Also do not confuse an evidential empirical case with an expressed opinion. It is not an opinion. It is  structured argument built on presented facts and evidence supported by self reinforcing logic chains of proof..

 

Herald

 

Even in this unlikely scenario not all PLAAF birds will be in the air but you can bet that the best will be and not straying too far from the SAM belt. Also PRC has the advantage of all of its assets close by, the U.S. would have to rely on allied bases which are vulnerable to missile attack or carrier reinforcement with subs crawling up their ass. So where do you support the hundreds of aircraft and their crew to offset the lack of F-22's? Guam and Kadena are most logical suitors but still within cruise missile range. It would seem that first day is of major tactical advantage to destroy enemy fighters and eliminate SAM batteries and given the amount of airspace and terrain to cover a fleet of at least 144 F-22's would be necessary to overwhelm the enemy given 70-80 would be in the air at any one time. This would reduce the number of other assets needed in the region and number of casualties taken from less capable platforms. F-15E's and Raptors could then be used in conjuction to hunt the mobile launchers. Sending a UCAV to hunt these launchers would be a waste of money as they are easily targeted and destroyed. I also would have a 36 Raptors sitting at Elmendorf and Langley respectivley so not to leave the CONUS unprotected. This is why I believe the 60 extra Raptors is necessary. Unlikley or not there are many instances that past history will show us that weren't supposed to happen but did.

Well Mustang, the way I see it, a PLAAF that stay's within it's SAM belt, isn't doing much offensive action against the USA or regional allies. That leaves the PRC open to all kinds of things such as actions against their SLOC or not being able to support any offensive against the ROC. The main issue I have with your post is where are you getting the 144 number from?  And why does that have to be all F-22's? Why can't that be 96 F-22's plus 48 F-teens? Also if that was your number, outside of extreme circumstances you would not be likely to have 50% up at any given time from my experience. You set up your routine ops like CAP and Alert flights and the rest are assigned as needed. In order to properly deduce a number, we have to first determine the objective. Without that, even my number, the 187 aircraft total, is simply arbitrary. I don't see the PRC in any real offensive action except maybe to retake the ROC in a stretch. In order to deal with that, I think being able to surge 48-96 F-22 aircraft to Okinawa would allow me to put an overwhelmingly powerful Air Dominance platform close enough to Taiwan to cause unacceptable levels of attrition to PLAAF and PLANAF aircraft in that AO. If I have 187 F-22s to work with, that means at any given time, I can deploy enough Raptors to the AO to achieve my objective and still have enough left for attrition ect. All the while I still have USN, USAF Legacy and Allied Aircraft in the AO too in the hundreds. All of these are 4th Gen, capable of BVR combat and integrated into networks and back by almost inexhaustable logistics support. How effective this is depends more on strategy than on numbers after certain numbers which I contend that we have.

 

 

 

 -DA

Sending a UCAV to hunt these launchers would be a waste of money as they are easily targeted and destroyed. I also would have a 36 Raptors sitting at Elmendorf and Langley respectivley so not to leave the CONUS unprotected. This is why I believe the 60 extra Raptors is necessary. Unlikley or not there are many instances that past history will show us that weren't supposed to happen but did.

Regarding sending in UCAV for hunting launchers. First, I think it would take a lot for the USA to go into PRC proper hunting their mobile launchers. Such an action could easily be misinterpreted as a precursor to nuclear attack and might force the PRC into an irrational decision. However, take a look at the distances involved and area to be covered with regard to the PRC. No manned fighter would be capable of providing coverage for very long do to fuel status. Even if a tanker were right off the cost, it would be a serious challenge. But if the air space is benign enough to put a tanker close enough to support coverage over the PRC, then it's benign enough to operate a HALE. Perhaps even a Stealthy Hunter Killer HALE like Predator C. Because such a UCAV can stay on station for a day at a time, it can actually "look" for TELs. Or be there when the enemy exposes himself. This is a method we used so often to target insurgents who are much harder to identify and can emplace an IED in seconds. TELs are targets of opportunity. But they are also creatures of habit. The areas they drive in, the bridge classification limits, the radius of curve, fuel and maintenance. Not to mention that if they used any kind of comms it could be used to hunt them. A UCAV can actually be there to act on that kind of information. One thing we found out in Iraq was that there isn't a lot of time to apply air power on mobile targets. UCAV or Manned Platform. It had to actually be there most of the time. Otherwise, by the time it gets there, the target is gone. The advantage a UCAV has over a manned platform is it can actually "be there" when needed as opposed to "get there". We rushed solutions like this to the field in OIF. We could do that by 2015 over the PRC if necessary.

