Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Up in the Air: Will America lose its dominance of the skies?
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE ^ | December 19, 2011 | Michael Auslin

Posted on 12/21/2011 8:52:56 PM PST by neverdem

Up in the Air
Will America lose its dominance of the skies?

There were a number of reasons last week to look up to the sky and wonder about the future of airpower. In a world in which the United States will have smaller ground and naval forces, we will likely become more dependent on land- and sea-based airpower to deter or defeat enemies. The proper employment of air assets as part of a joint force allows for nearly instantaneous response to crises, saves American lives, and can bring pinpoint devastation to an enemy’s forces and command-and-control systems. Yet along with the sunshine, clouds dot the airpower horizon.

Last Tuesday, the last F-22 Raptor rolled off the production line, ending the program at 186 planes, a fraction of the 750 originally planned. The Raptor is widely hailed as the finest air-superiority fighter ever made. Yet the Pentagon has consistently refused to deploy it in combat or for reconaissance duties in the Middle East. Moreover, problems with the oxygen-generation system grounded the F-22 fleet for months this year, and a permanent fix has not yet been found. Yet with all the research and development finished on the plane, each new F-22 was costing just about $150 million. More important, the F-22 is likely the only fighter that retains the ability to penetrate the airspace of any potential adversary, due to its speed, stealth, and operational ceiling. As Iran inches closer to an atomic bomb and tensions in Asia continue, the F-22 served as both a symbol and a guarantor of U.S. control of the skies. Unfortunately, 186 F-22s are far too few to be able to assure U.S. military commanders of the freedom of action they will need in the future.

That brings us to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, initially envisioned as the second half of the U.S. tactical strike force, along with the Raptor. The good news is that, last week, Japan apparently decided to purchase the F-35 as its replacement fighter for the next generation, thus adding to the number of U.S. allies who will be operating the plane in numbers by the next decade.

But the F-35 is plagued by continued development delays and rising unit costs. Most worrisome is a new Defense Department report that recommends slowing down early production of the planes, after identifying eight major design problems. While such a slowdown in production may be a prudent move to ensure the long-term viability of the program, it was a combination of development delays and procurement cuts that ultimately doomed the F-22. If the Pentagon is not vigilant about protecting the rate of development of the plane, its unit costs will rise, thereby increasing the pressure to make further cuts in the buying cycle, and possibly threatening the purchases by U.S. allies and partners. While questions remain as to how well the F-35 will be able to carry out missions designed for the F-22, any significant cut in its final numbers will leave American ability to control the air in serious doubt.

Given problems in manned-aircraft programs, many have argued in recent years for a fundamental shift to remotely piloted vehicles (RPVs), also known as drones. The past two weeks have dramatically shown the limitations of such systems. One of the U.S. government’s most advanced spy drones was lost over Iran and captured by the Iranian government. Washington explained that the drone malfunctioned, while Teheran claimed it hacked into the drone and brought it down electronically. Whatever the explanation, some of America’s most sensitive technology is now in the hands of an enemy regime that will very likely share it with Beijing or Moscow, or both. On the heels of this, another U.S. drone malfunctioned and crash-landed in the Seychelles, off the east coast of Africa. Whether these were isolated incidents, separate yet serious operating flaws, or possible cyber attacks remains to be determined, both events underscore the dangers of overreliance on RPVs that cannot survive in contested airspace. (Of course, one could argue it would have been far worse for a manned spy plane to be brought down over Iran.)

Little of this would matter if other nations were not building up their offensive and defensive air capabilities. Russia, for example, took delivery of four more Su-34 advanced fighter-bombers last week, part of a buy expected to reach around 120 planes. This follows on the continued development of Russia’s indigenous fifth-generation fighter, the PAK-50. Meanwhile, China continues designing its own stealth fighter, the J-20, and retires older J-7s and J-8s, while building advanced Su-30 fighters. Perhaps even more threatening is the ongoing deployment of sophisticated integrated air defense systems (IADS) by Russia and China, and less capable, but still dangerous, air defenses by Iran, North Korea, and other nations. On top of all this, the threat to our aircraft carriers is growing due to supersonic cruise missiles, submarines, and early-stage anti-ship ballistic missiles being pursued by China.

Since the United States must operate at great intercontinental distances, the numbers of advanced planes we can put in the air matters a great deal. They must be supported by tankers, which themselves have to be protected. Munitions, fuel, replacement parts, and other supplies must be forwardly located, either on U.S. air bases abroad or on other friendly territory. While our pilots are the world’s best trained, at some point they cannot overcome the tyranny of numbers or the strain of constantly operating far from home territory.

