Brumby
Major
It looks like you guys had been active while I was sleeping. Lol.
IMO, it is important to view the recent document as some preliminary idea and more importantly take a holistic view.
It seems to me "PCA" is the operative word and so I would briefly comment around it. We should note the concept of air superiority as described in the document and I quote "air superiority is often envisioned as a theater-wide condition. In highly contested environments, such a conception may be unrealistic and unnecessary. Air superiority is only needed for the time and over the geographic area required to enable joint operations. The specific amount of time and space required varies significantly across scenarios, mission objectives, and phases of conflict. Accordingly, capability development for air superiority must provide options for commanders to array their forces across a range of durations and geographies."
The document then went on to describe two major threat vectors in the 2030 battlespace and beyond. I would not repeat but just briefly point out that the threats will be multi domain and multi axis. It is therefore logically that solutions will be multi domain and multi faceted and it would be unrealistic to assume that burden is placed on a single platform.
I think your worldview is too bound to platform solutions and is missing the forest in which this document is attempting to envision. Success in the future battlespace will be fought over multi domain and having the supporting assets and infrastructure. The demands are comprehensive which the document have laid out. In view of the projected threats from hypersonic, advance ballistic missiles, et al, winning the battlespace requires being dominant across all spectrum and domain. For example, destroying an aircraft carrier or refueling tankers would mean all the forward deployed assets will eventually be lost regardless of how capable your F-35/F-22's are.
IMO, it is important to view the recent document as some preliminary idea and more importantly take a holistic view.
It seems to me "PCA" is the operative word and so I would briefly comment around it. We should note the concept of air superiority as described in the document and I quote "air superiority is often envisioned as a theater-wide condition. In highly contested environments, such a conception may be unrealistic and unnecessary. Air superiority is only needed for the time and over the geographic area required to enable joint operations. The specific amount of time and space required varies significantly across scenarios, mission objectives, and phases of conflict. Accordingly, capability development for air superiority must provide options for commanders to array their forces across a range of durations and geographies."
The document then went on to describe two major threat vectors in the 2030 battlespace and beyond. I would not repeat but just briefly point out that the threats will be multi domain and multi axis. It is therefore logically that solutions will be multi domain and multi faceted and it would be unrealistic to assume that burden is placed on a single platform.
I think your worldview is too bound to platform solutions and is missing the forest in which this document is attempting to envision. Success in the future battlespace will be fought over multi domain and having the supporting assets and infrastructure. The demands are comprehensive which the document have laid out. In view of the projected threats from hypersonic, advance ballistic missiles, et al, winning the battlespace requires being dominant across all spectrum and domain. For example, destroying an aircraft carrier or refueling tankers would mean all the forward deployed assets will eventually be lost regardless of how capable your F-35/F-22's are.
