Military


Airpower Overview

Aviation forces of the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps—composed of fighter/attack, conventional bomber, and specialized support aircraft—provide a versatile striking force capable of rapid employment worldwide. These forces can quickly gain and sustain air superiority over regional aggressors, permitting rapid air attacks on enemy targets while providing security to exploit the air for logistics, command and control, intelligence, and other functions. Fighter/attack aircraft, operating from both land bases and aircraft carriers, combat enemy fighters and attack ground and ship targets. Conventional bombers provide an intercontinental capability to strike surface targets on short notice. The specialized aircraft supporting conventional operations perform functions such as airborne early warning and control, suppression of enemy air defenses, reconnaissance, surveillance, and combat rescue. In addition to these forces, the U.S. military operates a variety of transport planes, aerial-refueling aircraft, helicopters, and other support aircraft.

The Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps keep a portion of their tactical air forces forward deployed at all times. These forces can be augmented, as needs arise, with aircraft based in the United States.

The Air Force is capable of deploying, as part of its expeditionary forces, seven to eight fighter wing-equivalents (FWEs) to a distant theater in a matter of days as an initial response in a major theater war (MTW). Additional wings would follow within the first month. These forces would operate from local bases where infrastructure exists and political agreements allow. Navy and Marine Corps air wings similarly can be employed in distant contingencies on very short notice; these forces provide a unique ability to carry out combat operations independent of access to regional land bases.

In a major theater war, bombers would deliver large quantities of unguided general-purpose bombs and cluster munitions against area targets, such as ground units, airfields, and rail yards. Bomber forces also would play a key role in delivering precision-guided munitions (including cruise missiles) against point targets, such as command and control facilities and air defense sites.

The ability of these forces to have an immediate impact on a conflict by slowing the advance of enemy forces, suppressing enemy air defenses, and inflicting massive damage on an enemy’s strategic infrastructure will expand dramatically over the next 10 years as new munitions are deployed. The more advanced weapons now entering the inventory or in development will enable bombers to bring a wider range of targets under attack, while taking better advantage of the bombers’ large payloads. The rapid-response, long-range capability provided by bombers could make them the first major U.S. weapon system on the scene in a fast-developing crisis. For remote inland targets, bombers could be the only weapons platform capable of providing a substantial response.

Specialized aviation forces contribute to all phases of military operations. Two of their most important missions are suppression of enemy air defenses and aerial reconnaissance and surveillance. Air defense suppression forces locate and neutralize enemy air defenses. Airborne reconnaissance and surveillance forces are a primary source of information on enemy air and surface forces and installations. These forces bridge the gap in coverage between ground- and space-based surveillance systems and the targeting systems on combat aircraft. Airborne reconnaissance systems fall into two categories: standoff systems, which operate outside the range of enemy air defenses; and penetrating systems, which operate within enemy air defense range.

Army Aviation began during the Civil War with the formation of the Balloon Corps in 1861. The Union Army used observers in balloons for surveillance of Confederate troop movements and adjustment of artillery fire. The expansion of Army Aviation continued to progress through the formation of the Army Air Corps in July, 1926, which later became the US Air Force.

Modern Army Aviation came into existence on 6 June 1942, a few months after the United States entered World War II. These assets were known as organic Army Aviation, because they were organic to battalions, brigades, and divisions of the Army Ground Forces, and to distinguish them from the Army Air Corps/US Air Force. The primary aircraft used by organic Army aviation were light, fixed-wing aircraft such as the L-4 (Piper Cub). These aircraft were utilized for adjustment of artillery fire, command and control (C2), medical evacuation (MEDEVAC), aerial photography, reconnaissance, and other purposes. The proven value of organic Army Aviation during World War II was that its aircraft were easily accessible to ground commanders, and were able to operate in close coordination with ground forces. The aircraft of the Air Corps were often unable to fulfill these necessities.

The transition in Army Aviation from fixed wing to rotary wing aircraft began in 1946, with the War Department Equipment Board’s determination that Army Ground Forces required four types of helicopters. The potential of the helicopter was amply demonstrated during the Korean War, however rapid development and procurement of rotary wing aircraft in the Army did not occur until the early 1960’s. In 1963 the 11th Air Assault Division tested the airmobile concept at Fort Benning, Georgia, and in 1965 the 1st Cavalry Division was organized as the first airmobile division and sent to Vietnam.

