This may be a statement that the U.S militaries post-ww2 doctrine of air superiority is no longer viable. Large Battleships once had to face a similar reality that it was impossible to make them survivable if the enemy had air superiority.
Drones are cheap, good missiles are 1/100th the price of an F-35. It's possible that aircraft will no longer be able to enter contested space without significant risks just as it was pre-ww2 where it was impractical to achieve air superiority or to destroy anti-aircraft placements.
Considering the extreme investment of the US into aircraft as a means of projecting power and winning wars against conventional militaries, there is a chance that an opponent with a much smaller military budget could "win" in a conventional fight - making the multi-trillion dollar aircraft projects pointless.
Contested is the point. Contested by other jets, I'd say no. All other air forces with modern fighters are still using Gen 4 fighters at best. The true threat comes from anti-aircraft weapons. To the point developers of FCAS are worried about man-held missiles. These missiles can take down legacy as well as 5th gen fighters. That's also why saturation is a thing, overwhelming the enmy with numbers. At 100 mil a piece, that startegy might be a tad expensve with the F-35. Hence drones. Whether rones work or not has to be seen.
my bestguess is, that n a conventional conflict between industrilized states the air campaigns will be over after the first three major engangements or so. Because by then replacing the losses would ruin everyone.
nradov|5 years ago
lumost|5 years ago
Drones are cheap, good missiles are 1/100th the price of an F-35. It's possible that aircraft will no longer be able to enter contested space without significant risks just as it was pre-ww2 where it was impractical to achieve air superiority or to destroy anti-aircraft placements.
Considering the extreme investment of the US into aircraft as a means of projecting power and winning wars against conventional militaries, there is a chance that an opponent with a much smaller military budget could "win" in a conventional fight - making the multi-trillion dollar aircraft projects pointless.
hef19898|5 years ago
my bestguess is, that n a conventional conflict between industrilized states the air campaigns will be over after the first three major engangements or so. Because by then replacing the losses would ruin everyone.