Major takeaways from CSIC's Taiwan wargame (read the entire thread)

Note. The fighter mafia needs to die and die quickly. Bombers are the key to the Pacific! Large payload, long range and big enough to carry additional ISR gear too its been obvious for awhile that bombers not fighters are needed. Perhaps medium bombers but bombers none-the-less. The bias towards fighters should have ended long ago. Especially considering that they no longer perform "real" close air support and are instead lobbing small diameter bombs from distance the need for dedicated fighters seems to be a niche role...even our multi-role fighters are biased toward either air superiority or strike (F-16/15/22 air superiority or F-18/35 for strike). As far as hypersonics go I have no opinion, just don't know enough. Smaller ships? Sounds good but tonnage sunk is still tonnage sunk. Perhaps the aim is for resilence in the fleet (haven't read the report)? As far as the stealth angle? Its been talked about enough. The S. Koreans are on the right track. Don't need full stealth for the majority of missions and the F-35 has shown us that stealth in any form ain't cheap and probably never will be.

 

Four major (Airpower) takeaways from CSIC's Battle for Taiwan wargaming study (see last Tweet):

1. Shift to smaller, more survivable ships. The #USNavy lost two carriers and 10-20 major surface combatants as it fought its way to enter the Chinese defensive zone. 1/3#avgeeks pic.twitter.com/wYrSwj3lak

— Air Power (@RealAirPower1) July 1, 2023