F-22 Raptor on life support?

[Sgt Joch]

I think we all agree that UCAV will eventually render manned AC obsolete, the only question is when.

Air superiority is important, although Air superiority alone will not win a war without a solid ground or naval game.

Regarding the effectiveness of air superiority, I had found this article sometimes back based on a postwar assessment of the 1991 Iraq war:

Dummy positions and equipment should be incorporated in the defensive plan. The Russians studied the Persian Gulf War and understand that the Iraqi Army prepared 700 artillery firing positions and 750 antiaircraft artillery positions (and occupied 200 and 250 of them respectively). The Iraqi army built entire reserve and dummy positions in the strongpoints of their motorized infantry and tank units. Iraqi radar operated from dummy SAM positions. The Iraqis built fiberglass mockups of weapons systems. They then coated these with metallic paint and equipped them with heat emitters. The Iraqis also deployed inflatable mockups which have radar and thermal signatures analogous to the real systems. The Iraqis claim that up to 90 percent of the air strikes in the first week of Desert Storm were delivered against dummy positions, and that the coalition had to conduct special training for flight crews during the war to improve their ability to differentiate between real and dummy systems.5 Deception efforts employing dummy equipment and dust, can aid in drawing off PGM fires.

Interviews with U.S. officers and captured Iraqi officers indicate that the bulk of Iraqi ground combat vehicles were destroyed during the ground offensive. They were destroyed by helicopter-delivered PGMs, A- 10 close air support aircraft and ground systems. The exception was the Iraqi 52nd Armored Brigade which was caught on the move by A-1Os on 12 January, before the ground offensive, during the attack on Khafji. There are solid indications that battle damage assessment (IBDA) figures of aircraft kills against dug-in vehicles were exaggerated.

from: "Desert Defense and Surviving PGMs: The new Russian view"

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/Red-Star/issues/JAN95/JAN95.HTML#Desert

[Sgt Joch]

regarding the continuing relevance of dogfighting, look at this RAND study on "Air combat Past, Present and Future"

http://www.scribd.com/doc/7774389/Rand-StudyFuture-of-Air-Combat

pp. 19-28 deal with the effectiveness of air-to-air missiles.

Since the advent of AA missiles, only 24 out of 588 kills were done by BVR (i.e. Beyond Visual Range) missiles, the so called over the horizon missiles. the rest were WVR (i.e Within Visual Range) kills by gun/missiles.

Since the introduction of the AIM-120 in 1991, still only 20 out of 61 kills were BVR, so you still have a lot of close in fighting.

incidentally, if you read the study, you will see why the USAF feels naked with only 188 F-22s.

[Wildman]

BigDuke,

Some great points there, however, as always a differning opinion will disagree The one and half regional conflicts is THE defining factor in programing money for weapons systems, as well as, the entire size of the current force. The need to fight one like equipped enemy to a standstill while simutaneously winning against another like equipped enemy is in essense the worst case scenario in which we could ever find ourselves, and give us operational flexibility to meet conflicts that are not that intense. The only reason the military today has been able to handle OIF/OEF deployments is the size of the force which is designed under the 1 1/2 theory.

Cruise missiles with less than 400-600 mile range are about in production, the JASSM and the AF had the CALCM for 1,500mile plus tracks...the problem with cruise missiles that size is the START treaty, as they could be used to carry nukes they fall under that treaty and are restricted in numbers and other issues. Second is that any air breathing cruise missile is very susecptible to AAA/SAM/IADS that are still in good working order. They are still air breathing missiles and that brings their speed (currently) to the subsonic range.

There are technologies out there that will mature into a whole new family of weapon systems, SCRAM engine, the Airborne Laser will eventually lead to something, UAVs will get better, but until the human/machine interface becomes more complete UAV just are not viable. BVR is extremely good as long as you have good data on the enemy in time to launch from range, most aircraft shoot downs have been within eyeball distance with short range missiles and guns due to the need to ensure that the target is indeed an enemy.

You want more infantry, however, the personnel costs the military incures is the highest bill that they pay, far above any single weapons system. If the arguement to remove the pilot and the human from the air, wouldn't the same arguement work for ground forces? Why should a M1 have a crew? or a RC Humvee with a Javelin on a remote?

I will agree that the Air Force has too many officers, by about 20% in my opinion, but most of those are projected not for state side tours but to ensure a viable pool for deployments and lately filling critical joint logistics roles. The Air Force could use its current pool of people a bit more smartly in my opinion.