Airpower will remain the bedrock necessity for America’s joint force. From intelligence gathering to global airlift, from strategic bombing to combat air support, U.S. forces will rely even more on just-in-time delivery to ensure operational success. America’s defense planners must make sure that the events of the past few weeks do not herald a shift in the balance of airpower. The alternative would bring about a more dangerous world that will further tax America’s strength and will.

— Michael Auslin is a resident scholar in Asian and security studies at the American Enterprise Institute.



TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Politics/Elections; Russia
KEYWORDS: airpower; airsuperiority; china; copyrights; globalism; intellectualproperty; iran; patents
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041 next last

1 posted on 12/21/2011 8:52:59 PM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

Ping.


2 posted on 12/21/2011 9:01:11 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I don’t really seeing anyone in high positions looking out for America much longer. It’s all too corrupt and up for the highest bidder. Sad to the extreme.

Marxist Oligarchy in the USA and New World Order is the name of the game.


3 posted on 12/21/2011 9:01:53 PM PST by unkus (Silence Is Consent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps

Yes—Drones are the future— we are not keeping up. Once we lose the sky—we face defeat on the sea and land. the cuts in R & D are foolish. Lives will be lost because of corruption and the welfare state.


4 posted on 12/21/2011 9:02:56 PM PST by Forward the Light Brigade (Into the Jaws of H*ll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

We’ll have 5 really good airplanes, but they will soon cost $5 billion each.

Like all Gov’t in the US, we will be defeated by our own costs and bureaucracy before an enemy does it.


5 posted on 12/21/2011 9:05:21 PM PST by PGR88 (Sic transit gloria mundi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Some would content that this issue is exactly why the Air Force has had that little orbiter up there for the past year or so. 15 or 20 of those with the appropriate munitions aboard could do wonders for reducing an enemy’s capability to field a capable airforce.

Additionally, there is validity in the view that piloted aircraft will have a limited role in future conflicts due to the capabilities of modern weapons. Dogfights are rarities, and will continue to become more rare with the advent of longer-range missiles with more autonomy, and the fielding of vehicle-mounted energy weapons that can destroy targets at ultra-long range. There are of course valid missions for pilots, and I would posit that intelligence gathering is one. Use drones for combat airspace control, as they can do things that aircraft with fragile humans aboard cannot. Leave missions like the Iran surveillance one to piloted aircraft, since humans can’t be jammed the way a GPS can.


6 posted on 12/21/2011 9:07:12 PM PST by Little Pig (Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Little Pig

content = contend


7 posted on 12/21/2011 9:10:54 PM PST by Little Pig (Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Little Pig
Leave missions like the Iran surveillance one to piloted aircraft, since humans can’t be jammed the way a GPS can.

You do not think that UCAVs will be a target for jamming? Especially if we engage a foe that is somewhat on par with us in technical terms?
8 posted on 12/21/2011 9:13:56 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"Little of this would matter if other nations were not building up their offensive and defensive air capabilities. Russia, for example, took delivery of four more Su-34 advanced fighter-bombers last week, part of a buy expected to reach around 120 planes. This follows on the continued development of Russia’s indigenous fifth-generation fighter, the PAK-50. Meanwhile, China continues designing its own stealth fighter, the J-20, and retires older J-7s and J-8s, while building advanced Su-30 fighters. Perhaps even more threatening is the ongoing deployment of sophisticated integrated air defense systems (IADS) by Russia and China"

From the campaign trail, February 2008...

Obama Pledges Cuts in Missile Defense, Space, and Nuclear Weapons Programs

February 29, 2008 :: News
MissileThreat.com

A video has surfaced of Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama talking on his plans for strategic issues such as nuclear weapons and missile defense.

The full text from the video, as released, reads as follows:

Thanks so much for the Caucus4Priorities, for the great work you've been doing. As president, I will end misguided defense policies and stand with Caucus4Priorities in fighting special interests in Washington.

First, I'll stop spending $9 billion a month in Iraq. I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it.['end it', not win it -etl]

Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.

I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.

I will not weaponize space.

I will slow our development of future combat systems.

And I will institute an independent "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.

Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert [they are NOT on "hair-trigger alert" now -etl], and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.

You know where I stand. I've fought for open, ethical and accountable government my entire public life. I don't switch positions or make promises that can't be kept. I don't posture on defense policy and I don't take money from federal lobbyists for powerful defense contractors. As president, my sole priority for defense spending will be protecting the American people. Thanks so much.

