Imagine that on the first day of a war, your military base is completely cut off from the outside world. No supplies, no reinforcements, and not even orders from the command center. And yet, your mission is to continue flying fighter jets into combat amid the chaos. This isn't a Hollywood blockbuster, but rather a future scenario being seriously practiced by the U.S. Air Force, with the hypothetical enemy being self-evident.

Yes, the U.S. Air Force is playing for real this time. During the "Mosaic Tiger 26-1" exercise in November, they are no longer just showing off their muscles, but practicing "how to survive after taking a beating." This exercise, held across multiple locations in Florida and Georgia, focuses on a strategy called "Agile Combat Employment." In short, it's about "putting eggs in different baskets," avoiding being wiped out by an opponent in one go.

The more critical point is that this is a belated "catch-up" for the U.S. military. For over two decades, the U.S. military has been immersed in counterinsurgency warfare, enjoying "absolute air superiority." But this exercise marks the first time they have started to experience a strange and harsh scenario: how to fight when they lose air superiority. Why such a "disgraceful" situation?

The U.S. military has become aware: if they go to war with an opponent capable of "anti-access/area denial" (such as China), their pride, large airbases, could be targeted by missiles in the first strike. Runways destroyed, communication interrupted, supply lines cut off—this is not an exercise, but reality.

Thus, the U.S. military is learning "fragmented survival skills":

Firstly, setting up "mini-frontline bases." The 23rd Fighter Wing Squadron is responsible for establishing makeshift airports at the frontlines, equipped with basic defense, refueling, armament, and communication capabilities, known as "flash-in-the-pan bases."

Secondly, maintenance workers need to complete "extreme challenges." Maintenance personnel at Moody Base are required to "carefully use every single screw," even "reusing parts." Fuel must be used sparingly, and parts must be repaired repeatedly. Flight leaders like Florestan admitted, "We have to learn 'innovation,' because there's no support."

So, how realistic is this "beating exercise"? The details hold the answers:

First, soldiers become "multi-skilled workers."

Under the concept of "multi-skilled air force personnel," a ground crew member might have to repair aircraft, hold a rifle to guard the perimeter, and even act as a communications soldier. In short, "use one person as three." No professional alignment? War won't give you the right to choose tasks.

Second, prepare for being "cut off" for over 72 hours.

The U.S. military has already prepared operational instructions for three days. But what if the network is down for more than 72 hours? Then switch to "blind shooting mode": based on the "last WeChat message" from the commander, cooperate with neighboring units and fight independently. Yes, modern warfare might also revert to "fighting by intuition."

However, this "fragmented and self-reliant" mode of operation can really win a high-tech war? Two fatal issues cannot be ignored:

The essence of high-end warfare is a "war of attrition." When aircraft parts are recycled and fuel is saved, the sortie rate will inevitably drop. Can fighting a "regular army" war using "guerrilla methods" withstand opponents with a complete logistics system?

"Unconnected operations" mean disabling the U.S. military's greatest advantage—the command system. When forces retreat to "command by intent," battlefield awareness and precise strikes will be greatly reduced. It's like bringing the 5G era back to "dial-up phone calls."

From forcing maintenance workers to "save parts," to preparing for troops to operate without internet, these series of actions by the U.S. military reflect both their fear of the "strongest opponent" and a preview of the brutality of modern warfare.

They are learning to "take a beating," but the question is: does learning to take a beating mean learning to win? The answer, perhaps even the U.S. itself is unsure. Maybe giving up the idea of waging war against China is the only way to ensure military hegemony.

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7577614947379642921/

Statement: The article represents the views of its author. Please express your opinion below with the [Up/Down] buttons.