Air Power and 21st Century Applications

[Stryder50]

So once you've archived local~regional air superiority, the enemy's fighters are vanished and you can strut your stuff in the wild blue, then what ???

Is not the purpose of air domination to be able to apply the use of air power against targets on the ground to support the efforts of the "ground pounders" in kicking butt, taking names, and secure the turf ???

If not, why not ???

Seems our USAF 'guys in blue' sometimes get a bit full of themselves in winning the air battles and domination game and then forget the real purpose for doing such, the freedom to apply air power to the ground targets and objectives in support of the "grunts" whom can use all the help they can get.

Almost since they got it, seems the USAF has tried to shed the A-10 and the role it represents. The "fighter jock" mindset tends to dominate over all other and real world concerns and needs for having an air force in the first place. Hence what we see in the following post and article link of where the "Blue Brass" think they aught to go versus what the overall military scheme and objectives would need.

Are they willing to surrender part of the "Air Power" role over to more of a part of the US Army and Marines in having their own fixed wing components for Close Air Support~CAS/Ground Air Support~GAS ???

 

[Stryder50]

The US Air Force is trimming its fighter force. Here are the 4 jets it wants to fight future wars.​

...

• The US Air Force is looking to right-size its fighter fleet as it reorients toward new adversaries.
• Air Force officials say the service's current seven fighter airframes are too expensive to maintain.
• Officials say their plan is to trim the fighter force down to four airframes in the coming decades.

In September, two of the Air Force's highest-ranking officers warned that the service is running out of time to develop the new assets and capabilities it needs to stay ahead of emerging threats.

Gen. Charles Brown Jr., the Air Force chief of staff, called for the service to "move with a sense of urgency" in response to strategic competition with China, which he called "one of our nation's greatest challenges."

"We cannot wait for a catastrophic crisis, whether it be sudden or insidious, to drive change for the Air Force and the Joint Force. If we do, it will be too late," Brown said at the Air Force Association's Air, Space, and Cyber conference.

Lt. Gen. Clinton Hinote, deputy chief of staff for strategy, integration and requirements, echoed that concern, telling the conference that he was "very concerned about the direction of our force."

"I am concerned that tomorrow's airmen will not have what they need to defend the nation in their time if we don't change now," Hinote said. "We are out of time."

The Air Force must implement changes to maintain the dominance it has enjoyed around the world for decades, the officials said. One of those changes will be restructuring the service's fighter fleet.

Like the rest of the US military, the Air Force is shifting from the counterinsurgency operations of the last two decades to competition with peer militaries.

US officials often mention Russia, but there was no question who is seen as the biggest threat.

"China is the pacing challenge, and they are actively working to erode our competitive advantages," Brown said, noting the rapid expansion and development of China's military, which now fields the largest aviation force in the Indo-Pacific region and has the largest navy in the world.

With its military and economic might, China will challenge the US "in a way we have not seen since World War II," Brown said, echoing previous comments about future air warfare.

The Air Force is pursuing a number of upgrades and modifications to address those new challenges. Streamlining and updating the fighter fleet has been a particular focus.

"We are going to have to get out of the business of keeping seven fighter fleets in play all the time." Hinote told reporters during the conference. "That's too expensive. It's too many fleets."

The Air Force wants to retire its F-15C and D models, which have exceeded their service life. "They're increasingly unflyable," Hinote said. "That means that many of them we [send to the] depot we end up having to ground them."

The Air Force also hopes to retire the venerable A-10 ground-attack aircraft by 2030. The four models left in service will be the F-22, the F-35, the F-15E and EX, and the F-16.

"We're going to go from seven to four," Hinote said. "We'll go to a modern fighter force with four distinct platforms."

The F-22 and the F-35 are the US's two fifth-generation fighters, the most advanced in the fleet. The F-22 was introduced in 2005 and the F-35 in 2016.

Originally, they were meant to work in tandem - the F-22, an excellent air-superiority fighter, focusing on aerial combat and the F-35 as a multirole fighter with the ability to connect assets across the battlefield.

F-35s are still being built, but F-22 production ceased in 2011, largely because of budget restrictions and the lack of sophisticated aerial threats for it to counter.

The Air Force can't restart the F-22 program, so it plans to upgrade and keep its roughly 180 F-22s in service until about 2030, when it will replace them with a fighter from the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program.

Hinote described NGAD as "not just a platform but a suite of capabilities and programs that will help us to ensure air superiority."

The Air Force has already built and flown a full-scale NGAD flight demonstrator. Lt. Gen. Duke Richardson, the Air Force's top acquisition official, said at the conference that the program "is progressing per plan."

The F-35, meanwhile, "has to be the cornerstone of our fighter force," Hinote said. "It will be the part of fighter force that has the most platforms associated with it."

The F-15 family of jets remain among the most capable and successful in the world. The US has retired its F-15A and B models, and the aging F-15C and D models will soon follow them. The Air Force intends to keep its substantially upgraded F-15E and F-15EX models in the sky.

The F-15E is a highly capable air-to-air and air-to-ground fighter. The recently acquired F-15EX, officially known as the Eagle II, is heavily updated and features a modern suite of electronics, including a new radar, mission computer, cockpit displays, and the Eagle Passive/Active Warning and Survivability System.

The Air Force plans to buy a least 144 F-15EXs. Along with the F-15Es in service, they will add muscle and numbers to the fleet without sacrificing quality, Air Force officials say.

With the F-15EX, "we're taking advantage of a line that's open to produce good, capable fighters at a fast rate to recapitalize that F-15C and D fleet," Hinote said, likening to the F-15EX to "a 4.5 or a 4.6-generation fighter."
...

The US Air Force is trimming its fighter force. Here are the 4 jets it wants to fight future wars.

 

[White 6]

So once you've archived local~regional air superiority, the enemy's fighters are vanished and you can strut your stuff in the wild blue, then what ???

Is not the purpose of air domination to be able to apply the use of air power against targets on the ground to support the efforts of the "ground pounders" in kicking butt, taking names, and secure the turf ???

If not, why not ???

Seems our USAF 'guys in blue' sometimes get a bit full of themselves in winning the air battles and domination game and then forget the real purpose for doing such, the freedom to apply air power to the ground targets and objectives in support of the "grunts" whom can use all the help they can get.

Almost since they got it, seems the USAF has tried to shed the A-10 and the role it represents. The "fighter jock" mindset tends to dominate over all other and real world concerns and needs for having an air force in the first place. Hence what we see in the following post and article link of where the "Blue Brass" think they aught to go versus what the overall military scheme and objectives would need.

Are they willing to surrender part of the "Air Power" role over to more of a part of the US Army and Marines in having their own fixed wing components for Close Air Support~CAS/Ground Air Support~GAS ???

They are really good at taking names and kicking butt. They can effectively evict assholes from key limited key terrain. A-10s can quickly be friendly tankers and infantry's best friend. Still, no way to take possession and hold key terrain or from the air. It always takes dirty work on the ground.

 

[Stryder50]

They are really good at taking names and kicking butt. The can effectively evict assholes from key limited key terrain. A-10s can quickly be friendly tankers and infantry's best friend. Still, no way to take possession and hold key terrain or from the air. It always takes dirty work on the ground.

Yet those on the ground can always benefit from eyes in the sky that see over the next hill and can pound the enemy there a bit before the grunts need to engage.

Known as team work and using multiple assets.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Flying to the Little Big Horn?

Lieutenant Colonel (Brevet Major General) George Armstrong Custer, the General who won against overwhelming odds in one of the most important fights in the Battle of Gettysburg, led the 7th Cavalry to

www.realcleardefense.com

We are being disarmed from the top.

 

[White 6]

Yet those on the ground can always benefit from eyes in the sky that see over the next hill and can pound the enemy there a bit before the grunts need to engage.

Known as team work and using multiple assets.

It is called Battlefield management and it is the tactical science of planning and controlling the modern dynamic lethality and agility of the battlefield in length, width, vertical depth and time. Don't forget the logistics geeks, either. Big ass professional team, everybody playing their part.

 

[Dekster]

So once you've archived local~regional air superiority, the enemy's fighters are vanished and you can strut your stuff in the wild blue, then what ???

Is not the purpose of air domination to be able to apply the use of air power against targets on the ground to support the efforts of the "ground pounders" in kicking butt, taking names, and secure the turf ???

If not, why not ???

Seems our USAF 'guys in blue' sometimes get a bit full of themselves in winning the air battles and domination game and then forget the real purpose for doing such, the freedom to apply air power to the ground targets and objectives in support of the "grunts" whom can use all the help they can get.

Almost since they got it, seems the USAF has tried to shed the A-10 and the role it represents. The "fighter jock" mindset tends to dominate over all other and real world concerns and needs for having an air force in the first place. Hence what we see in the following post and article link of where the "Blue Brass" think they aught to go versus what the overall military scheme and objectives would need.

Are they willing to surrender part of the "Air Power" role over to more of a part of the US Army and Marines in having their own fixed wing components for Close Air Support~CAS/Ground Air Support~GAS ???

They are working with attaching UAV components with armor units.

 

[DudleySmith]

It isn't always necessary to hold ground, and it will be less important as the U.S. moves away from the failed 'nation building' fantasy in many parts of the world. Destroying the offensive capabilities of an enemy is often more than enough to aheive a political goal.

 

[Stryder50]

It is called Battlefield management and it is the tactical science of planning and controlling the modern dynamic lethality and agility of the battlefield in length, width, vertical depth and time. Don't forget the logistics geeks, either. Big ass professional team, everybody playing their part.

As a military historian for the past 4-5 decades, I'm familiar with all that.
"Strategy and Tactics"
I'm also aware of the "Stuff Happens"; where "best laid plans" unravel once the enemy gets a say in matters.

 

[Stryder50]

With regards to the Link/Article of post #2 here, not sure how the author came up with seven fighter air-frames, unless breaking out say the F-15C and F-15D about to retire while being replaced with F-15E and F-15EX, or such.

The A-10 and F-117 are technically (ground) attack aircraft and not well suited to engage in the air-to-air/fighter roles. Current fighter inventories are: F-15, F-16, F-22, and F-35.

For general reference here, the Wiki page on the USAF;

United States Air Force - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Mushroom]

So once you've archived local~regional air superiority, the enemy's fighters are vanished and you can strut your stuff in the wild blue, then what ???

Is not the purpose of air domination to be able to apply the use of air power against targets on the ground to support the efforts of the "ground pounders" in kicking butt, taking names, and secure the turf ???

Because that then means extending that into the area where the adversary likely has dominance.

I can only assume you are talking about the dominance at the FEBA, the Forward Edge of Battle Area.

Now this is an old image, but it still applies. When talking about things like "Air Superiority", you are really talking about over your own assets, and the battlefield. You are talking about extending that into enemy held territory. That is much harder, as the threat level increases significantly. Not only are you have to deal with other air threats, but also ground based threats.

And the enemy fighters have not "vanished", they are still there. Just keeping to behind their lines, as operating at the battle lines themselves have become so hazardous. Waiting to pounce on any of our own aircraft that venture into their territory.

 

[Stryder50]

Flying to the Little Big Horn?

Lieutenant Colonel (Brevet Major General) George Armstrong Custer, the General who won against overwhelming odds in one of the most important fights in the Battle of Gettysburg, led the 7th Cavalry to

www.realcleardefense.com

We are being disarmed from the top.

Excerpt from your link;
...
This decision is eerily reminiscent of the new Air Force policy of procurement of fighter aircraft, apparently based largely on peacetime operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. Worse still, the performance differences between the guns used at the Battle of the Little Big Horn were much less significant than the difference between the all 5th generation U.S. fighter force that was previously planned and what is now going forward in the Biden administration largely due to its defense cuts. There seems to be a large disconnect between the threat assessment and the objectives of procurement. Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall told Defense News that our goal should be to field the kinds of leap-ahead technologies that would “scare China." This is the right objective, but the new Air Force fighter program is unlikely to achieve this goal.

The Air Force fighter program now seeks to have a “‘four-plus one’: the F-35—which he [Air Force Chief of Staff General Charles Brown] called the ‘cornerstone’ of the force”; the other aircraft including “the new F-15EX; the F-16 or a successor jet”; and “the NGAD [Next Generation Air Dominance], plus the A-10.” The Air Force now reportedly plans on the early retirement of the most advanced air dominance fighter in the world, the F-22, and replacing it with a small number (possibly 50-100) of Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighters. De facto, the Air Force is planning to replace the F-22 with an F-15EX fighter that has no stealth, no supercruise, less sensor integration and much less maneuverability. It is also replacing some of its previously planned F-35s buys with a new fighter that “…must be affordable to buy and operate and need not be as stealthy as an F-35.”

The reason for the F-22 retirement, according to General Brown, is that the F-22 “cannot be made competitive against the threat two decades from today." Thus, the Air Force wants us to believe that an upgraded F-22 can't deal with the 2040 threat, but upgraded pre-stealth fighters can do this despite the fact that the F-22 exceeds their performance in virtually every respect. The Air Force has long said that the F-22 is the best air-to-air fighter in the world and the F-35 is the second best. If so, how can the F-35 survive in the 2040 air-to-air environment if an upgraded F-22 can’t? The F-15EX is no F-35. While its new electronics are very advanced by 4th generation standards, the F-15EX does not have the sensor fusion built into the F-22 and F-35. In the words of Lieutenant General David A. Deptula USAF (Ret.), Major General Lawrence A. Stutzreim, USAF (Ret.) and Heather Penney, “…fourth-generation aircraft, even with advanced avionics modifications like those on the F-15EX, are simply not survivable against modern threats.” Even with its limited stealth, the Russian Su-57 will likely dominate all 4th generation fighters. Unlike 4th generation jets, the Su-57 reportedly has a limited supercruise capability of Mach 1.3.[2] The Russians are in the process of upgrading the stealth and providing new engines (they are having problems with them) for the Su-57 by 2025, which will enhance its supercruise capability.[3] As Kris Osborne pointed out, “Air dominance against enemy aircraft and air defenses, while of course heavily reliant upon sensor range and fidelity, also requires an ability to maneuver and elude approaching enemy aircraft, something a non-stealthy plane like an F-15 jet is likely to struggle with.”
...

Flying to the Little Big Horn?

Lieutenant Colonel (Brevet Major General) George Armstrong Custer, the General who won against overwhelming odds in one of the most important fights in the Battle of Gettysburg, led the 7th Cavalry to

www.realcleardefense.com

 

[Mushroom]

With regards to the Link/Article of post #2 here, not sure how the author came up with seven fighter air-frames, unless breaking out say the F-15C and F-15D about to retire while being replaced with F-15E and F-15EX, or such.

That is your own reference, so I am not even sure what you are trying to say if you can not even figure out what your own damned reference means.

 

[Stryder50]

That is your own reference, so I am not even sure what you are trying to say if you can not even figure out what your own damned reference means.

Post #2 here was entire excerpt from the link, not my words.
The post you reply to was my questioning the content of the link and how the author comes up with seven fighter types in inventory when it appears to be just four types.

 

[whitehall]

Carrier superiority pretty much clinched the war in the Pacific and bombers destroyed Germany's will to fight. After WW2 the U.S. forgot about the concept while Russia was gearing up for Korea. Truman fell into the trap when his General went off on a ego trip and Korea went from a year to a three year meat grinder. It would seem that U.S. air superiority would have clenched the deal in Vietnam but LBJ set the rules so that we could win every battle and still lose the freaking war. George Bush Sr. and George Bush Jr. showed what air superiority could do in the Mid-East but lefties hated it.

 

[Dayton3]

People ignore two obvious reasons the USAF has never cared for the A-10.

1) The A-10s missions are controlled by ground troops. They select its targets and its missions are in service to them. Needless to say the USAF does not want ground pounders controlling multi million dollar air force assets.

2) A-10s were always prone to crashing. During missions and even worse during training. Can't be helped given the nature of its missions. It is natural that the USAF has no enthusiasm for operating aircraft that tend to crash and kill pilots.

 

[DudleySmith]

It would seem that U.S. air superiority would have clenched the deal in Vietnam but LBJ set the rules so that we could win every battle and still lose the freaking war.

Rubbish. The UN and SEATO set the rules, and LBJ abided by them; if he hadn't he would have been impeached, by the radical in his own Party as well as the Republicans. If the military leadership didn't like being managed by their CiC then they shouldn't have made it SOP to lie out of their asses about what the facts on the ground were for years, which led to a PR fiasco and propaganda victory for the enemy. Many of them should have been shot for their arrogant and criminal behavior. As it was, the VC were defeated anyway, thanks to LBJ's escalation, and it took about three years to do it, not bad at all. The domestic politics in the U.S. encouraged the North and the Soviets to openly violate the UN mandates with impunity, and nobody stood up to them, the left and Euros just whined about the U.S. 's responses to the North's illegal operations.

 

[harmonica]

Stryder50 what exactly are you saying? because they are getting rid of A10s, that is ruining their ability to perform CAS?? ...the new aircraft can do that

 

[Dayton3]

Stryder50 what exactly are you saying? because they are getting rid of A10s, that is ruining their ability to perform CAS?? ...the new aircraft can do that

On paper only.

 

[harmonica]

On paper only.

what??!!!