 

-DA

I would think batteries of S-300 and 400's would have no problem keeping those PLAAF fighters within range of Taiwan and SLOC. An S-400 has a range of 250 miles and I would expect PRC to have them operational by 2015. I would not want legacy fighters in the area until they have been neutralized due to increased vulnerability. The 144 number is actual combat aircraft in 8 squadrons of 18 to be used on an availability basis due to the massive amount of geography that must be covered. The AO doesn't necessarily mean immediate vicinity of ROC with PRC having having the capability to stretch the field with mobile cruise missile launchers, certaintly not something I want anything but an F-22 hunting down through SAM soup. You also mentioned 187 to work with but this number is basically nothing more than, well it looks good on paper. Your real number to work with is more like 120 and I would feel less than comfortable knowing that WWIII has just started and every available F-22 is busy trying to maintain an operational readiness in the PACRIM. Meanwhile Elmendorf is staring a Flankers, Blackjacks, Backfires and whatever else Russia feels like sending up for a test drive. Highly unlikely yes, impossible...well we also thought an attack on our own soil was impossible.

With a lot of caveats, the S-300 and S-400 systems could threaten aircraft at mid to high altitude over the strait. But the Taiwanese have weapons as does the USA that can deal with those weapons in addition to the fact that they would be attacked by F-22's and F-35's as well. By 2015 the Dual Role Air Dominance Missile would probably be near IOC as well. Not only that, but persistent stealthy UCAVs could also be lurking as well. There is a whole system set up to deal with SAMs and that includes EW assets.

 

The immediate AO would not be the whole coast of the PRC. The conflict would have to be focused on an objective. Thats going to place limits on both sides and determine the primary conflict area. China can't protect is SLOC from the USA now or in 2015 so if that is the focal point of the conflict, they start off losers and definitely end up that way.

 

I understood 187 to mean only 120-130 available for deployment. Thats why I said a number of 48-96 would be ideal. That leaves another 48 or so available for deployment elsewhere and the remainder are non combat coded.

 

Mustang, to even casually explore this, we have to define the battlespace and the objective. Then we will have some idea what the red and blue forces might look like.

 

-DA

 

 

-DA

Great.  We save $9 billion off of a weapons system we desperately need, to fund Obama's universal health care plan--which will not work and make things even worse in an already broken health care system.

 

They can put my tax dollars towards the F-22, thank you.  I know it works.  I also like the idea of funding something to defend my country, rather than funding some multibillion dollar boondoggle where Barney Frank gets to choose which operation I can and cannot have.

 

Maybe DA has a point: China isn't our enemy.  Why should they be? At the rate we're going, we're going to wreck our own country long before the PRC has a chance to.

 

These are:

1. First Island Ring

2. String of Pearls.

3. Oil dependency.

4. Mackinder continental strategy and the World Island

5. Mahanic seapower.

6. Interior as opposed to exterior logistics advantages   

7. Interior domination of tactical and strategic position as posed to the perimeter attack..

8. Finance as a weapon.

 

PRC bandit view of seapower 

Maps (Or why the PRC bandits still call themselves the Middle Kingdom)

 

Several views:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now the poster keeps claiming that he sees the big picture.. 

 

This is the BIG PICTURE from Beijing's perspective..

 

 

 

Africa, Central Asia, and Siberia are resource basins to be pillaged and looted. Only one nation really stands in their way and is in a position to stop them.

