Quibbling allowed
Ken: I agree on your 75:25, I hope our planners see it that way as well and not the reverse. If this makes any sense, I think we would "see" a conventional conflict coming. In our last two out of three we had a long build-up time prior to, even though we failed to see the invasion of Kuwait prior to GW I. OEF was executed on our initiation so we saw it coming as well.
Yes, we lost aircraft in Korea and Vietnam to ground fire but those conflicts were set in an era absent the amazing standoff capability we currently have. FACs have nearly been replaced by Predators and even fast movers can "see" from a safer distance. Munitions are virtually pinpoint accurate. Plus detection and countermeasures have improved. So we traded quantity for quality, at a significant cost (wasn't it Stalin who said "quantity has a quality of its own").
While Congress isn't on top of my hate list (liver is) I think Eisenhower's admonition fell short. We must beware the military-industrial-congressional complex!
John: Not to impugn the good general, but Charlie Dunlap is a lawyer, not a pilot. So while he is no doubt expert at making an argument IMO I feel he is a bit too much of a cheerleader for air power as the be all end all (one need only look at the USAF acquisition strategy). He acts like a 21st Century LeMay.
Love your four points for USAF relevancy, very much on the mark. Although they are already organized for those missions what they need to do is change their priority to match yours (although you forgot "space superiority" and "information superiority").
It would be difficult today to build an "all weather" anything (airframe or weapon sys). Mother Nature just will not allow it. Although I believe your point is more along the lines of we need to build aircraft that are not so susceptible to environmental impacts.
Whoops shouldn't have done all our testing in Nevada during blissfully calm bright sunny days.
Bookmarks