Posted on 12/21/2011 8:52:56 PM PST by neverdem
Up in the Air
Will America lose its dominance of the skies?
There were a number of reasons last week to look up to the sky and wonder about the future of airpower. In a world in which the United States will have smaller ground and naval forces, we will likely become more dependent on land- and sea-based airpower to deter or defeat enemies. The proper employment of air assets as part of a joint force allows for nearly instantaneous response to crises, saves American lives, and can bring pinpoint devastation to an enemy’s forces and command-and-control systems. Yet along with the sunshine, clouds dot the airpower horizon.
Last Tuesday, the last F-22 Raptor rolled off the production line, ending the program at 186 planes, a fraction of the 750 originally planned. The Raptor is widely hailed as the finest air-superiority fighter ever made. Yet the Pentagon has consistently refused to deploy it in combat or for reconaissance duties in the Middle East. Moreover, problems with the oxygen-generation system grounded the F-22 fleet for months this year, and a permanent fix has not yet been found. Yet with all the research and development finished on the plane, each new F-22 was costing just about $150 million. More important, the F-22 is likely the only fighter that retains the ability to penetrate the airspace of any potential adversary, due to its speed, stealth, and operational ceiling. As Iran inches closer to an atomic bomb and tensions in Asia continue, the F-22 served as both a symbol and a guarantor of U.S. control of the skies. Unfortunately, 186 F-22s are far too few to be able to assure U.S. military commanders of the freedom of action they will need in the future.
That brings us to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, initially envisioned as the second half of the U.S. tactical strike force, along with the Raptor. The good news is that, last week, Japan apparently decided to purchase the F-35 as its replacement fighter for the next generation, thus adding to the number of U.S. allies who will be operating the plane in numbers by the next decade.
But the F-35 is plagued by continued development delays and rising unit costs. Most worrisome is a new Defense Department report that recommends slowing down early production of the planes, after identifying eight major design problems. While such a slowdown in production may be a prudent move to ensure the long-term viability of the program, it was a combination of development delays and procurement cuts that ultimately doomed the F-22. If the Pentagon is not vigilant about protecting the rate of development of the plane, its unit costs will rise, thereby increasing the pressure to make further cuts in the buying cycle, and possibly threatening the purchases by U.S. allies and partners. While questions remain as to how well the F-35 will be able to carry out missions designed for the F-22, any significant cut in its final numbers will leave American ability to control the air in serious doubt.
Given problems in manned-aircraft programs, many have argued in recent years for a fundamental shift to remotely piloted vehicles (RPVs), also known as drones. The past two weeks have dramatically shown the limitations of such systems. One of the U.S. government’s most advanced spy drones was lost over Iran and captured by the Iranian government. Washington explained that the drone malfunctioned, while Teheran claimed it hacked into the drone and brought it down electronically. Whatever the explanation, some of America’s most sensitive technology is now in the hands of an enemy regime that will very likely share it with Beijing or Moscow, or both. On the heels of this, another U.S. drone malfunctioned and crash-landed in the Seychelles, off the east coast of Africa. Whether these were isolated incidents, separate yet serious operating flaws, or possible cyber attacks remains to be determined, both events underscore the dangers of overreliance on RPVs that cannot survive in contested airspace. (Of course, one could argue it would have been far worse for a manned spy plane to be brought down over Iran.)
Little of this would matter if other nations were not building up their offensive and defensive air capabilities. Russia, for example, took delivery of four more Su-34 advanced fighter-bombers last week, part of a buy expected to reach around 120 planes. This follows on the continued development of Russia’s indigenous fifth-generation fighter, the PAK-50. Meanwhile, China continues designing its own stealth fighter, the J-20, and retires older J-7s and J-8s, while building advanced Su-30 fighters. Perhaps even more threatening is the ongoing deployment of sophisticated integrated air defense systems (IADS) by Russia and China, and less capable, but still dangerous, air defenses by Iran, North Korea, and other nations. On top of all this, the threat to our aircraft carriers is growing due to supersonic cruise missiles, submarines, and early-stage anti-ship ballistic missiles being pursued by China.
