Air Combat Past, Present and Future (in 90 slides)

[Channel 2]

Does this 2008 report still have merit. And if so, what are it's implications?

Which slide numbers are especially relevant? (And not so much.)

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/2008_RAND_Pacific_View_Air_Combat_Briefing.pdf

[INT_QRU]

Relevant or not, it is an interesting read!

[Channel 2]

I agree, it is interesting, and thought provoking.

Do slides 19-28 and 75-81 seem valid to the fighter pilots on PPRuNe?

[MPN11]

Annoyingly the link to the document refuses to open for me [Mac/Safari].

[Wannabeupthere]

Link no worky, no likey.

[Tourist]

I hunted for the name of the document on the internet and found it.

Lots of pretty slides, and most of it outside my specific knowledge, but in the areas in which I have some limited knowledge it seemed a little shallow.

For example there is a section about hitting fixed airbases with cluster munitions etc where defences seem to be totally ignored?

[Lonewolf_50]

@Tourist: they also wish away Taiwan SAMs. (Maybe they assumed fifth column activity?)

[Tourist]

Yes.

It also assumes that hordes of Chinese aircraft will just continue onwards despite seeing their friends knocked out of the sky around them. There is a lot of faith required to continue in the face of such losses. Lots of trust that the enemy will run out of missiles soon, honest.
I think that many would turn and run under such a slaughter.

[Courtney Mil]

It's an interesting presentation, BUT...

1 The fact that it's unclass limits its depth.

2 It ignores a number of capabilities on both sides (beyond point 1 above).

3 Without the speaker's script, it's hard to tell how the bullet points are explained.

4 Some rather unusual assumptions that do not strictly match military planning assumptions (not the ones I recognise).

It has merit, but is not the definitive answer to modern combat ops. One could not expect it to be so given its classification. Not particularly thought provoking, but interesting nevertheless.

[MSOCS]

There's a fairly decent treatise on this slide show at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ALockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II/Archive_4#.E2.80.9CClubbed_like_baby_seals.E2.80.9D_controve rsy_.E2.80.93_the_back_story

and:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-defence-policy-and-f-35-under-attack-317309/

The report is interesting in places; mainly logistics, basing issues etc. Remember: Kopp and Goon must have F-22 for the RAAF (which isn't available to them)

[Lonewolf_50]

The report is interesting in places; mainly logistics, basing issues etc. Remember: Kopp and Goon must have F-22 for the RAAF (which isn't available to them) Due to cost or other considerations? Of all the allies I'd like to see flying them, the Aussies are top tier, if not at the top, since IMO the pacific theater is where the next real problem comes.


Arrgh. The premature cancellation of F-22 still irks me, and I'm not even a USAF person.

[Channel 2]

The link is up and working again.