"Is a "Missile Truck" the Solution to One of the .." Topic

…Scariest Wargames Ever?.

"In August 2008, the RAND Corporation joined military leaders at Hickham Air Force Base in Hawaii for a wargame entitled "Pacific Vision." The exercise was meant to identify the capabilities U.S. Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) would need to prevail against potential threats in the Asia-Pacific region through 2016. At least one of the scenarios examined in the wargame was truly frightening.

As Paul Scharre of the Center for a New American Security recently summarized in an op-ed for The National Interest:…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

A flying arsenal ship. Interesting idea.

Of course, then the Chinese would deploy their own (cheaper?) missile trucks…

Garrison Miniatures the theory behind these "missile trucks" is that they don,t actually fight. They simply fire their missiles at targets located and locked onto by the F-22's. For the Chinese to use a similar system they would have to be able to detect and lock on to the F-22's and pass the information on via data link to their missile trucks, the point is they don't have to, they have sufficient numbers of actual manned fighters. The missile trucks are a proposed solution to the fact that it doesn't matter how good your F-22 is in comparison to the enemy if you have twenty facing a couple of hundred, once you've expended your 8 AAM and gun ammo there are still going to be far to many bogies left flying. The actual solution is to build more fighters but the cost of an F-22 makes that a no go.

Fatman

By the way the US has, at most, 186 F-22; China has over 500 4th Gen and 700+ 3rd Gen fighters:

No, they don't have to lock on to F-22s. Their targets would be the American missile trucks and command and control aircraft. The F-22s would be having enough problems facing the actual Chinese fighters.

Which rather makes my point, why bother with complex unnecessary systems like drone gun trucks when you already have the solution a fighter? ;-)

Fatman

And I have no intention of disagreeing with you. It's a cost effectiveness thing – and there's only one way anyone would be able to decide what works best…

What I'm wondering is why Rand abandoned their last solution? The B-1R Arsenal ship with its bomb bay and hard-points maxed out with AIM-120's at the F-22's beck and call.

Fatman

Oh, goodie, an endless war. A robotic arms race. Imagine the endless, increasing costs of such an arms race. Meanwhile, as our mindless automatons battle overhead, our "9 to 5" lives continue as we slave away to pay for all of that "shield". When our shield is gone, then we either face human casualties or we surrender.

This robotic technology will only increase the tendency to use war as a solution. With human lives removed to a safe distance, the armies of robots will battle to the death. The cost of building and using such "armies" staggers the imagination. That is the real terrifying aspect of this: the humans work like slaves to pay for their own protection. Meanwhile, somebody is making a lot of money that "we the people" are paying for….

So we've finally hit the point where the platforms built for a war are too exepensive to put in a war? The "missile truck" assumes there would be uninterrupted communications between the F-22 and the truck.

Wasn't there a Star Trek episode about that mindless automaton battle? When the computer said a city had been nuked, all the citizens had to report so they could be killed??

Er… one question.

Doesn't the F22 have a gun?

Yes but how much ammo do you think it carries? Modern rates of fire means enough for four to six bursts is the best you can hope for.

Add to this if the F-22 is using it's gun its in the wrong the wrong fight. The whole point of stealth fighters is kill the enemey from a distance before they can detect you.

Fatman

Yes, Stu, the F22 does have a gun (from the beginning, more than we can say for the Typhoon). But it only has about 5 bursts of ammo.

The B1R (or a B52M Megafortress) would be a terrifying thing for the Chinese to face. "Hi, I'm a B1R loaded with at least 24 AMRAAMs per bay. I have 3 weapons bays. Oh, and my engines have been swapped for the ones out of the F35 for more speed. I can supercruise at Mach 1.2 now. Why doesn't anyone want to come up and play anymore?"

By the way the US has, at most, 186 F-22; China has over 500 4th Gen and 700+ 3rd Gen fighters:

By the way US fields 2500+ 4th generation A2A capable fighters (F-15/-16/-18) in addition to the 178 odd remaining F-22s as well as 460 odd attack aircraft (AV-8, A-10) and 160 strategic bombers (B-1/B-2/B-52).

And US allies South Korea, Japan and Taiwan throw in another 1000 of which 700+ is 4th generation (F-15/-16/-2/F-CK-1, Mirage 2000) and the rest is 3rd generation (mainly scheduled to be retired by 2020).

By 2020 the US 5th generation fleet (i.e. F-22 + F-35) increases massively and there's at least 80 additional F-35s in Japan and China.