 

The United States is the only nation that can shatter the String of Pearls from Shanghai to the Persian Gulf, thwart the PRC bandits inside the First Island Ring and bring those bastards to heel. India is not strong enough to do it. If we have to fight economically or militarily in the Indian Ocean to do it, after we've lost the PACRIM  then we've LOST period.

 

As a refresher on Mackinder:

 

Mackinder 

 

As a refresher on Mahan:

 

Mahan. 

 

Global Security short version. 

 

The point is that there is no isolated {active area of operations). Right now we are in a cold war with the PRC bandits for resources, commerce, and communications dominance, We are in a HOT electronic warfare condition with both sides doing everything short of actual weapon launches at each other to degrade and destroy each other's information systems (Ghost Net attack and the logic bombs the PRC bandits strew in our power networks, commercial communications, and public utilities systems are known public examples of that warfare in progress.) They persistently attempt to electronically attack our satellites by all means short of shooting war.) As for shooting they fired a warning shot at us designed  to show that they could at least hit our LEO communications and reconnaissance nodes. Our return shot was to demonstrate to them that we could reach inside their Second Artillery Coverage and thwart them.

 

Its not hard to figure this stuff out. DATA guides a clear mind unbiased and unclouded by phoney baloney self indulgent ego tripping arrogance and opinion mongering.

 

When I say that that poster doesn't know what he is talking about, its because he doesn't know what he is talking about, period.  

 

He doesn't know for example why international financiers like George Soros and Jim Rogers staged that Georgia fiasco in the Caucausus a year ago to trigger an oil market and natural gas futures collapse or who financed and sourced the September 23 attack on the US commercial financial and housing markets after the oil speculators ran wild and inflated the price of thast resource beyond all reason. (Who financed that trillion dollar attack has never been explained.)

 

Money as well as ballistic missiles is a weapon. All means short of war. 

       

Georgia and George Soros. 

 

 This is not just F-22s and what we need to do to defend the RoCs.

 

The BIG PICTURE involves knowing who is trying to reshape the world to suit themselves.

 

 

The interesting thing about this man is this:

 

WIKI. 

 

I normally don't use Wiki but I'm pressed for time.

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

James Beeland Rogers, Jr.
Born	October 19, 1942 ) (age 66) Wetumpka, Alabama, USA
Website jimrogers.com

For other uses, see: James Rogers (disambiguation).

James Beeland Rogers, Jr. (born October 19, 1942) is a Singapore investor and financial commentator. He is co-founder, along with George Soros, of the Quantum Fund, and is a college professor, author, world traveler, economic commentator, and creator of the Rogers International Commodities Index (RICI).

Contents [hide] 1 Biography 2 Books 3 References 4 Further reading 5 External links 5.1 Articles 5.2 Interviews

[edit] Biography

Rogers was born in Wetumpka, Alabama. Rogers grew up in Demopolis, getting started in business at the age of five, picking up bottles at baseball games. He got his first job on Wall Street, at Dominick & Dominick, after graduating with a bachelor's degree from Yale University in 1964. Rogers then acquired a second BA degree from Balliol College, Oxford University in 1966. After Oxford, Rogers returned to the U.S. and enlisted in the army for a few years.

In 1970, Rogers joined Arnhold & S. Bleichroeder, where he met George Soros. That same year, Rogers and Soros founded the Quantum Fund. During the following 10 years the portfolio gained 4200% while the S&P advanced about 47%.^[1] It was one of the first truly international funds.

In 1980, Rogers decided to "retire", and traveled on motorcycle around the world. Since then, he has been a guest professor of finance at the Columbia University Graduate School of Business.

In 1989 and 1990, Rogers was the moderator of WCBS' The Dreyfus Roundtable and FNN's The Profit Motive with Jim Rogers. From 1990 to 1992, he traveled through China again, as well as around the world, on motorcycle, over 100,000 miles (160,000 km) across six continents, which was picked up in the Guinness Book of World Records. He tells of his adventures and worldwide investments in Investment Biker.