Bottom line is the current model requires the F-22, no other plane will fit the bill to replace the current 30 year old crop of F-15s that we currently have. There is no other weapons system in development or anywhere near reality that would offer comprable capabilities of the F-22, and with that in mind 180 is not enough to replace the near 500 aircraft they are designed to replace, heck I don't think the 380 the Air Force wants is enough, but that number will provide enough of a force multipler that the older F-15 aircraft that have turned into BVR missile boats will be able to get through to shoot down the bombers/attack/older enemy aircraft.

[dieseltaylor]

Sgt Joch.

Interesting Rand report. I am bemused that the idea of fighting over Taiwan is even considered. An unwinnable proposition given the proximity of China and assuming a non-nuclear war. However I can understand in realpolitik the need to pretend something.

Given the suggested tactics of the PLAAF it would seem numerous drones would be ideal for both attracting AAMs and for confusing the enemy. It would also suggest that effort be made on anti-AAM defences for airborne units. I believe this is being addressed for civilian aircraft currently anyway.

The consideration must be what are the chances of a hot war with Russia or China in the next decade - very slight I would think. If so where would the US be fighting? Europe - not a problem then for airbases. China - Taiwan!

As for the efficiency of BVR systems I was rather hoping in the 17 years since 1991 that they had improved somewhat. BTW I think BVR and visual should be put into context - at a closing speed of 30miles per second we are perhaps being very precious at the differentiation. If we get rid of the MkI eyeball it becomes meaningless : )

Now with on-board anti-AAM measures given the extra room perhaps survivability would increase also. How much of a current fighter goes to the crew - ejector seat, air, comms, cockpit itself. Any one any idea weight and size wise?

[Sgt Joch]

DT,

yes, the USAF does seem to be particularly obsessed with China in that study, but their job is to prepare for war. Russia and China are presently the only two potential enemies who could give the US military a real challenge and it makes sense to at least plan what could happen even though the current chances of an actual war are very low. It is also hard to justify an expense like the F-22 program unless you can scare Congress with an aircraft gap...

As for the efficiency of BVR systems I was rather hoping in the 17 years since 1991 that they had improved somewhat. BTW I think BVR and visual should be put into context - at a closing speed of 30miles per second we are perhaps being very precious at the differentiation. If we get rid of the MkI eyeball it becomes meaningless : )

things happen very quickly when planes are closing in at a combined speed of 1,000+ knots.

I used to play Jane's F/A-18 and Falcon 4 quite a bit, which are good at giving you at least a general idea about modern air combat. I was always amazed that the bandit 40 nm on your nose and closing would, in the blink of an eye, be on your tail maneuvering for a missile shot and you were fighting for your virtual life...that is part of the reason I switched to more sedate entertainment like CMSF...

[JonS]

IMO, the limited kills to BVRs is primarily down to restrictive ROEs leading to limited opportunities to use them. As I said, in a hypothetical full-on against China, the ROEs would likely be a little more permissive.

If the arguement to remove the pilot and the human from the air, wouldn't the same arguement work for ground forces? Why should a M1 have a crew? or a RC Humvee with a Javelin on a remote?

Well, that isn't my argument. I think air superiority in a full-on is ideally suited to drones doing the heavy lifting because there aren't too many civilians, houses, or mosques floating around at 40,000'. Ground forces always have to worry about collateral damagae. Air superiority missions ... not so much.

Yes, there are civilian private a/c and airliners, but remember I'm talking about using drones to win air superiority in the attritional phase of a full-on war. Something like the 3rd Shock Army surging across the Fulda Gap, or the Chinese invading Taiwan. ROEs are going to be permissive, and civilian a/c notable by their absence.

[Affentitten]

I think we all agree that UCAV will eventually render manned AC obsolete, the only question is when.

Air superiority is important, although Air superiority alone will not win a war without a solid ground or naval game.

Regarding the effectiveness of air superiority, I had found this article sometimes back based on a postwar assessment of the 1991 Iraq war:

from: "Desert Defense and Surviving PGMs: The new Russian view"

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/Red-Star/issues/JAN95/JAN95.HTML#Desert

The same thing happened during the air strikes on the Serbs during the Kosovo intervention. NATO claimed that they had destroyed 40 - 60% of the 300 Serb MBTs in Kosovo, but when it came to proper BDA they had only managed to hit 13. The rest were dummies.

