current and future data link/information sharing

[trevor999]

A very good article on current and future data link/information sharing at The Drive dot com/The War Zone

"The RQ-180 Drone Will Emerge From The Shadows As The Centerpiece Of A Air Combat Revolution"

Sorry, it won't let me post links yet.

I was astonished that the F-35 and F-22 can't data link with each other. I wonder who thought that was a good idea.

[BDukes]

Here's a link

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... revolution

Mike

[thewood1]

The USN has had CEC linkage capability for quite a while. The USAF initially made moves to support it then they suddenly said they were going their own way. They aren't very close to getting there from what I remember. That answers the question on the F-22 to F-35 linkage capability.

[maverick3320]

ORIGINAL: trevor999

A very good article on current and future data link/information sharing at The Drive dot com/The War Zone

"The RQ-180 Drone Will Emerge From The Shadows As The Centerpiece Of A Air Combat Revolution"

Sorry, it won't let me post links yet.

I was astonished that the F-35 and F-22 can't data link with each other. I wonder who thought that was a good idea.

Not to put on my tin foil hat, but one has to wonder why the Air Force would purposely do that. I recently read an article where an Air Force general was going off on the Army for trying to develop land-based anti-ship/ground strike missiles for stationing in the West Pacific. He went off on a rant about how the Air Force could handle this mission on their own. I wonder if this Air Force general has seen any of the wargames about how the USAF performs in the opening days of, say, an invasion of Taiwan. A significant fraction of air assets are destroyed on the ground and the rest of the air assets have trouble getting into theater. You can only cram so many planes onto Anderson AFB in Guam - assuming that the Anderson runway is still functional, which is a big if.

TLDR: interservice rivalry is a real thing.

[trevor999]

Not to put on my tin foil hat, but one has to wonder why the Air Force would purposely do that. I recently read an article where an Air Force general was going off on the Army for trying to develop land-based anti-ship/ground strike missiles for stationing in the West Pacific. He went off on a rant about how the Air Force could handle this mission on their own. I wonder if this Air Force general has seen any of the wargames about how the USAF performs in the opening days of, say, an invasion of Taiwan. A significant fraction of air assets are destroyed on the ground and the rest of the air assets have trouble getting into theater. You can only cram so many planes onto Anderson AFB in Guam - assuming that the Anderson runway is still functional, which is a big if.

It seems to me any conflict scenario between China and the US presupposes US partners/allies in the region will, if not join, then let the US use its/their bases in the region. But what happens if one, some or all of those partners (S. Korea, Japan, Philippines, Australia) say "Look, this is your fight. We have no quarrel with China, therefore we will not join and/or we deny you the use of those bases."? Those bases are the territory of a sovereign nation, in the end they can do as they please. Park a few tanks or truck on the runways and nothing is going to move.

I suppose it would come down to escalated first, over what, and who has an interest in it enough to go to war, and to accept all that war entails. I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

It could get awfully lonely in the Western Pacific...

[Dragon029]

ORIGINAL: maverick3320
I wonder if this Air Force general has seen any of the wargames about how the USAF performs in the opening days of, say, an invasion of Taiwan. A significant fraction of air assets are destroyed on the ground and the rest of the air assets have trouble getting into theater.

To be fair, that's partially why the USAF General thinks it's dumb; if China can take out facilities in Guam, then what's stopping them from also taking out the Army's land-based systems? At least with the USAF you can fly B-52s, etc from Hawaii or Alaska (or CONUS with extra refuelling) and launch your hypersonics from those. When tensions get high you can also just have B-52s constantly rotating in the air, armed with ARRWs in case an attack is launched; if intelligence can't provide targeting before the facilities in Guam, etc are destroyed, then that's unfortunate but at least some of the B-52s are still airborne and can launch when the targeting is ready; the aircrew can then either land somewhere else in the region or ditch near allied territory. The Navy is in a similar position to the USAF.

Now on the other hand, the Army could position its launchers in discrete and changing locations in South Korea or Japan, etc where saturation attacks aren't as feasible, but generally the US doesn't use run & gun tactics with its SAMs, etc and it looks to me like their plan for LRHW isn't any different:

[SunlitZelkova]

ORIGINAL: Dragon029

ORIGINAL: maverick3320
I wonder if this Air Force general has seen any of the wargames about how the USAF performs in the opening days of, say, an invasion of Taiwan. A significant fraction of air assets are destroyed on the ground and the rest of the air assets have trouble getting into theater.

To be fair, that's partially why the USAF General thinks it's dumb; if China can take out facilities in Guam, then what's stopping them from also taking out the Army's land-based systems? At least with the USAF you can fly B-52s, etc from Hawaii or Alaska (or CONUS with extra refuelling) and launch your hypersonics from those. When tensions get high you can also just have B-52s constantly rotating in the air, armed with ARRWs in case an attack is launched; if intelligence can't provide targeting before the facilities in Guam, etc are destroyed, then that's unfortunate but at least some of the B-52s are still airborne and can launch when the targeting is ready; the aircrew can then either land somewhere else in the region or ditch near allied territory. The Navy is in a similar position to the USAF.

Now on the other hand, the Army could position its launchers in discrete and changing locations in South Korea or Japan, etc where saturation attacks aren't as feasible, but generally the US doesn't use run & gun tactics with its SAMs, etc and it looks to me like their plan for LRHW isn't any different:

I'm not sure about about South Korea, but in Japan that would not be possible. Even the few US Army facilities there are on the mainland are controversial and I highly doubt the public would accept more US bases, let alone TELs driving around all over the place.

Even new JSDF bases are controversial, Aegis Ashore was killed partially because the local government where it was supposed to go felt it turned them into a target (the other aspect was money related).

I'm not sure there could be such a thing as a discrete location. Pretty much every military base in Japan is available on Google Earth (that is, placemarked or whatever it is called), it would be fairly obvious where they are. And when the TELs try to scoot after shooting, surely the TELs barreling down the Japanese highways with police escorts will trend on social media, and their position will be revealed to the Chinese intelligence network. Japan is too mountainous and doesn't really have backroads where the launchers could transit unseen.