In 1998, Rogers founded the Rogers International Commodity Index. In 2007, the index and its 3 sub-indices were linked to exchange-traded notes under the banner ELEMENTS. The notes track the total return of the indices as an accessible way to invest in the index. Rogers is an outspoken advocate of agriculture investments and, in addition to the Rogers Commodity Index, is involved with two direct, farmland investment funds - Agrifirma (based in Brazil) and Agcapita Farmland Investment Partnership (based in Canada).

Between January 1, 1999 and 5 January, 2002, Rogers did another Guinness World Record journey through 116 countries, covering 245,000 kilometers with his wife, Paige Parker, in a custom-made Mercedes. The trip began in Iceland, which was about to celebrate the 1000th anniversary of Leif Eriksson's first trip to America. On January 5, 2002, they were back in New York City and their home on Riverside Drive. His route around the world can be viewed on his website, jimrogers.com. He wrote Adventure Capitalist following this around-the-world adventure. It is currently his best selling book.

On his return in 2002, Rogers became a regular guest on Fox News' Cavuto on Business which airs every Saturday.^[2] In 2005, Rogers wrote Hot Commodities: How Anyone Can Invest Profitably in the World's Best Market. In this book, Rogers quotes a Financial Analysts Journal academic paper co-authored by Yale School of Management professor, Geert Rouwenhorst, entitled Facts and Fantasies about Commodity Futures. Rogers contends this paper shows that commodities investment is one of the best investments over time, which is a concept somewhat at odds with conventional investment thinking.

In December 2007, Rogers sold his mansion in New York City for about 16 million USD and moved to Singapore. This is due mainly in his belief that this is a ground-breaking time for investment potential in chinese markets. Rogers' first daughter is now being tutored in Mandarin to prepare her for the future, he says. "Moving to China now is like moving to New York City in 1907," he said. Also, he is quoted to say: "If you were smart in 1807 you moved to London, if you were smart in 1907 you moved to New York City, and if you are smart in 2007 you move to Asia." In a CNBC interview with Maria Bartiromo broadcast on May 5, 2008, Rogers said that people in China are extremely motivated and driven, and he wants to be in that type of environment, so his daughters are motivated and driven. He also stated that this is how America and Europe used to be. He chose not to move to Hong Kong or Shanghai due to the high levels of pollution causing potential health problems for his family. However, he is not fully bullish on all Asian nations, as he remains skeptical of India's future.^[3][4]

Rogers has two daughters with Paige Parker; Happy was born in 2003, and their second daughter in 2008.

[edit] Books

• Investment Biker: Around the World with Jim Rogers - 1995 (ISBN 1-55850-529-6)
• Adventure Capitalist: The Ultimate Road Trip - 2003 (ISBN 0375509127)
• Hot Commodities: How Anyone Can Invest Profitably in the World's Best Market - 2004 (ISBN 140006337X)
• A Bull in China: Investing Profitably in the World's Greatest Market - December 4, 2007 (ISBN 1400066166)
• A Gift to My Children: A Father's Lessons For Life And Investing - April 28, 2009 (ISBN 1400067545)

[edit] References

[edit] Further reading

• Schwager, Jack D. (1993). Market Wizards: Interviews with Top Traders. 40 pages: Collins; Reissue edition. ISBN 0-88730-610-1.
• Train, John (2003-05-13). Money Masters of Our Time. Collins; Reprint edition. ISBN 978-0887309700.
• Rogers, Jim (2007-12-04). Bull In China. Random House. ISBN 978-1400066162.

[edit] External links

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Jim Rogers

• The Millennium Adventure, Official Jim Rogers website
• China Global Speakers, handles Jim Rogers' speaking engagements
• The Rogers International Commodity Index Official site

[edit] Articles

• An Early Christmas for Jim Rogers - DECEMBER 8, 2004
• James Rogers Jr.
• Invest In Commodities ? and Keep Your Shirt - 23/11/2006
• We Want Our Kids To Learn Chinese MySinchew article about Jim's life in Singapore, July 19th, 2008.