[Bigduke6]

Wildman,

Well the simple answer of course is that we need an air force capable of dealing with the 1 and 1/2 wars we have a reasonable chance of getting involved in, rather than 1 and 1/2 regional wars we would never, ever fight. Right now, in the wars we are fighting, our air resources are wasted, we have more air capacity than we need for the wars we are in. This is not to say there will never be a need for more air capacity in the future, but ignoring the present is not a great way of planning for the future.

In any case, that Rand study is a classic example of how the F-22 or any big weapon lobby works. It posits a situation with alot of assumptions that are nowhere near given, and then goes along to demonstrate what we absolutely must have is more F-22es or whatever big weapon the study is aimed at supporting.

That Rand study of course does a fine job demonstrating US aircraft flying out of Guam and Japan would be hard put to estabilish air superiority over Taiwan. But that is not the only way, or even the likely way, the war would go down air-wise. In fact, there are some huge holes in that Rand study, so gaping frankly I am surprised whoever put that study together thought he could get away with such omissions. After all, the audience of a Rand study is by definition not morons.

- THE STUDY MAKES NO MENTION OF TAIWAN'S PARTICPATION IN ITS OWN DEFENCE

It's nuts. The study goes into huge detail about the numbers of Chinese air bases, the small number of US air bases, the reach of Chinese weapons systems, the sortie rates, the tanker needs, projected aircraft exchange rates. Heck, there is even a cool pull-out menu showing subminition saturation on a US air base his by a Chinese SSM launch.

But in all those calculations, it is as if Taiwan's military didn't even exist. They have something like 300 fighters, of which 200 probably are roughly F-16 standard, and pilot quality is superior to Chinese. They have to have I would guess a dozen or so airfields, right in the center of the battle area. They have modern air defence missiles, their own AWACs, and their intelligence analysts speak the same language as the Red Chinese. They have submarines to hunt the Chinese submarines and surface-to-surface missiles to hit the Chinese airfeileds. And yet if you read the Rand study, the US would be going it alone if it got involved in a war with China over Taiwan. It's just crazy, did the person that wrote that report think the people he would present it to were unaware Taiwan is afraid of China and has taken steps of its own to preserve Taiwan independance.

- THE STUDY MAKES FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES NO MENTION OF DIPLOMATIC EVENTS THAT ARE VERY LIKELY, THAT WOULD HUGELY IMPROVE THE US POSITION

Like, for instance, the US gets to use air bases in Manila and elsewhere in the Phillipenes, to my mind almost a given as the Phillipinos are anti-Chinese and double anti-agresssive Chinese. There is a passing reference to possible Japanese air force assistance in a war against China, but none on wider use by US air forces of Japanese ground facilities, or indeed Japanese ground support to a US-led air effort. Thailand, another obvious base region for strikes against China, is not even placed on the report's maps, it's like the edge of the world begins just south-west of Hainan island. Nor is there any mention of NATO (good chance) or indeed Russian (less chance, but don't underestimate Russian dislike of the Chinese) participation in a coordinated air effort to control Chinese agresssion. And what about the Aussies, if the Chinese attacked Taiwan and the US said please help, do you really think the Bruces would miss a chance to stick it to the Chinese?

Just as a rough figure, if just the very probable US allies in such a fight were factored into the equation - Taiwan, Japan, and smaller contingents from Australia and NATO, plus full-scale basing in the Phillipenes and Thailand - then the F-22 isn't even necessary. The good guys have numerical parity or even a possible superiority even without F-22, and the Red Chinese have to defend against strikes from a huge arc of threats, 180 degrees or more. Given maintenance and sortie rates, I would expect the good guys to gain and hold air superiority over Taiwan after about three to ten days' fighting. With the F-22 present even in small numbers, you could probable cut that time line in half.

As to your other points...

The only reason the military today has been able to handle OIF/OEF deployments is the size of the force which is designed under the 1 1/2 theory.

I dispute that. The Iraq war to my mind has gone more or less stable (i.e., the stalemate result) not because of resources committed to air force capacity, or even to ground for capacity. Rather, to my mind it has come from a US political decision to ally with two of the three main players in Iraqi politics (the Kurds and the Sunnis), and a willing sacrifice of the original goal of a free and democratic Iraq safe from authoritarian leadership.

Further, I would say that the US military effort in Iraq AND Afghanistan has been by the 1 1/2 theory because that theory postulated wars of a conventional and fairly all arms nature, i.e., with plenty of air and naval participation. In fact, the wars are ground, infantry, and intelligence intensive; making resources committed to top-end naval or air capacity extraneous. It may have made sense to cover our bets and make sure we had a good air force and navy, but now that we are in the wars what we need are more guys on the ground and clear information to give them on whom they should be trying to kill.

In other words, just because you are preparing for 1 1/2 wars, it does not to my mind logically follow that you must be prepared for 1 and 1/2 high intensity air wars.

Cruise missiles with less than 400-600 mile range are about in production, the JASSM and the AF had the CALCM for 1,500mile plus tracks...the problem with cruise missiles that size is the START treaty, as they could be used to carry nukes they fall under that treaty and are restricted in numbers and other issues.

Non-issue, the US bailed out of the SALT I treaty (ABM) a couple of years ago, and SALT II (SSM and cruise missiles) in 1986. START I - III have never been ratified and both sides are on record as saying they consider themselves not constrained by START terms.

Second is that any air breathing cruise missile is very susecptible to AAA/SAM/IADS that are still in good working order. They are still air breathing missiles and that brings their speed (currently) to the subsonic range.

There are technologies out there that will mature into a whole new family of weapon systems, SCRAM engine, the Airborne Laser will eventually lead to something, UAVs will get better, but until the human/machine interface becomes more complete UAV just are not viable. BVR is extremely good as long as you have good data on the enemy in time to launch from range, most aircraft shoot downs have been within eyeball distance with short range missiles and guns due to the need to ensure that the target is indeed an enemy.

All fair comments. But how far are we from a stealthy cruise missile? How far are we from cheap cruise missile able to flood a typical US air defence network? How far are we from a UAV able to to launch BVR missile? How far are we from a UAV with a smaller radar profile than an F-22? How far are we from a threat air defence network able to communicate multi-source targeting date to an integrated network of missile-toting UAVes and SAM?

As to the eyeball distance, I think it was some one else in this thread, if not the Rand study, that pointed out many of the close range kills came as a result of US pilots' being obliged to make a visual confirmation of a hostile, before firing.

I think the trends are obvious and, if we are to bet the F-22 can overcome them, pretty scary. Remember what happened to the Wehrmacht after it ran through its supply of Tigers and Panthers on the East Front in June 1944: The worst single defeat of ground forces in military history. There is such a thing as betting on quality and losing.

You want more infantry, however, the personnel costs the military incures is the highest bill that they pay, far above any single weapons system. If the arguement to remove the pilot and the human from the air, wouldn't the same arguement work for ground forces? Why should a M1 have a crew? or a RC Humvee with a Javelin on a remote?

Well, as noted I am not a big fan of expensive armored vehicles. But you're quite right, as far as vehicles go remote and unmanned I think is the wave of the future. The next generation of tanks supposedly is just a tracked chassis with a gun that gets cranked up over the crest, the crew stays in defilade (not that it will do them much good once top-attack munitions start proliferating).

As to personnel costs, that's easy, I would have a draft. That would cut costs, increase recruit and junior officer quality, and make it much harder for the government to send the military into a war without thinking much about the opinion of the home front. As it is the military is kind of a caste within the society, with its own politics and not having much to do with the civilians. Unhealthy and unAmerican as far as I am concerned.

[dieseltaylor]

: )

You are quite right BD6 the holes in the case are remarkable but I assume some other presentation dealt with the "Allies". I imagine it went like this. Post Iraq and the removal of Tony Blair the US is johnny-no-mates and the war will be single handed. Taiwan will be neutralised by widespread unrest as half the nation wishes to join China rather than suffer a war. The US will of course back the wrong faction - its traditional.

As for Japan, Phillipines and Australia - would they seriously go to war for a Chinese province.?

[Sgt Joch]

I would not read too much into the study. We don't know what its purpose was.

Based on the title and subject, it appears to be more to test the validity of USAF assumptions about acquiring air supremacy in a conflict, rather than developping a defence plan for Taiwan. For that purpose, it is a very good overview of the current state of air combat.

[Bigduke6]

DT,

Well, the study posits Japanese air intervention, and use of Korean bases.

And of course if Taiwan is in unrest and incapable of fighting, then I don't see a US intervention in any case.

Manilia would only have to provide bases and there's not much the Chinese could do to them. The Australians I would say would fight on the Americans' side, but maybe they might go Kiwi on us.

But the bottom line is, I can't imagine a scenario where the US tries to get control of the air space over Taiwan against the Red Chinese, and the Taiwanese aren't helping defend their own "country." And if they ARE going to help, then that entire study is pretty silly.

