3 ms·

If the US were to permanently lose a big chunk of its airpower, Taiwan would have to rejoin China soon after.

craftyguy 8y ago
Considering the US won't formally recognize Taiwan, they are, according to the US government, already part of China so I guess we apparently don't need that 'big chunk' of our airpower.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  If the US loses Taiwan as a potential staging area, geopolitics all around the South China Sea would change significantly. Basically, every country adjacent to the South China Sea would lose a big chunk of their autonomy.
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    Then perhaps they should recognize Taiwan and pledge to protect them. This current strategy of appeasement will only work for so long, airpower or not.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      This current strategy of appeasement will only work for so long, airpower or not. You are correct, in a way. As it turns out, Taiwan is very hard to conduct landings on. The seas there are very rough, and the weather would interfere in all but 2 weeks of the year. Also, there is very little coast suitable for an amphibious landing. A landing on Taiwan could well make D-Day look like a cakewalk. However, China may grow its economy to the point, where it could still be feasible. In the meantime, the delaying action which you call "appeasement" is probably the best strategy for the US. Recognizing Taiwan would be a huge provocation of China, which is a potential tool best left for a future contingency.
kibwen 8y ago
This assumes that the F-35 is essential for maintaining air superiority, which is unsupported.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- adrr 8y ago
  I'd take F-22s over F-35 for air superiority and ship-launched cruise missiles for ground attacks.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Ship launched cruise missiles for close air support? I'm skeptical. F-22's are better for air superiority, but the F-35 was designed as a bomb and missile truck. Potentially, it could do that job very, very well.
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      > > ship-launched cruise missiles for ground attacks. > Ship launched cruise missiles for close air support? I'm skeptical. Perhaps you should be skeptical, but that's not at all what adrr said...
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        A part of the F-35's ground attack mission includes close air support. Of course, the F-35 also has massive drawbacks there as well. In terms of force projection, it's the ability to shut down the enemy's close air support while providing it to your side which is part of the whole point of air superiority.
    - Stranger43 8y ago
      And the fact that the artillery(and the navy) is way better at deploying standoff range munitions then any fighter will ever be is a big part of the F-35 problem. Is it’s designed to do a job the artillery is better. The problem here is that the one role where manned planes still makes sense is the high risk low altitude visual range infantry support role the Air Force brass don’t like as it means they ave to plan for the same kind of casualty rates as the infantry tend to sustain. In a lot of ways that unwillingness to put infantry first is why the us have not had a independent military success since the horse mounted cavalry went obsolete.[1] 1: The two wold wars don’t count as the us general staff was not in charge of strategy in any of those conflicts.

Considering the US won't formally recognize Taiwan, they are, according to the US government, already part of China so I guess we apparently don't need that 'big chunk' of our airpower.

stcredzero 8y ago
If the US loses Taiwan as a potential staging area, geopolitics all around the South China Sea would change significantly. Basically, every country adjacent to the South China Sea would lose a big chunk of their autonomy.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  Then perhaps they should recognize Taiwan and pledge to protect them. This current strategy of appeasement will only work for so long, airpower or not.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    This current strategy of appeasement will only work for so long, airpower or not. You are correct, in a way. As it turns out, Taiwan is very hard to conduct landings on. The seas there are very rough, and the weather would interfere in all but 2 weeks of the year. Also, there is very little coast suitable for an amphibious landing. A landing on Taiwan could well make D-Day look like a cakewalk. However, China may grow its economy to the point, where it could still be feasible. In the meantime, the delaying action which you call "appeasement" is probably the best strategy for the US. Recognizing Taiwan would be a huge provocation of China, which is a potential tool best left for a future contingency.

kibwen 8y ago

This assumes that the F-35 is essential for maintaining air superiority, which is unsupported.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
adrr 8y ago
I'd take F-22s over F-35 for air superiority and ship-launched cruise missiles for ground attacks.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Ship launched cruise missiles for close air support? I'm skeptical. F-22's are better for air superiority, but the F-35 was designed as a bomb and missile truck. Potentially, it could do that job very, very well.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    > > ship-launched cruise missiles for ground attacks. > Ship launched cruise missiles for close air support? I'm skeptical. Perhaps you should be skeptical, but that's not at all what adrr said...
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      A part of the F-35's ground attack mission includes close air support. Of course, the F-35 also has massive drawbacks there as well. In terms of force projection, it's the ability to shut down the enemy's close air support while providing it to your side which is part of the whole point of air superiority.
  - Stranger43 8y ago
    And the fact that the artillery(and the navy) is way better at deploying standoff range munitions then any fighter will ever be is a big part of the F-35 problem. Is it’s designed to do a job the artillery is better. The problem here is that the one role where manned planes still makes sense is the high risk low altitude visual range infantry support role the Air Force brass don’t like as it means they ave to plan for the same kind of casualty rates as the infantry tend to sustain. In a lot of ways that unwillingness to put infantry first is why the us have not had a independent military success since the horse mounted cavalry went obsolete.[1] 1: The two wold wars don’t count as the us general staff was not in charge of strategy in any of those conflicts.