U.S. Air Superiority To Be Tested

Summary -- The U.S. military controls the skies over the battlefield, but several potentially hostile countries will acquire improved air-to-air fighters and upgrade older aircraft in the next few years. U.S. military strategists will consider this a potential threat. Although the United States is likely to maintain air dominance over the long term, it will have to work harder to keep its edge until its next generation of fighter aircraft come on line.

Analysis -- The U.S. military has been virtually unchallenged in the skies over the last decade, and it demonstrated its air superiority in the few post-Cold War air-to-air engagements in Iraq and the former Yugoslavia. U.S.-built aircraft used by Washington and its allies have prevailed in combat with Russian-made Mikoyan (MiG) fighters, exacting a high cost on adversaries' air forces.

Over the long term, the United States is likely to maintain this edge through new fighters, other complementary weapons systems and an unmatched ability to finance robust fighter training and operations.

But until Washington can replace its current fleet of Navy F-14s and Air Force F-15s and F-16s, its dominance in the skies will be challenged as it struggles to maintain an aging force in the face of the proliferation of new fighter capabilities around the world.

In the next three to five years, the U.S. military will face, for the first time in a decade, the prospect of battling for air supremacy in a conflict directly involving U.S. forces or in which an American ally is threatened.

The United States will rely not only on fighters but also on a host of other military capabilities and intelligence systems to prevail in such a confrontation.

Nevertheless, a short window is now open for potential adversaries to challenge what has virtually become a given in U.S. military operations: the ability to hold and control airspace.

A major thrust of U.S. plans to modernize its armed forces is the development of three new fighter and attack aircraft, including the stealthy F-22 Raptor air-superiority fighter scheduled to be ready for initial operations in 2005.

However, by spending an estimated $300 billion on new tactical aircraft, the Pentagon risks shortchanging the other numerous priorities to prepare for future conflicts, including missile defenses, space operations and computer warfare.

The Pentagon's growing expenses have taken their most immediate toll on current military operations around the world, including its fighter forces.

For example the Air Force and Navy report about 850,000 "cannibalizations" over the past five years, in which parts are taken from one weapon system to keep other platforms operating. The F-15, considered the United States' primary operational air-superiority fighter, has been hit especially hard. The average age of the F-15 when the F-22 comes on line later this decade will be 26 years, according to soon-to-be Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John Jumper.

At the same time, the Air Force is struggling to retain and recruit fighter pilots following an exodus in recent years due to long deployments and attractive private-sector opportunities with the airlines.

Potential adversaries meanwhile are not standing still. A variety of nations, including those hostile to the United States and some of its allies, are on the brink of advancing their fighter capabilities through the purchase of new air-to-air fighters such as Russia's MiG-29 Fulcrum and Su-27 Flanker, or upgrades to older models, avionics and weapons.

It is widely believed in military circles that the MiG-29 and Su-27 are in many respects on par with their Western counterparts, including the U.S. F-14, F-15 and F-16, French Mirage and Rafale fighters, British Tornado and Swedish JAS-39 Grippens.

According to a 1997 report in Australian Aviation, the Russians "have finally produced a generation of aircraft which are comparable at least in performance with the generation of aircraft which have protected Western skies since the seventies." These aircraft "are designed specifically for long-range offensive air warfare," the report said.

The Su-27 is the first Russian-made aircraft that carries air-to-air missiles with a "fire and forget" capability. This allows pilots to engage air targets without having to lock on to the target until impact, dramatically increasing their ability to threaten enemy aircraft and protect themselves.

Jumper reiterated in his testimony before the U.S. Congress Aug.1 that such new capabilities are worrisome. He said that in secret flights using "some foreign aircraft we've been able to test, our best pilots flying their airplanes beat our pilots flying our airplanes every time."

The international arms market is now awash in these aircraft as well as upgraded versions that include advanced avionics and improved air-to-air weapons.

Russia, for example, as part of new aircraft developments, is currently testing a phased-array radar compatible with the Su-27 and which can carry out a wide variety of tasks including selecting air targets, according to Aviation Week and Space Technology. Russia is keen to find foreign customers for the advanced radar, other components and its entire family of Sukhoi fighter and ground-attack planes.

China has already purchased between 70 and 100 Su-27s as part of its bid to prevail over Taiwanese air forces, and Russia recently sold a dozen MiG-29s to Myanmar's military dictatorship to update its fleet of Mig-21s and MiG-19s.

North Korea is in talks with Moscow for a wide range of arms purchases, including new MiG-29s to add to its small inventory. And other countries with MiG-29 inventories, such as Iraq, Iran and Cuba, are also seeking to upgrade their aircraft and possibly acquire new ones in the next few years.

At the same time, upgrade options for former Soviet-bloc aircraft are increasing. A German-Russian joint venture known as MiG Aircraft Product Support is seeking to dominate this market, while France recently agreed to extend $55 million in credits to Snecma Corp. and Thales Corp. to provide engines and avionics to Russia's MiG-AT advanced combat jet trainer. Russia is seeking to export the MiG-AT in the future, Defense Week reported Aug. 27.

