Herald,
I must admit to being somewhat confused as to the direction of this thread. The title indicates that it is another attempt to demonstrate the need for more F-22s. The study and even your posts have had little to do with that issue. Instead, it deals with the basing and logistical issues that the Air Force would have to deal with in a confrontation with China over Taiwan.
At various points you seem to be saying (and I agree) that Kadena is too exposed to various Chinese attacks to base the F-22 at. That leaves Guam as the only major airbase available (assuming that Japan is neutral). Using the Studies sortie rates, the entire currently planned F-22 inventory could only generate a 6 ship continuous CAP over Taiwan. Using those same ratios if the additional 60 F-22s are purchased that you have advocated on other threads, then that CAP level could be raised to?.8. The issue isn?t the number of platforms in service, it?s the basing availability and the support required to get them to the front. If the US had 1000 F-22s in its inventory, but was still only able to use the Guam bases then the number available for the CAP would not be much different than it is with only 183. There just isn?t enough room at Anderson field for many more fighters.
The primary service in any defense of Taiwan is going to be the Navy. The carriers are more mobile, harder to find and better protected (if more fragile) than any fixed airbase. The biggest threats to any invasion force (outside the Taiwanese forces) are US submarines. I would like to think that seeing the force ratios the Air Forces?s strategy would not be based on a passive Defensive CAP, but instead focus on escorted attack missions and offensive fighter sweeps, where they could concentrate their numbers ad pick and chose their fights.
The biggest threats to any invasion force (outside the Taiwanese forces) are US submarines.
StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy