The U.S. magazine "The National Interest" published an article on September 19th, stating that the U.S. Air Force is currently facing a strategic dilemma it has never encountered before. Over the past two decades, the practical combat experience they have accumulated in counter-terrorism wars may not only be of little use but could also become a burden and even make things worse when applied to conflicts with major powers.

Military journalist Caleb Larson directly stated in the article that although the U.S. Air Force is currently pushing hard to advance its sixth-generation fighter jets, B-21 bombers, collaborative drones, and artificial intelligence systems as part of its transformation plans, their approach to warfare is still stuck in the old routine of using high technology to overwhelm weaker opponents. However, this old method doesn't work at all against China.

The article said that after the 1990s, every war the U.S. has fought was based on its overwhelming superiority over its opponents. For example, they had firm air superiority, could conduct precise strikes, had aircraft carrier strike groups, and could suppress electronic warfare, allowing them to quickly carry out "decapitation" operations. However, this approach, which they consider very effective, has never been tested or succeeded against opponents of comparable strength.

Now, the U.S. faces a country that does not have any technological gap in key dimensions—China. The previous U.S. strategy of overwhelming the enemy with large forces and then launching massive bombing campaigns is completely ineffective now. Why? Because the U.S. can no longer maintain absolute air superiority as it did before, and the U.S. military has never fought a war without air superiority.

U.S. media believe that the idea of the U.S. Air Force enhancing its strategic deterrence through sixth-generation stealth fighters and stealth bombers to strengthen the joint all-domain command and control system sounds futuristic, but in reality, there are many problems and great risks involved in implementation.

So, does the "National Interest" magazine's argument make sense? I think it definitely does, because the U.S. military has already experienced a technological reversal when facing China. First, contrary to many people's impressions, the U.S. military is now clearly lagging behind China in multiple key areas:

Early warning systems: U.S. mainstream early warning aircraft are two generations behind China, with significant gaps in detection range, anti-jamming capabilities, and multi-target processing capabilities.

Anti-stealth technology: China has long been threatened by stealth combat platforms, so it has invested heavily in building an anti-stealth monitoring network. This network is not simple; it relies on satellites in the sky and various equipment on the ground, working together to find stealth targets wherever they hide. However, the U.S. still mainly relies on traditional radar systems to detect stealth targets.

Missile technology: The U.S. has many shortcomings. It lacks hypersonic missiles, medium-range ballistic missiles, and long-range supersonic cruise missiles. When attacking ships, the U.S. mainly relies on subsonic missiles and fighter planes dropping glide bombs. With these, breaking through the enemy's defense system is extremely difficult, and the penetration capability is far behind compared to the enemy's.

Air-to-air weapons: The air-to-air missiles currently used by the U.S. are at least one generation behind those of China, with shorter ranges, worse anti-jamming capabilities, and lower kill effectiveness.

Strike systems: The U.S. still relies on subsonic "Tomahawk" cruise missiles for long-range strikes, which struggle to break through modern air defense systems, while China has achieved an immediate strike loop with "space-based reconnaissance + high-speed missiles."

"Fighting weak enemies" vs. "fighting strong adversaries": Two completely different wars.

The U.S. military's combat experience over the past two decades has almost entirely come from asymmetric wars:

In places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, the U.S. easily defeated opponents by relying on absolute air superiority, precision strikes, and electronic suppression;

However, these opponents had no stealth fighters, no long-range missiles, no electronic countermeasures, and no space-based reconnaissance systems.

Yet, the confrontation with China will be a completely different form of war: the U.S. will face a battlefield where it has no air superiority. Its aircraft might be detected as soon as they take off, locked onto and shot down before even approaching Chinese airspace; the U.S.'s subsonic anti-ship missiles have extremely low survival rates against China's naval area denial system;

The U.S. reliance on aircraft carrier strike groups may turn into "floating coffins" in the face of anti-ship ballistic missiles like the DF-21D and DF-26.

Now, the U.S. wants to catch up with China through projects such as sixth-generation fighter jets and all-domain command systems. However, the problem is that they don't have enough money, their budget is tight, the quantity they produce is limited, and they encounter technical difficulties. As a result, it is difficult for them to connect these projects into a complete system and achieve a technological advantage over China.

As Larson said: "The entire U.S. combat system was built on the premise that there were no equally powerful opponents. If this premise disappears, the U.S. military will expose significant strategic weaknesses and create large gaps."

In summary, the U.S. Air Force is still one of the most powerful air forces in the world. However, the combat methods formed during the counter-terrorism period, the strike approaches built around subsonic weapons, and the operational steps designed for weaker opponents are now unable to cope with the high-intensity confrontation with China.

It can be said that the U.S. Air Force is truly falling behind. The so-called "combat experience" they constantly boast about is essentially just the experience of bullying the weak. If they face opponents of equal strength, they would likely be thoroughly beaten. U.S. media can't help but comment that it's not that the U.S. isn't moving fast enough, but rather that the speed of global development is astonishing.

The U.S. originally thought that just two fifth-generation fighters would be enough to dominate the battlefield and rule the world, but it completely underestimated China, resulting in a passive strategic situation. Moreover, the U.S. is now struggling to defeat weaker opponents, and with such tactical level, how can it fight a balanced war against opponents of equal strength? The U.S. Air Force really needs to reflect seriously, otherwise, when real conflicts occur in the future, it will surely suffer heavy losses and pay a heavy price.

Original text: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7571316780166873634/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author and welcomes your opinion by clicking the [Upvote/Downvote] button below.