Most of the countries the US is dealing with right now don't have any kind of modern air-defense network, or really even any air force. So US aviation can make use of the skies over the battlefield uncontested. A battle against an adversary who has those things (like Russia or China) would be different; the US would need to be able to seize control of the air, and hold it.
Small fighters would indeed play a key role in that process, because they would be the ones who would have to sweep the skies clean of enemy fighters so that other aircraft (bombers, transports, etc.) could travel through them safely. If the battle zone is inside the adversary's air defense network, that would mean they'd have to be able to survive traveling through that network as well.
I would bet money that within thirty years this mission will be entirely handed over to UAVs/drones, since they're cheaper to operate and actually have some advantages over manned fighters -- a drone can turn harder than a manned plane can, for instance, because it doesn't have to worry about the G-forces killing the pilot. But technology is not quite there yet today.
You're absolutely right. Billion-dollar fighter jets may be a gravy train for the Pentagon and defense contractors, but they may not be all that useful in most war arenas the US is likely to encounter today.
Arguably the best illustration of this was the infamous "Millennium Challenge 2002", a massive war game involving 13,000 troops and $250M. Embarrassingly, the US army got "defeated" within just the first few days by a ragtag bunch of fighters, propeller plans, recreational boats and low-tech communication.
"At the height of the summer, as talk of invading Iraq built in Washington like a dark, billowing storm, the US armed forces staged a rehearsal using over 13,000 troops, countless computers and $250m. Officially, America won and a rogue state was liberated from an evil dictator.
What really happened is quite another story, one that has set alarm bells ringing throughout America's defence establishment and raised questions over the US military's readiness for an Iraqi invasion. In fact, this war game was won by Saddam Hussein, or at least by the retired marine playing the Iraqi dictator's part, Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper.
In the first few days of the exercise, using surprise and unorthodox tactics, the wily 64-year-old Vietnam veteran sank most of the US expeditionary fleet in the Persian Gulf, bringing the US assault to a halt.
What happened next will be familiar to anyone who ever played soldiers in the playground. Faced with an abrupt and embarrassing end to the most expensive and sophisticated military exercise in US history, the Pentagon top brass simply pretended the whole thing had not happened. They ordered their dead troops back to life and "refloated" the sunken fleet. Then they instructed the enemy forces to look the other way as their marines performed amphibious landings. Eventually, Van Riper got so fed up with all this cheating that he refused to play any more. Instead, he sat on the sidelines making abrasive remarks until the three-week war game - grandiosely entitled Millennium Challenge - staggered to a star-spangled conclusion on August 15, with a US "victory"."
oh come on, not this shit again. this has been debunked a thousand times by now. he broke rules, he had motorcycle couriers work in lightspeed, etc. classic exploit strat, more starcraft than real life. hence they reset, just like blizzard would have done.
You're pretty dismissive, but I've read some pretty credible sources saying that exercise was quite the upset. You cannot possibly expect enemies to "follow rules" either. In a real war Blizzard wouldn't be able to "reset".
Intuitively speaking, too, I have great difficulty understanding how carriers could possibly repel massed attacks of low value craft/missiles. And that's not even counting the Dong Fengs, etc. I have a romantic nostalgia for carriers as much as anyone but I can't see how they are anything other than gigantic sitting ducks in the microchip era.
In fact, the US Aircraft fleet is a huge sitting duck, just waiting to be sunk. It can project power, sure - but only as a policing tool. In time of total war, the carrier is useless - every potential American adversary has the ability to sink these carriers with cheap, fast weapons designed for the job. There is no defence currently in the field - the laser weapons (only possible defense against supersonic smart ballistic nukes) currently being tested won't make it in wide deployment for another 10 years.
The moment open warfare is declared, America will loose its aircraft carriers, and trillions of dollars, thousands of lives. The only use for the Carrier fleet right now is for America to project its police force around the world.
I have a bunch of naval officers in my family. I recall the standard line is "During modern naval warfare, there are only two things: submarines and targets."
If it was debunked, it's news to me. What sources are you referring to?
Edit: I did a few more web searches but am yet to come across any article that "debunks" the narrative that Van Riper "defeated" the US naval force. So, I'll wait for your sources.
> I would bet money that within thirty years this mission will be entirely handed over to UAVs/drones, since they're cheaper to operate and actually have some advantages over manned fighters -- a drone can turn harder than a manned plane can, for instance, because it doesn't have to worry about the G-forces killing the pilot. But technology is not quite there yet today.
Isn't that time frame incredibly conservative? Think about how much technology has changed since 1983. Drones were mostly unknown less than ten years ago and now they are autonomously bombing targets. I can't believe it will take 30 more years before drones become equally good (and already much cheaper!) than manned fighters. In five years seem more likely.
Small fighters would indeed play a key role in that process, because they would be the ones who would have to sweep the skies clean of enemy fighters so that other aircraft (bombers, transports, etc.) could travel through them safely. If the battle zone is inside the adversary's air defense network, that would mean they'd have to be able to survive traveling through that network as well.
I would bet money that within thirty years this mission will be entirely handed over to UAVs/drones, since they're cheaper to operate and actually have some advantages over manned fighters -- a drone can turn harder than a manned plane can, for instance, because it doesn't have to worry about the G-forces killing the pilot. But technology is not quite there yet today.