A report on the need for a new force structure for USAF in the face of a peer-level contested battlespace. I quite like it. Distilled down to first principles, it argues that instead of relying on pure airpower->air control for everything, what USAF really needs is lots of GBAD, lots of standoff strikes, and a smaller fleet of air superiority fighters which only fights when conditions are appropriate. Such a force structure is far better optimized for protracted high-intensity conflict, at the cost of conceding theatre-level control of the air in favor of temporary and contested windows of opportunity.
It's a fundamentally solid argument which recognizes that you can't just bulldoze your way through peer-level opposition by virtue of superior everything. Otherwise the opposition wouldn't be peers, now would they? More importantly, and ironically, it's the exact force structure long employed by the PLA. It's why PLAGF/PLAAF operate so many air defense units. It's why PLARF exists. It's why PLAAF is weighted so heavily on air superiority platforms over strike. It's the right way to conceptualize and fight a genuine peer.
That being said, if you choose to fight a equal opponent on highly unequal terrain—like say, his front yard—then you will lose. Because then it's no longer a contest of equals.
View attachment 161451