[SSgt Viljuri]

RAND stands for "Research and no development", which means that papers it publishes are not meant to be taken as operational plans, but are more related to basic inquiry and science.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Quantity vs. quality. The DoD is now spending as much money on fighter procurement as it was during the Reagan buildup in the 80s.

But due to the cost the number of fighters are no where near enough to replace the fleet nearing the end of its service life.

Although it's easy to say "spend more money", as a practical matter this is not going to happen until and unless an actual conflict erupts that exposes the Air Force to be the hollow force it will soon become.

[Bigduke6]

Or...until a pair of actual conflicts erupt that expose the Air Force as the overpriced boondoggle it already is.

All a question of perspective, really.

[Stalins Organ]

DT,

The Australians I would say would fight on the Americans' side, but maybe they might go Kiwi on us.

so they'll be there then - since this scenario is about an actual invasion of another country, and not a load of bull to shore up the neo-con new world order.

:cool:

[Sergei]

I thought neo-con NWO was all about invading other countries?

[JonS]

But only if they are following the same paradigm: 'they' have single seat fighters, so 'we' need to have single seat fighters to counter them.

But if we don't follow that logic and go along the lines that JonS is saying, then our response to their uber fighter might be to have batteries of AAMs hanging off unmanned plastic zeppelins, or laser cannons or suicide fanatics in phosphorous burning Gnatte to soak up all your Sidewinders.

Tangentially, you could say that al-Qaeda never had any fighter or bomber aircraft available to them. But they did manage to mount air raids on NY and DC by thinking outside the box.

The Tamil Tigers acheived much the same thing in Sri Lanka, under much the same conditions.

[Affentitten]

DT,

Well, the study posits Japanese air intervention, and use of Korean bases.

And of course if Taiwan is in unrest and incapable of fighting, then I don't see a US intervention in any case.

Manilia would only have to provide bases and there's not much the Chinese could do to them. The Australians I would say would fight on the Americans' side, but maybe they might go Kiwi on us.

But the bottom line is, I can't imagine a scenario where the US tries to get control of the air space over Taiwan against the Red Chinese, and the Taiwanese aren't helping defend their own "country." And if they ARE going to help, then that entire study is pretty silly.

I had a chat once to a Taiwanese army officer. He wasn't exactly optimistic about the chances of holding off the Chinese if they were determined. They could make the crossing expensive, he said, but even if they hit with every bullet available to them, the Chinese would still over-run them pretty quickly.

The Taiwanese somehow holding out in a military sense is a furphy. The whole thing has always hinged on the Chinese not wanting to enter a shooting war with the USA. Some Jap fighter planes or an extra couple of Perry frigates from the Anzacs are irrelevant.

[Stalins Organ]

I thought neo-con NWO was all about invading other countries?

only when it's us doing it for no good reason.

When someone else does it for no good reason then it's not neo-con NWO - it's just old school misery and mayhem.

[Affentitten]

The Tamil Tigers acheived much the same thing in Sri Lanka, under much the same conditions.

As did the Biafrans, though with less long-term success than the Tamils.

[Affentitten]

Stalin,

no one is, AFAICT, saying that air superiority is pointless, however "air superiority" as an end in itself is an ultimately sterile objective. It's only utility is in what else it allows you to accomplish.

Israel had total air superiority when it invaded Lebanon in 2006.

[Bigduke6]

I had a chat once to a Taiwanese army officer. He wasn't exactly optimistic about the chances of holding off the Chinese if they were determined. They could make the crossing expensive, he said, but even if they hit with every bullet available to them, the Chinese would still over-run them pretty quickly.

The Taiwanese somehow holding out in a military sense is a furphy. The whole thing has always hinged on the Chinese not wanting to enter a shooting war with the USA. Some Jap fighter planes or an extra couple of Perry frigates from the Anzacs are irrelevant.

But the great thing about air is it's so flexible, all you need to really change the ratios is a decision and sufficient bases. It's not like naval which takes a long time to get there and reguires serious basing otherwise it can't sustain, or land forces which are even worse. Provided they had someplace to land and take off, air forces just need the decision to deploy. (True, an air base you can't get supplies to is useless too, but in most cases you can, and in this scenario you can.)

If Taiwan goes it alone they have maybe 350 fighters available to hold off the Chinese horde.

If the Japanese intervene (F-15, F-2, and maybe even Phantom, highly-trained pilots), that's another 300 competent to superior fighters into the mix.