China's 700 3rd generation you quote is obsolete junk – J-7 (MiG-21 clone), J-8 (equivalent to MiG-23) and Q-5 (ground attack aircraft based on MiG-19). Given current replacement rates, the J-8 will probably still be in service in period 2020-30 as could even some of the J-7s delivered in the 1990s and early 2000s.

And lack of tankers means that huge chunks of PLAAF is stuck in South Korea.

The PLAAF threat is overstated both in current terms and future capability. Unless US significatly downsizes or disengages from the area, the Chinese are stuck in a pond without any real projection ability. Even if they expand their military expenditure, they are so far behind the 8-ball as to never be able to catch up.

A picture to illustrate the point – the most numerous fighter in Chinese service:

The most numerous fighter in US/allied service:

I find myself in agreement with ThomasHobbes. The study's underlying assumption that all we will be fielding are F-22's (and maybe F-35's) in any future conflict with China is an erroneous and unrealistic one. The study does not account for the vast majority of 4+ generation fighters (F-15's and Super Hornets) that are still a match, if not more than a match, for China's fighter fleet with the aid of 'force multipliers' such as C3I and data-link.

A more likely outcome of a massive A2A fight between US and China is a turkey shoot in America's favor, like the one Israel scored over Syria in 1982.

A more likely outcome of a massive A2A fight between US and China is a turkey shoot in America's favor, like the one Israel scored over Syria in 1982.

I don't think it's going to be that easy.

There's a whole heap of factors no-ones looking at:

1. Actual conflict – war with Taiwan is a vastly different proposition to war with Japan.
2. Issue of range (flying from Japan)
3. Whether strikes on mainland China are allowed.
4. Chinese "saturation" cruise missile strikes against Taiwan.
5. Impact of naval war.
6. Rules of engagement – especially in terms of trying to counter any potential nuclear escalation.

IDF/AF in 1982 had quite a few advantages the US doesn't have:

a. Monopoly on AWACS (E-2C). PLAAF fields AWACS and has had access to advanced Israeli systems.

b. Access to Syrian AD systems (through espionage but also captured systems in 1973). I don't know if US has had same access to Chinese/modern Russian systems. And the Chinese have incorporated Western elements too from either legitimate contracts or espionage.

c. Syrian AD was truly second rate – monkey model systems and generally no delivery of advanced Soviet equipment.

Chinese do have reasonable amounts of modern equipment.

d. Israel had extensive war fighting experience in both A2A and SEAD against peers. US has not had extensive A2A/SEAD warfighting experience against a capable opponent since Vietnam and no A2A at all since 1999. PLA is same (no A2A since 1950s) but this creates more unknowns.

e. Close range – Israeli fighters could engage easily without a need to rely on vulnerable A2A refuellers. In a war with China, range is long by default which makes most US tactical fighters (including F-16 and F/A-18 but also F-35 reliant on tankers).

f. Israel had extensive experience against Syria. China's military is an unknown. It was a 1950s force to 1991 but it's changed massively and it's tactical doctrine is unknown (appears to take bits from both Western and Russian methodologies).

Iraq was a cake walk in 1991 – a mainly obsolete AD network that was further compromised when the French gave it's operating modes to Americans (actual network was French) and obsolete interceptor force (monkey model MiG-29, MiG-25 and MiG-23 with their best interceptor being Mirage F1) flown by a force that had recently been purged following an assassination attempt on Hussein.

Serbia 1999 and Iraq 2003 were even easier. Libya and Afghanistan did not have functioning IADS or interceptor forces.

I suspect US wins in the end but it would be far more complicated than Israel 1982.

Also US has not faced an opponent with the ability to be strategically proactive since Germany in 1942 – the Chinese in Korea were stuck in Korea without ability to say strike at Western shipping or bases in Japan and the Germans were a spent force after Kursk.

China today can do these things with respectable cruise missile and submarine forces. This includes potential carrier killing technology as well as reasonable tactical forces in terms of Taiwan. And even if it suppresses carriers or US supplies, then it's mission kill at best or diverting US resources away at worst.

It all makes the situation quite confusing to analyse unlike say Russia which is pretty much an instant NATO win in air war stakes due to the situation being closer to Israel-Syria in 1982.

In the air the Chinese are closer to USSR in 1988-89 (when Su-27s, MiG-29, MiG-31 and A50 were fielded in reasonable numbers) than Russia.

Wasn't there a Star Trek episode about that mindless automaton battle? When the computer said a city had been nuked, all the citizens had to report so they could be killed??

Season 1, Episode 23: A Taste of Armageddon

And the beautiful guest star, Barbara Babcock, is still among the living! (She also appeared in Plato's Children.)