.S. Loses War With China

By wendell minnick

Published: 16 Oct 11:45 EDT (15:45 GMT)

 

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.

 

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."

The RAND report here:

 

http://reporter.kro.nl/downloads/rand_pacific_view.pdf

Did anyone really expect a different outcome given China's proximity to Taiwan? iirc it has been a general long held belief that the only hope was for Taiwan to bleed the invaders on the ground (I hear China is pretty tough to bleed). That essentially leads to China blockading Taiwan and winning, maybe without even landing a soldier outside of some special ops teams to speed the process.

Did anyone really expect a different outcome given China's proximity to Taiwan?

 

Agreed. Blitz by China (with little to no warning, or opportunity to build up forces in the region) will likely result in the same endgame scenario.

I always figured they would only be limited by their amphibious warfare capacity until they were able to capture a deep water port, and would then only be slowed down depending on how much taiwan would be willing to destroy its own infrastructure. In my military history classes discusions have always turned to the fact that chanses are the US would not actively engage chinese forces to protect Taiwan, we may posture and threaten even take away favorite nation trading status but never actually engage militarily.

I'd be awful naive to take a work of fiction, no matter how well researched, as anything more than idle speculation, but Tom Clancy's SSN predicts a different outcome, but it is focused in the Spratlys, not Taiwan. And on a mostly submarine campaign.

I'd be awful naive to take a work of fiction, no matter how well researched, as anything more than idle speculation, but Tom Clancy's SSN predicts a different outcome, but it is focused in the Spratlys, not Taiwan. And on a mostly submarine campaign.

 

SSN is in my collection and that is one amazingly far fetched story. I would expect no US submarine to amass the record of kills that they do in that book (and I'm a huge Seawolf fan and Virginias shouldn't be too shabby either ). That said, the book does raise a number of good points; if I re-read it maybe I can even remember a couple of them.

I'd be awful naive to take a work of fiction, no matter how well researched, as anything more than idle speculation, but Tom Clancy's SSN predicts a different outcome, but it is focused in the Spratlys, not Taiwan. And on a mostly submarine campaign.

 

SSN is in my collection and that is one amazingly far fetched story. I would expect no US submarine to amass the record of kills that they do in that book (and I'm a huge Seawolf fan and Virginias shouldn't be too shabby either <g>). That said, the book does raise a number of good points; if I re-read it maybe I can even remember a couple of them.

 

The boat in the novel was a Los Angeles class, and when I first read it some of the lop-sided victories made me laugh (chinese subs sailing into their own minefields, running aground in their own waters, etc.). The mental image I got of how these went down just made things even funnier.

 

We'd have to have a half-dozen or more Virginia-Class or equivelent in the waters off of south China, with their satellite comms masts up so as to pick up on the missile and fighter activity and with orders to pump Tomahawks into the airfields and missile bases at the first signs of immending conflict.

 

All that would really do is possibly blunt the edge of the Chinese assault, as the first wave would only have to land at other airbases.

Submarines, fighter interceptors, assault craft, paratroopers ... pfft.

 

China has (according to some sources) as many as 1,400+ short range ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan.

 

The island would likely experience a rather brutal 'storm' of these SRBMs from the word 'go', softening it up for the actual invasion.

Submarines, fighter interceptors, assault craft, paratroopers ... pfft.

 

China has (according to some sources) as many as 1,400+ short range ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan.

 

The island would likely experience a rather brutal 'storm' of these SRBMs from the word 'go', softening it up for the actual invasion.

 

I honestly think this would defeat the purpose, china of today wants taiwan for its wealth similar to what they gained by eating up hong kong and to some extent macau (the las vegas capital of asia) to destroy taiwan would not only make them look really bad to the whole world but destroy billions of dollars of what they consider to be their property. I think the only reason they would attack would be from a big loss of face such as Taiwan comming out and saying that they would never join china and a few countries like the USA and GB establishing full diplomatic ties. This might piss them off just enough otherwise other then a 1st strike by taiwan (suicide) the chinese seem to be ok with status quo until Taiwan decides to come home or the US gets a president that doesnt care and china would then blockade until taiwan surrenders.