Other countries such as India are also focusing on new training aircraft and other readiness programs to prevent mounting aircraft losses due to pilot inexperience.

One of the primary reasons the United States has maintained air superiority is the Pentagon's emphasis not only on aviation technology but also on how to best use it. Moscow has offered potential buyers of its aircraft upgrades and up to a year of training for their pilots, according to Russian sources.

U.S. allies are also finding older, but still high-tech, Soviet-era aircraft more attractive than new or used American fighters. For example, Bulgaria has decided to scrap plans to buy used F-16 Falcons and will instead refurbish its 21 Russian MiG-29s, the Associated Press reported Aug. 29.

The United States, with a wide variety of capabilities from intelligence and reconnaissance to electronic warfare and long-range strikes, is unlikely to incur major losses in an air-to-air engagement between its fighter jets and the proliferating number of comparable Russian-built aircraft. The likelihood of a conflict in the near term involving dogfights is also remote.

But such a scenario is not out of the question when considering the current global landscape, in which China continues to threaten Taiwan, Iran and Iraq are seeking a growing military role in the Persian Gulf and North Korea is embarking on the first military modernization in a decade.

Countries possessing improved air-to-air capabilities may not directly threaten the United States, but they could threaten its allies. For instance, although Myanmar's MiG-29s may not endanger Washington, they could threaten the F-16 fleet of Thailand, a U.S. ally, thus requiring U.S. intervention.

The U.S. military can no longer take for granted its reign in the skies and will have to re-emphasize its current fighter operations during the next few years to account for a growing air-to-air threat. Ironically, however, that threat will help ensure that the U.S. military is able to field a new generation of aircraft, beginning with the F-22, to solidify its lead once again.

"The United States, with a wide variety of capabilities from intelligence and reconnaissance to electronic warfare and long-range strikes, is unlikely to incur major losses in an air-to-air engagement between its fighter jets and the proliferating number of comparable Russian-built aircraft. The likelihood of a conflict in the near term involving dogfights is also remote."

Interesting article, but this paragraph kind of rebuts the title and the jist of most of the article. There is no doubt that foreign technology is catching and in some cases passing U.S. technology. The questions is, can other nations do anything useful with it? It is one thing to fly a high tech SU-27/30/35. It is another thing to employ it effectively as a long range killing machine. One indicator possible threat nations are ready to move to the next step is when they build/purchase electronic support assets to match their tactical assets. Until they do, it's kind of like having the world's greatest sniper rifle, without a scope.

One thing we could do is greatly reduce the cost to bring a new weapon system on-line. I remember when one manufacturer (was it Northrop?) improved the F5-E to the F-20 Tigershark without any help (intrusion) by the Government. They just took a reasonably successful airframe and modernized the engines and avionics. The cost per plane was about one-fifth of the cost of an F-16. The USAF evaluated the plane and refused to buy it. When the US rejected the plane, foreign countries rejected it also. Northrop learned the lesson and stopped trying to build weapon systems on its own.

Later in that same year I had the opportunity to hear the two-star General in charge of the command that buys aircraft speak. During the Q&A session someone asked him why we didn't buy the Tigershark. He answered, "We didn't have a role for it." This comment really raised my eyebrows. It flew and it shot down airplanes. It could drop a limited amount of munitions on ground targets. It sounded a lot like the F-16 without the price tag, but "We didn't have a role for it." I translated his answer into English and got, "If we let these contractors know that they can go and build viable weapons systems without a program office then me and a lot of my buddies will be out of a job, so we had to shut 'em down."

I'm sorry if I sound cynical, but I have other experiences with program offices that were used primarily to ensure job security rather than ensure the best weapon system was built for the taxpayer dollar.

I believe we could procure weapon systems faster and cheaper if we would not burden the developers with huge program offices that seem to have a primary objective of keeping lots of people employed and getting promotions. Tell the world what we want, tell them when we plan to do the test, and buy the one that comes in on time and meets the objectives.

Shalom.

Ah yes, the old fear factor. Here we go again with the Cold War mentality. I thought Russia was our ally now. I don't understand the continued treatment of Russia as a rouge nation even now after the wall has long since crumbled.
The fact is, the US is responsible for much of the advancements in tactical and strategic arms in the world since she sells the most to the world in the first place. The US creates the need for arms thereby creating the market for manufacturing. There have been several cases where the US has sold Israel top arms only to be sold by Israel to China and the like for more money.
War is good business. They have to justify the need to spend. If the public felt safe it would be tough to push the F-22 through congress. They need to feel threatened.
The fact is the SU-27 and the MIG 29 are no match for the most advances fighters in the West. Never have been.
This article wants you to believe that since these last ten years the planes have all stayed the same since production line. The F-14 and 15 have gone through many many technological upgrades that would far compensate for anything close to a physical liability.

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.