If the Aussies intervene as well, that's another 50 or so F-18, and very highly-trained pilots - and this is a critical bit - they could fit into a US-managed air battle pretty much seamlessly. Plus there's those ancient F-111, a museum piece sure but pretty durn good for striking Chinese airfields.

A NATO contribution is any one's guess, but I think it's worth bearing in mind air force personnel risked in combat are pretty much never large in numbers, and air forces are in general more professional (time in service, less draftees, that sort of thing) than other service branches. This I would say would skew numbers up for some form of Euro intervention.

As for the usual suspects you'd have to believe the Brits would kick in if the Aussies did, otherwise they'd never live it down in subsequent football, cricket, and rugby matches. If the Brits are in, then ok the French and Germans would stay out to demonstrate they are not British, but then you might get the Italians or the Spanish or the Poles or the Danes or the Belgians involved because they want to be different from the Germans and the French, or some internal domestic reason, or just because the Americans bought them off, or some combination of those motivations.

Whoever the Euros that would play ball would ultimately be, they would like the Australians, be NATO-standard and so fit in to the US-controlled air battle pretty much seamlessly.

And all that's not including the Americans. According to the Rand study as I remember it (too lazy to look it up), about 400 - 500 US combat aircraft are posited, of which about 150 are F-22. The main problem is maintaining a decent sortie rate out of Japan, Korea, and Guam.

So what happens to that sortie rate, if the US Marines land and operate Harriers off Taiwan itself? What happens if every single stateside reinforcement can fly to and operate from Clark air force base next to Manila?

If you are a Chinese planner, the bad guy numbers become pretty overwhelming pretty fast. Sure you have a bazillion troops, but how to get them through the foreign barbarian air gauntlet to Taiwan? There are close to 1,000 outstanding enemy aircraft out there, maybe more, and the worst of them is capable of tangling with your very best. The enemy average can shoot down anything you have unless you can obtain substantial numerical odds. The enemy best aircraft is for practical purposes invulnerable to your entire air defence network. And as time goes on the odds against you get worse; if the enemy planes are half again as good as yours overall, and the pilots maybe 75 per cent better, then the enemy's ground support is at least twice and quite possibly three or four times as capable as yours, and that translates directly to sortie rates.

Your only hope if you are a Chinese planner is destroying the entire Taiwan air force on the ground, and then capturing the island and turning it into a defensive fortress before the big-nosed foreign barbarians manage to react.

But unfortunately for you (see the bit at the start about the flexibility of air forces) the wai gu ren (foreign barbarians) could get their first fighters over Taiwan in a matter of hours, up that number to hundreds of available aircraft in one to two weeks, and up those hundreds to more than 1,000, in a month or so.

Could the soldiers of the People's Army stamp out ground resistance in Taiwan, in a month? Well, just maybe if Taiwan was right next to Hunan province and all you had to do was truck or rail the ground troops in. But across water? With the foreign barbarians and their Taiwanese running dogs challenging you for the air, and the arrogant and unfortunately technically superior foreign barbarian submarines hunting whatever naval forces you choose to send close to the Taiwan Strait?

Even if the entire Chinese leadership went collectively gaga as per the Great Leap Forward, it's hard to imagine a Chinese leadership willing to take on those odds, for the sake of Taiwan. If the Taiwanese military will fight, and the Americans will support them, an invasion of Taiwan is pretty obviously doomed. If there were some way to make a hurricane stay over the island for about two months, then maybe the Chinese would have a chance. But if the foreign barbarians are able to bring air to the sector, it's time to hang up your chop sticks.

[Merkin Muffley]

I can't see any circumstances where European countries would be inclined to support Taiwan against China. The war would be seen as essentially a civil-war, they wouldn't be able to support credible operations at that distance, and China is both the sovereign entity they recognise and is a dominant and growing political, economic and military power.

What on earth would be their interest in getting involved?

[Sergei]

If Beijing suddenly became crazy enough to believe that they'd somehow improve anything by invading Taiwan, they just as well might at the same stroke become mad enough to believe that USA or EU would want to interfere militarily. But I really don't think so. Even a James Bond villain general wouldn't be so gullible as to think that westerners would rather go and die for the freedom of some semi-democratic islanders rather than get 55" plasma screens and iPhones and Wii Fit boards for Christmas. Unless iPhone and Wii Fit are made in Taiwan...

[Affentitten]

I can just see the Australian PM trying to sell the idea of obliterating our entire fleet of strike aircraft in order to slow the Chinese juggernaut. ie. that of our major trading partner.