[edit] Interviews

• Jim Rogers, The Adventure Capitalist
• Jim Rogers and George Soros Started the Quantum Fund
• rediff.com: The Money Interview/Jim Rogers, investor, globetrotter
• Financial Sense Newshour's Ask The Expert: Jim Rogers
• Financial Sense Newshour's Ask The Expert: Jim Rogers 06.05.2004
• Riverside Conversations: a 3 Part TV Series with Marc Faber
• 2007 Interview
• Jim Rogers On Bloomberg September 2007
• Jim Rogers Interview January 2008
• SCMP video interview, September 8, 2008
• 10 minute Bloomberg interview about the financial markets distress of 2008. October, 2008.
• Investors Chronicle interview, on the decline of the US/Europe, emerging markets, commodities (November 2008)
• Bloomberg Night Talk interview, November 24, 2008.
• Jim Rogers on The Lew Rockwell Show, The Crash of '08, December 12, 2008.
• Bloomberg TV Jim Rogers Special, December 24, 2008.

 

His first trip to China was in 1980 where he supposedly "toured" the country. 

 

As for settling in Singapore in 2007. he still needs access to Western Banking to do his thing and he just might need to stay beyond the potential reach of US law enforcement, much like Soros has to actually stay away from France and Thailand.. .

 

Money is a weapon. Follow it and those who wield it.

 

Got a little off topic here, but I thought you should actually look at a few fragments of the BIG PICTURE and see a small part of the mosaic I see every day. 

 

Herald 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can't say I am surprised. The Bush admin already didn't knew what to do with the F-22, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Obama admin culled the program.

It is a cold war relic (just a glimpse in the pit is a flashback from the eighties), overspecialised and overpriced. In these times of financial crisis, choices have to be made.

I argued on Mackinder principals on the china thread a few years back and the locals went ballistic. :)

although if they'd been a little smarter they would have realised that mackinder's "axis of military and socio-political energy" was slightly west of china.... :)

Tell that to all the F-teen pilots' families that get blown out of the sky over the Formosa Strait. Im pretty sure that my 13 year old son could read through these posts and comprehend that there is a need for the F-22 no matter what the final number is. "Cold War relic" are you for real?  If anything it is simply the next generation of air superiority fighter to replace Cold War aircraft and move forward with technology. Please tell us less informed posters how you would maintain the Airforce without it, I'm very curious to hear this.

I had a good Easter so I'm feeling generous.........

 

I am still chuckling over the comments, such as if the if the environment is benign for tankers then the enviornment ois benoign enough for Reapers. Of course the environment would be benign enough. I suppose that putting a drone there would do any good? Oh I forgot, in order for the dfrone to be of any use it has to be inside enemy airspace to use its A2G sensors since the maximum slant at 17,000 meters? Optical H2 would be 430,000 meters and radar H2 would be 530,000 meters.

 

Anyrate, the survival life of such a radar billboard would be minimal.

 

One more thing, airpower wise with regards to robots. You use the same self defense technoques for those UAS systems that you use for low observable aircraft.

 

Proper use of a UCAS     

 

Softwar speculated about the use of an AESA weapon or even some kinds of SAR as weapon systems and suggested manned aircraft. I'n more interested in the use of the autonomous robot as a carrier for that purpose. You want some way to blind radars and blank communications nodes. Why not firehose them with microwave propagator and burn out antennas and switching centers?

 

Even a simple  autopilot driven aircraft can perform such a task. The MECHANICAL logics are to close a radio source turn on the propagator, burn out the enemy electronics and then RTB.

 

Herald

       

Sounds pretty much like the MALD-J stand-in jammer to me--although I'm not so sure it will be AESA-equipped.  Maybe a follow-on will be.

 

You'd use a PARM, a type of MASER.

 

Herald

 

You'd use a PARM, a type of MASER.

must be a big arse MASER.  The ones I''ve had to look at would require gobs of power to do that....  :)

can you email me some citations??