Since the United States must operate at great intercontinental distances, the numbers of advanced planes we can put in the air matters a great deal. They must be supported by tankers, which themselves have to be protected. Munitions, fuel, replacement parts, and other supplies must be forwardly located, either on U.S. air bases abroad or on other friendly territory. While our pilots are the world’s best trained, at some point they cannot overcome the tyranny of numbers or the strain of constantly operating far from home territory.
Airpower will remain the bedrock necessity for America’s joint force. From intelligence gathering to global airlift, from strategic bombing to combat air support, U.S. forces will rely even more on just-in-time delivery to ensure operational success. America’s defense planners must make sure that the events of the past few weeks do not herald a shift in the balance of airpower. The alternative would bring about a more dangerous world that will further tax America’s strength and will.
— Michael Auslin is a resident scholar in Asian and security studies at the American Enterprise Institute.
Definitely. Two complimentary solutions to that. One, anti-radiation missiles. You emit (to jam), you die. Second, autonomous control. Have enough smarts on board the UAVs to complete the mission, or at least RTB, without active control.
However, I think piloted aircraft are a long way from gone. No UAV operator can match the reflexes and situational awareness of the guy with his but in the seat.
Then why aren't we reading or hearing about it anywhere in the snooze media, including Fox, Hannity or Limbaugh?
Like all Gov’t in the US, we will be defeated by our own costs and bureaucracy before an enemy does it.
Reminds me of the nail factory in the old Soviet Union....
Each year they met or exceeded their nail production quotas set by the central planning committee.....
By the time the USSR collapsed....
Their sole production was perfect 20 cm long nails .......
.....that nobody brought
doesn't 0bambi know how to use a knife and fork....?
I guess it's "practical Ebonics" as taught at Harvard.
If recon drones can be jammed and/or diverted, what makes you think that air combat ones, which have to locate their target from imprecise cues, or no cues at all, can't be similarly "confused"?
They can, but the air-combat drones I posited are remote-piloted drones, which are harder to “crack” than a fully-autonomous one relying on navigational signals would be. Also, a combat drone is nothing more than a weapons platform. It carries very little sensitive tech, so losing one does not have the same impact as losing a surveillance drone, and is also not worth the same effort to bring down as a recon one would be. Plus, a remote-piloted drone can have its control link encrypted, making spoofing and other attacks much more unlikely to succeed. Recon drones have to rely (for now) on signals that by their nature cannot be encrypted. I can’t see much value in the current autonomous drones, save only the really big ones like Global Hawk, which have better stand-off capabilities.
"the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [20th] century" -Russian leader Vladimir Putin on the collapse of the Soviet Union...
"World democratic opinion has yet to realize the alarming implications of President Vladimir Putin's State of the Union speech on April 25, 2005, in which he said that the collapse of the Soviet Union represented the 'greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.'
http://www.hooverdigest.org/053/beichman.html
The media has been abuzz today at the prospect of Russian nuclear bombers being stationed in Cuba if the US goes ahead with plans for missile defense bases in Eastern Europe.
The story has riled the US enough that a US general has been wheeled out to tell the world’s press that any Russian attempt to build another nuclear base in Cuba would cross US “red line”.
The story broke earlier this week, when Russian newspaper Izvestia quoted an un-named source from within the Russian military. He told the Russian daily:
“While they are deploying the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, our strategic bombers will already be landing in Cuba.”
The quote hasn’t been independently confirmed, but the Russian Defense Ministry added fuel to the fire when they refused to comment on the story.
The prospect of Russian nuclear forces being stationed in Cuba - which is, after all, only 90 miles from the US coast - would bring back some rather unpleasant memories for the US of the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, where the Soviet Union under Nikita Kruschev launched an audacious and foolhardy bid to station nuclear missiles on the Caribbean island.
http://www.siberianlight.net/2008/07/23/russian-nuclear-bombers-cuba/
_____________________________________________________
Russia to help Cuba modernize weaponry, train military
September 18, 2009
HAVANA, September 18 (RIA Novosti) - Modernization of the Soviet-made military equipment and training of Cuban military personnel will be the focus of Russian-Cuban military cooperation in the near future, the chief of the Russian General Staff said on Friday. Gen. Nikolai Makarov arrived on a working visit to Cuba on Monday, met with Cuban President Raul Castro and the country's military leadership, and visited a number of military installations.
"During the Soviet era we delivered a large number of military equipment to Cuba, and after all these years most of this weaponry has become obsolete and needs repairs," Makarov said.
"We inspected the condition of this equipment, and outlined the measures to be taken to maintain the defense capability of this country...I think a lot of work needs to be done in this respect, and I hope we will be able to accomplish this task," the general said.
Makarov said the Cuban request for assistance with training of military personnel will also be fully satisfied.
Although the Cuban leadership has repeatedly said it has no intention of resuming military cooperation with Russia after the surprise closure of the Russian electronic listening post in Lourdes in 2001, bilateral military ties seem to have been improving following the visit of Russian Security Council chief Nikolai Patrushev and Russian Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin to Cuba in July last year.
A group of Russian warships, led by the Admiral Chabanenko destroyer visited Cuba in December last year during a Caribbean tour.
Venezuela's Chavez welcomes Russian warships
Nov 25, 2008
LA GUAIRA, Venezuela – Russian warships arrived off Venezuela's coast Tuesday in a show of strength aimed at the United States as Moscow seeks to expand its influence in Latin America. The deployment is the first of its kind in the Caribbean since the Cold War and was timed to coincide with President Dmitry Medvedev's visit to Caracas — the first ever by a Russian president.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22Venezuela%27s+Chavez+welcomes+Russian+warships%22&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz2
More Yahoo search results for Russia and Venezuela connections:
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu_X30pZJCJEAfCtXNyoA?p=Russia+Venezuela+bombers+tanks+arms&y=Search&fr=404_news
_____________________________________________________
From National Public Radio (NPR):
August 29, 2006
"Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has been visiting countries such as China, Iran and Russia as part of an effort to build a 'strategic alliance' of interests not beholden to the United States. He considers the United States his arch enemy.":
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5729764
Kazakhstan's leading opposition party has warned that the customs union with Russia could be the first step in a project to re-instate the Soviet Union.
Bulat Abilov, co-Chairman of the National Social Democratic Party, said: "Our concern is that this economical Union can develop into a political one. We also know about some plans to revive the Soviet Union, maybe in another form, in 2017 on the anniversary of the October Socialist Revolution of 1917." The party has written an open letter to Kazakhstan's President Nursultan Nazarbayev, demanding a national referendum on the customs union, which is set to come into effect at the start of July. The union will see Russia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus set the same tariffs for the outside world, while allowing free trade between themselves.
The National Social Democratic Party won nearly five per cent of the vote in Kazakhstan's last parliamentary elections, making it the most significant opposition party in what is effectively a one-party state.
President Nazarbayev's Nur-Otan party won every parliamentary seat in the 2007 election, with 88 per cent of the votes. Mr Nazarbayev has ruled without interruption since independence twenty years ago.
Many Russians consider former soviet republics such as Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Belarus as the "near-abroad", causing suspicion among Kazakhs.
The opposition leader said: "We think there exists some sort of imperialist nostalgia about a big, great and strong Soviet Union. Even if nobody speaks loudly about it now, the idea could appear later."
Karim Massimov, Kazakhstan's prime minister, signed up to the customs union in Moscow at the end of May.
A third partner, Belarus, held back over disagreements on energy import tariffs, but has since agreed to join.
In the letter, the National Social Democratic Party gave warning that the customs union risked smothering Kazakhstan's manufacturing sector, which
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
_________________________________________________
"the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [20th] century" -Russian leader Vladimir Putin on the collapse of the Soviet Union..
http://www.russiansentry.com/?area=postView&id=1409
_____________________________________________________
Russia, China hold Peace Mission 2009 joint exercise
The exercise involves about 3,000 Russian and Chinese servicemen, nearly 300 units of army military equipment and over 40 fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters. Photo: BMP-86A infantry fighting vehicles of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) of China.
http://en.rian.ru/photolents/20090724/155604547.html
_____________________________________________________
[2009] Russia, China plan new joint military exercises
By MARTIN SIEFF, UPI Senior News Analyst
Published: March 26, 2009
WASHINGTON, March 26 (UPI) -- The continuing tensions over Russia's refusal to sell its state-of-the-art land warfare advanced weapons systems to China hasn't interrupted the rhythm of major joint military exercises between the two major land powers on the Eurasian landmass. The latest in the regular, biennial series of exercises between the two nations has been confirmed for this summer.
The next in the now well-established series of exercises called Peace Mission 2009 will be carried out in northeastern China, the Russian Defense Ministry announced March 18, according to a report carried by the RIA Novosti news agency.
The first bilateral Peace Mission maneuvers -- described at the time as counter-terrorism exercises -- were held in Russia and the eastern Chinese province of Shandong in August 2005. As we reported at that time, they were a lot bigger than mere counter-terrorism exercises. Warships, squadrons of combat aircraft and more than 10,000 troops were involved carrying out landings against hypothetically hostile shores. The maneuvers also involved large-scale paratroops drops. The scale and nature of those exercises suggested a trial run for a possible Chinese invasion of Taiwan with Russian support. ..."
http://www.upi.com/Security_Industry/2009/03/26/Russia_China_plan_new_joint_military_exercises/UPI-25021238094858/
_____________________________________________________
Russia, China flex muscles in joint war games
August 17, 2007
CHEBARKUL, Russia (Reuters) - Russia and China staged their biggest joint exercises on Friday but denied this show of military prowess could lead to the formation of a counterweight to NATO.
"Today's exercises are another step towards strengthening the relations between our countries, a step towards strengthening international peace and security, and first and foremost, the security of our peoples," Putin said.
Fighter jets swooped overhead, commandos jumped from helicopters on to rooftops and the boom of artillery shells shook the firing range in Russia's Ural mountains as two of the largest armies in the world were put through their paces.
The exercises take place against a backdrop of mounting rivalry between the West, and Russia and China for influence over Central Asia, a strategic region that has huge oil, gas and mineral resources.
Russia's growing assertiveness is also causing jitters in the West. Putin announced at the firing range that Russia was resuming Soviet-era sorties by its strategic bomber aircraft near NATO airspace.
http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-29030120070817?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
_____________________________________________________
War Games: Russia, China Grow Alliance
September 23, 2005
In foreign policy it’s critical to “know thine enemy.” So American policymakers should be aware that Russia and China are inching closer to identifying a common enemy — the United States.
The two would-be superpowers held unprecedented joint military exercises Aug. 18-25. Soothingly named “Peace Mission 2005,” the drills took place on the Shandong peninsula on the Yellow Sea, and included nearly 10,000 troops. Russian long-range bombers, the army, navy, air force, marine, airborne and logistics units from both countries were also involved.
Moscow and Beijing claim the maneuvers were aimed at combating terrorism, extremism and separatism (the last a veiled reference to Taiwan), but it’s clear they were an attempt to counter-balance American military might.
Joint war games are a logical outcome of the Sino-Russian Friendship and Cooperation Treaty signed in 2001, and reflect the shared worldview and growing economic ties between the two Eastern Hemisphere giants."
The United States Government is in the hands of people who are our mortal enemies. They hate us.
People who have the same global agenda as Putin, Chavez and the ChiComs. Extremely dangerous times.
You are correct and perhaps they’ll supplement the existing fighter forces. Though this line from the article is a bit deceptive: “dramatically shown the limitations of such systems”. What the recent events in Iran show is a breakdown, not of the UCAV system in a technical sense, but the breakdown of the system in a political sense. We knew about the potential for this attack as well as the software problems. It just never was corrected. Why?
Out of curiosity, what are the 5 airplanes you refer to?
It was a random number. I meant, the cost of such projects becomes ever-more expensive, and the country as a whole can afford less and less. We will have a tiny fleet of extremely expensive planes.
OK
But an air to air drone has to have some way to sense either where it is, or where it's target is, probably both. It needs to know where it is, to be able to handle ques from a parent aircraft. Unless whatever is sending the cues also can independently know where the drone is, and can send relative position cues, rather than absolute target coordinates. (ie. target is 100 nm at 135 degrees magnetic rather than “target is at 110.0159N lon 67.9021W lon) Either way it still needs it's own sensor. Unless it can lanch on a relatively crude heading/range information, and the missile it launches has the sensor.
There is a encrypted M code GPS signal.
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.