Article: Obama Pledges Cuts in Missile Defense, Space, and Nuclear Weapons Programs:
http://missilethreat.com/archives/id.7086/detail.asp

"MissileThreat.com is a project of The Claremont Institute devoted to understanding and promoting the requirements for the strategic defense of the United States."
_____________________________________________________

"I will not weaponize space"

"I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems"
_____________________________________________________

2008 Pentagon Report (March 2008):
China's Growing Military Space Power

By Leonard David
Special Correspondent, SPACE.com
March 6, 2008

GOLDEN, Colorado — A just-released Pentagon report spotlights a growing U.S. military concern that China is developing a multi- dimensional program to limit or prevent the use of space-based assets by its potential adversaries during times of crisis or conflict.

Furthermore, last year's successful test by China of a direct-ascent, anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon to destroy its own defunct weather satellite, the report adds, underscores that country's expansion from the land, air, and sea dimensions of the traditional battlefield into the space and cyber-space domains.

Although China's commercial space program has utility for non- military research, that capability demonstrates space launch and control know-how that have direct military application. Even the Chang'e 1 — the Chinese lunar probe now circling the Moon — is flagged in the report as showcasing China's ability "to conduct complicated space maneuvers — a capability which has broad implications for military counterspace operations."

To read the entire publication [29.67MB/pdf], see U.S. Dept of Defense:
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/China_Military_Report_08.pdf
_____________________________________________________

From the Sino-Russian Joint Statement of April 23, 1997:
"The two sides [China and Russia] shall, in the spirit of partnership, strive to promote the multipolarization of the world and the establishment of a new international order."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HI29Ag01.html

9 posted on 12/21/2011 9:14:24 PM PST by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unkus
Marxist Oligarchy in the USA and New World Order is the name of the game.

We are creating a new world, a balanced world. A new world order, a multipolar world,” Chavez told reporters during a visit to Communist China, one of many. His “new world order” includes [RUSSIA], China, Iran,... and a significantly weakened United States, he explained.

Resurgent Communism in Latin America
by Alex Newman, March 16, 2010:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/south-america-mainmenu-37/3122-resurgent-communism-in-latin-america?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default&page=
______________________________________________________________

From the Russian News and Information Agency:
July 27, 2006
"'I am determined to expand relations with Russia,' Chavez, known as an outspoken critic of what he calls the United States' unilateralism, told the Russian leader, adding that his determination stemmed from their shared vision of the global order.":
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060727/51913498.html
______________________________________________________________

From the Sino-Russian Joint Statement of April 23, 1997:
"The two sides [China and Russia] shall, in the spirit of partnership, strive to promote the multipolarization of the world and the establishment of a new international order."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HI29Ag01.html
______________________________________________________________

"Joint war games are a logical outcome of the Sino-Russian Friendship and Cooperation Treaty signed in 2001, and reflect the shared worldview and growing economic ties between the two Eastern Hemisphere giants."

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed092605a.cfm
______________________________________________________________

Photobucket
President Obama and Venezuela dictator Hugo
Chavez at the 2009 Summit of the Americas in Trinidad.
Note the "soul bro" handshake. (my caption)

Obama, Chavez shake hands at Americas Summit:
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2009/04/17/2698451-obama-chavez-shake-hands-at-americas-summit
______________________________________________________________

Russia's Medvedev hails "comrade" Obama

Associated Foreign Press (AFP) ^ | April 2, 2009 | Anna Smolchenko

"Russia's Dmitry Medvedev hailed Barack Obama as "my new comrade" Thursday after their first face-to-face talks"

http://www.france24.com/en/20090402-russias-medvedev-hails-comrade-obama

April 1, 2009:
"Obama, Medvedev pledge new era of relations":
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090401/wl_afp/usrussiadiplomacynuclear_20090401152002
______________________________________________________________

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

10 posted on 12/21/2011 9:15:46 PM PST by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: unkus
Marxist Oligarchy in the USA and New World Order is the name of the game.

Did Communism Fake Its Own Death in 1991?
American Thinker ^ | January 16, 2010 | Jason McNew

In a [] 1984 book [New Lies for Old], ex-KGB Major Anatoliy Golitsyn predicted the liberalization of the Soviet Bloc and claimed that it would be a strategic deception. ..."

"Golitsyn's argument was that beginning in about 1960, the Soviet Union embarked on a strategy of massive long-range strategic deception which would span several decades and result in the destruction of Western capitalism and the erection of a communist world government."

