I can understand that, but take a look at what an OIF type fight entails. Before we crossed into Iraq, we had no certain idea of how the Iraqis would fight. We assumed they would use chemical or biological warfare, and perhaps even nuclear. We knew they had several divisions of very well trained and equipped Republican Guards, with some dug into defensive positions and others prepped for rapid transportation. We knew they had a well developed integrated air defense that protected their key cities. We knew they possessed an unknown number of long range ballistic missiles that could be fitted with a verity of warheads. And we knew that we had a limited timeline to accomplish our objectives before we lost what little support we were receiving from Arab states. In summary, on the drawing board, OIF was no cakewalk. If we use the same threat we faced in Iraq as the baseline for the threat we will face in future conflicts, we will cover almost every contingency out there with the exception of China or Korea. More on that later....
"they are not designed equipped and prepared to fight an information age war."
I agree completely. And now we are speaking the same language. Information age warfare implies something other than massive movements of industrial age weaponry. In its purest form, an information age war would be waged without firing a single shot. That implies an Army of technonerds sitting at computer consoles. Not vast numbers of armored vehicles or fighter aircraft.
"Are you training three to one because that is the most we can handle, or because that is what we really expect?"
For now, both.
"I were the PLAAF I would not settle for 3-1. I would probably take a cue from the Soviets turning the tide "
But I think you've shifted out of the mindset of information aged warfare here. You are back to industrial aged warfare. We are the world's leading information aged power. That is the strength we need to exploit. We have to assume the Chinese will always outnumber us, and we need to work around that. Not by trying to blow up all their weapons. That's old school. We need a system that renders them irrelevant. In Iraq, we shattered the communications network of an army that absolutely required a top down flow of communication to function. China has a similar Achilles heal to exploit.
"I'm very interested in what happens when our air force faces Aegis quality SAMs."
Here's a prediction...we die wholesale. And in an actual war we wouldn't be tasked to take out an Aegis quality cruiser. But in training, we need to simulate what the guys on the ships might see.
"If we fight an info age war against their material fight, I think we would win."
I agree completely.
"Take a different scenario, the 'resource' war with PRC attacking north to seize the oil and other resources as well as 'lebensraum' of Siberia."
Isn't there a book similar to that?
"If you have grand plans of stopping them with air power without large ground forces, I think you'll find an enemy tank on your runway long before you finish killing them all."
What if our airpower is hundreds of small, autonomously controlled, robotic aircraft that spread thousands of sensor fused munitions that are programed to seek out and destroy vehicles with a specific acoustic signature? That would certainly be more useful than 500 or 1000 F-22's.
If you haven't already read it, I highly recommend the book "War and Antiwar". It is written by the foremost experts (Alvin and Heidi Toffler) in the whole concept of information age warfare (they call it third wave warfare). It is an incredibly interesting book.
But it did not entail one key thing...an opponent prepared for info-war.
Information age warfare implies something other than massive movements of industrial age weaponry. In its purest form, an information age war would be waged without firing a single shot.
I would say that IAW implies something in addition to rather than other than weaponry. There will be shots. All that information is useless unless you have the combat power to do something with it. Maybe in the very long term it will be wars entirely of nerds, but at least in the near and medium terms, men and equipment will be destroying and killing and occupying ground. What the info age does is dramatically change HOW they go about applying combat power. It is a force multiplier for friendly forces and a debilitator of enemy forces. But anything multiplied by zero is zero...there will be a need for combat power to be multiplied.
But I think you've shifted out of the mindset of information aged warfare here. You are back to industrial aged warfare.
I disagree. What the info age does is determine WHEN and WHERE it is important to surge. Either to support their operations or to stop ours.
China has a similar Achilles heal to exploit.
Partially true. We can destroy their ability to coordinate their operations by decapitation. But that does not mean that they will not carry out what they already know to do. They may not be doing it especially well, but that emphasizes the point that your version of Info war is not sufficient.
I agree completely.
What about the other predictions?
Isn't there a book similar to that?
I'm sure there are many. It isn't my brainchild, but it is a valid scenario.
What if our airpower is hundreds of small, autonomously controlled, robotic aircraft that spread thousands of sensor fused munitions that are programed to seek out and destroy vehicles with a specific acoustic signature? That would certainly be more useful than 500 or 1000 F-22's.
I think that is a very simplistic version of what might happen. It ignores all of the things that the enemy might do to confound it...like make quieter vehicles or mask the acoustic signature, or their SAM efforts, etc etc. But all those robotic UAVs will still need a logistics tail. The question can they stop the enemy before the enemy destroys them and their logistics is still a valid point.
I think you see IAW as a much more radical departure than I do. It is a radical departure, but we disagree about how radical it is. It certainly changes a lot. And it may open up the way to some amazing wonder weapons. But it will be built upon, not replace, the basic functions of military power.
I will seek out that book. But my first impression is that it seems similar to those predicting in the 1930's that the future is all strategic bombing.