Fighters and bombers are what America needs to win — not quadcopters

[rangerrebew]

Fighters and bombers are what America needs to win — not quadcopters
By USAF Gen. T. Michael Moseley (ret.)
 Nov 1, 2024, 02:00 PM
 
Neglecting to build America's fighter jets and bombers arsenal will put its ability to win future conflicts at risk, writes ret Gen. T. Michael Moseley. (Staff Sgt. Zachary Rufus/Air Force)

On Saturday, Israeli F-35 stealth fighter aircraft penetrated highly defended Iranian airspace, struck a broad number of military targets and returned home safe. Days earlier, U.S. B-2 stealth bombers struck multiple deeply buried Houthi arms caches. These missions illustrate a key point: Despite trendy arguments to the contrary, the United States still requires the most advanced fighters and bombers in our arsenal if we want to win in future conflicts.

Questioning the value of modern combat aircraft is not new within the Washington defense arena. Some observers of Russia-Ukraine fighting in trenches extrapolate that small drones are changing the nature of air warfare. However, these assertions ignore the fact that the drones’ impact is largely isolated to tactical Army ground operations, not on air warfare. Infantry and armor cannot move without being targeted by drones. Ukrainian fighter aircraft moving at 500 miles an hour are not affected.


While it is appropriate to recognize the impact of small drones in the battlespace, it is also crucial to be clear-eyed about the scale and scope of that potential. Quadcopters did nothing to prevent the Russia-Ukraine war from descending into a withering slog. Conditions for that type of fight were set when neither side secured air superiority. The U.S. must bear this in mind with extreme care as it prepares for a potential fight against China.

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/2024/10/31/fighters-and-bombers-are-what-america-needs-to-win-not-quadcopters/

[rangerrebew]

On Saturday, Israeli F-35 stealth fighter aircraft penetrated highly defended Iranian airspace

This raises another question.  Are our air defenses as good as we want to believe?  My guess would be no.

[Smokin Joe]

Quadcopters enabled the Ukraine war to descend 'into a withering slog'.  Had it not been for some initial miscalculations on the part of the Russians and those drones, Ukraine might have been, and still might be, overrun. As it is, the drones have changed the shape of warfare.

Short of nukes, bombing has yet to win a war by itself. The attitude of the Air Force toward infantry (who needs viable close air support, too), is stuck on Bomber Harris.

Granted, bombing can cripple an enemy's ability to continue to provide logistical support, and that makes the job easier overall for the ground pounders, but until the enemy runs out of ammo and vehicles and, even, men, that does not get the job done. Boots on the ground do, and drone support has proven invaluable in the Ukraine, and will, I expect prove invaluable in future conflicts, both in the tactical action on the ground, and in the air as well.

How many quadcopters can you deploy for the cost of a single aircraft?

[PeteS in CA]

False choice argument.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

A swarm of $1200 quadcopters seem to be pretty good in comparison to a multimillion dollar weapon system.

[DefiantMassRINO]

What good are air defenses if we have a President loathe to shoot down a Chinese spy-balloon?

This raises another question.  Are our air defenses as good as we want to believe?  My guess would be no.