"Golitsyn published his second book, The Perestroika Deception, after the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991. This book contained further analysis of the liberalization, in addition to previously classified memoranda submitted by Golitsyn to the CIA. The two books must be read together to get a complete picture of Golitsyn's thesis."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/did_communism_fake_its_own_dea.html

11 posted on 12/21/2011 9:18:28 PM PST by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps

They can be jammed, but they’re not as likely to be. I would have them remote-piloted, not completely autonomous. That way the drone only needs enough brain to manage flight surfaces and tactical-level maneuvering. That also allows for the remote pilot to have at their disposal an array of programmed “evasive” maneuvers, like a video game “combo”, that can be executed during combat, with the onboard logic system available to execute the actual maneuver and regain aerodynamic control afterwards.

Additionally, a remote-piloted UCAV with guns and bombs is easier to destroy if compromised, and will not yield anything of true value to an opponent possessing the technology necessary to bring one down intact.


12 posted on 12/21/2011 9:21:44 PM PST by Little Pig (Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
If we keep cutting these programs we're going to lose the expertise to design and build them. Why would anyone want to go to school for two decades for jobs that won't exist when they graduate.


13 posted on 12/21/2011 9:21:48 PM PST by clearcarbon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Forward the Light Brigade

agreed

the chinese demonstrated.. LAST YEAR... 3 synchronized jets

imagine 10,000 drones the size of smartcar flying with synchronized mission objectives but different tasking.

not good


14 posted on 12/21/2011 9:22:23 PM PST by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Deep defense cuts mean fewer troops

AP via YahooNews ^ | November 15, 2011
DONNA CASSATA - Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The number of U.S. ground forces would drop to levels not seen since 1940, the Navy would drop to the smallest number of ships since 1915 and the Air Force would be the smallest ever, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in warning Congress of the dire implications of deeper defense cuts.

The Pentagon chief on Monday offered a litany of drastic steps triggered by the automatic, across-the-board cuts if Congress' supercommittee fails to come up with a $1.2 trillion deficit-cutting plan by Nov. 23. If the panel stumbles, the Pentagon faces some $500 billion in reductions in projected spending over 10 years — on top of the $450 billion already under way.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...

15 posted on 12/21/2011 9:23:03 PM PST by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ETL

It’s all very obvious.

They’ll want to leave enough in place to insure some semblance of normalcy for the ignorant. The peasants must be happy.

I met Yuri Besmenov in the early 1980’s. He would not be surprised at all. But he would be sick at heart.


16 posted on 12/21/2011 9:28:05 PM PST by unkus (Silence Is Consent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Russia also has anti-Carrier missiles. The Iskander-M can take out our carriers as well as being a surface to surface missile. And, it can be fitted with a tactical nuke.


17 posted on 12/21/2011 9:31:27 PM PST by Thunder90 (Fighting for truth and the American way... http://citizensfortruthandtheamericanway.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Little Pig
... but they’re not as likely to be.

If jamming is the countermeasure against the platform, then it will be used. I am not saying that UCAVs do not have a place in air combat; they do. Personally, I see them as cannon fodder against a layered air defense system or as a first wave against a larger force. UCAVs would be part of the force mix. Cruise missles didn't replace bombers as their early boosters predicted, but they did come to fill a niche and became part of the weapons system mix.
18 posted on 12/21/2011 9:34:58 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Obama insists US does not fear China [while he and Congress gut the military!]
AP via YahooNews ^ | November 16, 2011 | BEN FELLER

CANBERRA, Australia (AP) — President Barack Obama insisted Wednesday that the United States does not fear China, even as he announced a new security agreement with Australia that is widely viewed as a response to Beijing's growing aggressiveness.

China responded swiftly, warning that an expanded U.S. military footprint in Australia may not be appropriate and deserved greater scrutiny.

The agreement, announced during a joint news conference with Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, will expand the U.S. military presence in Australia, positioning more U.S. personnel and equipment there, and increasing American access to bases. About 250 U.S. Marines will begin a rotation in northern Australia starting next year, with a full force of 2,500 military personnel staffing up over the next several years.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...

19 posted on 12/21/2011 9:44:16 PM PST by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy; Joe Brower; Cannoneer No. 4; Criminal Number 18F; Dan from Michigan; Eaker; Jeff Head; ...
A Democrat reaches across the aisle on Medicare (Liberal Senator Wyden works with Paul Ryan)

Now, 91 congressmen have ‘no confidence’ in Holder or believe he should quit

The EPA Is Dreaming Of A Blackout Christmas

Romney as Nixon? 2012 Carries Unsettling Echoes for GOP

Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

20 posted on 12/21/2011 9:51:56 PM PST by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson