My point is different...
Cole,Originally Posted by Cole
I'm not arguing that we need significantly higher investments in airpower... only pointing out that we have just barely enough, and can't afford to lose anymore.
Again, this would put us in the same trap as we found ourselves in with the New Look- nuke 'em or appease 'em.We buy nukes to deter Russia/China…and reasonable air and seapower...but not at the expense of conflicts with 90% probabilities vs 1%.
It's simple risk management. With only 20 B-2s, we can't afford to lose many.Reasonable statisticians comparing probabilities of a Soldier/Marine dying in current and future conflict versus hypothetical threats to a B-2 by a foe with 5th gen aircraft would see.
Assume you meant MiG-25. Since we have flown against Flankers in live fly exercises, we know the actual capes of the aircraft.Even classified assessments can be questionable. Look how we exaggerated the threat of the Mi-25?
Cole, I think you're being a little bit unreasonable here, perhaps because I'm not making my point very clearly.Meanwhile, real Soldiers/Marines/Sailors/Airmen on the ground are getting killed…not Airmen at altitude or Sailors at sea. Since the end of the Cold War, only ground combatants have faced serious risk. 327 fourth generation aircraft based on the F-16 and Su-27 could not down more than a handful of F-22/F-35, B-2s, or stealthy cruise missile/ UAS. None of those U.S. systems facing 252 advanced SAMs would experience losses approaching what Soldiers/Marines experience in one month of current/future combat….multiplied by 100 months.
The issue with losing air superiority isn't the folks in the air that will get killed... The problem is the damage the enemy can do to everything else- ground troops, the Navy, bases, civilians, infrastructure. Oh by the way, no more RPA intel, no C-17s to deliver supplies, no ships to bring in fuel, etc etc. While the strategic corporal is a reality, most corporals screwing up an engagement will not result in massive loss of human life. Not saying that we'll necessarily lose the war... but we will lose a lot of people, and we probably will not achieve our objectives without air superiority. Again, probability is lower - consequences are WAY catastrophic in terms of national interests.
I think you are underestimating the capabilities of the enemy. I've trained against this threat... it is not a pushover.
I will re-iterate again... I'm not calling for abolishing the Army and letting the Air Force do everything itself- I am simply pointing out that we have a USAF that is just big enough to achieve a moderate level of risk.
I agree that the risk to folks on the ground has been great over the last 10 years. I respect and honor all those who serve. But I think it's a little cheap to use that fact to say that we shouldn't worry about risk on the high end of conflict.
Current tankers are becoming increasingly expensive to maintain. New tankers will also allow basing further from the threat while still delivering significant fuel offloads. Are you really trying to say we don't need new tankers? If we can't get the Joes to the fight, or get the troops their supplies and equipment, how will you fight your counterinsurgency you think is likely?It’s a zero sum gain budget environment with Iraq winding down, Afghanistan on a countdown, and Libya starting its upward spiral with a less than clear endstate and poor current results.
Planned tanker numbers were based on nuclear bomber requirements of 50 years ago. Current tankers are at half their lifespan despite advanced age and we never have used more than 300+ of the 500+ in any conflict, nor do we have the space to park them outside TBM range.
Ask the folks in A-Stan what they think about the USAF having dedicated CSAR aircraft... I think you'll find they like having the robust CASEVAC capability.Given numbers of actual aircraft shot down in past decades, how many CSAR aircraft are required when MV-22/CV-22 already exist and plenty of MH Special Ops and Naval helicopters are fielded? Agree we need a new bomber but considering that only a handful of B-2s were required in Libya and stealthy Navy UAS and MC-X will exist, we may not need anywhere near 80-100 new stealthy bombers.
As for the bombers, we need to have enough that they are not a silver bullet force- see points on B-2 fleet above. Remember that next gen bomber will replace B-2s, B-1s, and some B-52s, not just B-2.
Agree that terrain in other places is more difficult. I don't think that changes the fact that the appetite for boots on the ground is 0. As multiple folks have pointed out, our strategy is set by politicians. I doubt any President any time soon will commit significant land forces if he can avoid it. Again, I am not saying this WILL NOT happen, only that it is unlikely.Believe the Libya model will prove not nearly as successful as some believe. Even if it is, it is atypical terrain and a minor threat. Try the same thing in the terrain of Lebanon, North Korea, Venezuela, or Ukraine, and try to find TBMs in Iran. Distaste for boots on the ground does not preclude that need in multiple much more likely conflicts than China/Russia. From the looks of unrest in the Middle East both now and in the past 20 years, more of the same is inevitable.
I really have a problem with this. The USAF was deployed WAY more than the Army from 1991-2001... but you didn't see folks complaining and saying that the Army should be cut to give the USAF more force structure.Proof lies in deployments required per service member. Any service that deploys less than the Army has more force structure than the Army proportionally.
I agree on no nukes... point being that you have no options if you only have nukes which you don't want to use and you don't have some conventional capability.We would never use nukes in North Korea, Lebanon, Syria, Ukraine, or Venezuela. ....The rogue nations with unstable leadership are the ones most difficult to deter, and as Qaddafi’s actions show, no amount of air and seapower are a deterrent when we tell him we won’t go ashore with anything but the CIA and SOF/SF.
I would submit that we're not trying to deter Qadaffi... if we were doing that, we'd be doing things in a little more direct way. I think everyone understands we're trying to use the minimum force possible to keep him from attacking cities.
Cole, we did not enforce the NFZ till after March 1991. We explicitly let Saddam fly his helicopters (we can discuss the reasons why we did that if you want). Northern and Southern Watch were 100% effective once instituted in protecting the Kurds and Shia from attack. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it. Continuing to make false statements with no evidence is not productive.1988 was well before Desert Storm. March 1991 was shortly thereafter because we stopped short of doing the job correctly…and settled on a NFZ.
Getting Saddam out of power was not the objective of the NFZs. You are correct on the wear and tear, but that's already included in the costs in terms of phase hours. I would say that none of the aircraft have really been replaced prematurely... unless you think 30+ years (at the shortest) is a premature replacement for a high performance aircraft.Add the wear and tear on aircraft that now must be replaced prematurely and cost of ONW/OSW to the cost of OIF to finish the job…not to mention higher gas prices due to “oil for food.”
Airpower has the ability to affect all the situations you mention above. Cruise missiles are not a good substitute. Bombing did stop the genocide, it just happened too late due to a lack of political will.Maybe. Seem to recall the last time we sent cruise missiles into Sudan and Afghanistan, it didn’t work well. Bombing did not stop genocide in Bosnia. A NFZ won’t stop terror attacks or safe havens. NFZ won’t hinder Iran or Hezbollah TBMs or a DPRK attack across the DMZ. Russia could attack Ukraine
Again, I'm not arguing we don't need an Army... I'm saying we need to face the reality that because airpower in uncontested situations is lower risk (as you have harped on repeatedly) our leaders will probably tend to use it more frequently than massive landpower when they can. Obviously if the DPRK invades the South we will need massive landpower. But that's not the situation I'm discussing...
I rest my case. See above, you are completely missing my point, probably because I didn't make it clearly. NFZs don't end wars, or terror, or change governments. Airpower can end SOME wars... but again I'm not saying it can do that in all cases. Not arguing for increased spending at the expense of the Army... simply saying that the USAF is at about the minimum level we can afford if we want to continue to be a superpower. Without air superiority we would end up losing a lot more troops on the ground in any contested scenario. We lost 3000 folks in under 2 hours on 9/11 due to a loss of air superiority. That was accomplished with four airliners. Think of what actual weapons could do.No fly zones and airpower/seapower have been incapable of ending warfare, terrorism, and irrational despots as we have known them over the past 50 years. By themselves, air and seapower won’t deter or end war over the next decades, either.
I should probably be happy that folks think the way you do- it is a result of the fact that the USAF and USN have been so successful in the air over the past 30 years. I just would hate to count on being lucky to achieve the same results in the future.
V/R,
Cliff
Bookmarks