With the arrival of the UH-1 (Huey) and two airmobile divisions, helicopter warfare became the most important innovation of the Vietnam conflict. Because of the nature of the enemy and the proved value of the helicopter throughout the war, aviation dominated the development of infantry organization and tactics to combat the enemies light infantry. The development of armed helicopters was also perfected during Vietnam. These gunships provided direct fire support to units who were operating outside the range of their artillery. The idea of armed helicopters also led to the specific development of attack helicopters for anti-armor and anti-personnel missions.

On 06 April 1966 a formal agreement between the Chief of Staff, US Army and the Chief of Staff, US Air Force relinquished Army claims fixed-wing aircraft designed for tactical airlift.

The Chief of Staff, United States Army, and the Chief of Staff, United States Air Force, have reached an understanding on the control and employment of certain types of fixed and rotary wing aircraft and are individually and jointly agreed as follows:

A. The Chief of Staff, U. S. Army, agrees to relinquish all claims for CV-2 and CV-7 aircraft and for future fixed wind aircraft designed for tactical airlift. These assets now in the Army inventory will be transferred to the Air Force. (Chief of Staff, Army, and Chief of Staff, Air Force, agree that this does not apply to administrative mission support fixed wing aircraft.)

B. The Chief of Staff, U. S. Air Force, agrees—

(1) To relinquish all claims for helicopters and follow-on rotary wing aircraft which are designed and operated for intra-theater movement, fire support, supply, and resupply of Army forces and those Air Force control elements assigned to DASC and subordinate thereto. (Chief of Staff, Army, and Chief of Staff, Air Force, agree that this does not include rotary wing aircraft employed by Air Force SAW or SAR forces and rotary wing administrative mission support aircraft.) (Chief of Staff, Army, and Chief of Staff, Air Force, agree that the Army and Air Force jointly will continue to develop VTOL aircraft. Dependent upon evolution of this type aircraft, methods of employment and control will be matters for continuing joint consideration by the Army and Air Force.)

(2) That, in cases of operational need, the CV-2, CV-7, and C-123 type aircraft performing supply, resupply, or troop-lift functions in the field army area, may be attached to the subordinate tactical echelons of the field army (corps, division, or subordinate commander), as determined by the appropriate joint/unified commander. (Note: Authority for attachment is established by subsection 6, Sec. 2 of JCS Pub 2, Unified Action Armed Forces (UNAAF).)

(3) To retain the CV-2 and CV-7 aircraft in the Air Force structure and to consult with the Chief of Staff, U. S. Army, prior to changing the force level of, or replacing, these aircraft.

(4) To consult with the Chief of Staff, U. S. Army in order to arrive at takeoff, landing, and load carrying characteristics on follow-on fixed wing aircraft to meet the needs of the Army for supply, resupply, and troop movement functions.

C. The Chief of Staff, U. S. Army, and the Chief of Staff, U. S. Air Force, jointly agree—

(1) To revise all service doctrinal statements, manuals, and other material in variance with the substance and spirit of this agreement.

(2) That the necessary actions resulting from this agreement be completed by 1 January 1967.

As the missions of Army Aviation continued to expand and diversify, it became clear that an Aviation Branch was necessary to accommodate Army Aviation’s growing responsibilities. A distinct branch would allow aviation officers to concentrate on aviation tactics, technology, and command, rather than spending half of their time on the requirements of other branches. It would also ensure that their branch would effectively be in central control over the development of aviation doctrine and equipment. The Secretary of the Army officially established the Aviation Branch on 13 April 1983.

The first Army Aviation Modernization Plan (AAMP) was implemented in 1988. As modified in subsequent revisions, this plan called for a gradual reduction in the number of Army aircraft as older models were replaced by modern ones. According to the 1992 version of the AAMP, the aircraft inventory of 7,793 aircraft in 1992 would be reduced to 6,150 in 1999 and 5,900 in 2010, with only six types of aircraft in the rotary-wing fleet. The Aviation Restructure Initiative (ARI) was undertaken to correct the deficiencies in the Army of Excellence (AOE) design for aviation units while retiring old aircraft and reducing the logistics requirements and costs. Implementation of the ARI began in 1994 with all forward-deployed forces scheduled to complete the restructuring process by 1998 and all other units by 1999.

Three types of Army helicopters will be retired before 2005, and aviation battalions will be reorganized as part of the Army's 2000 Aviation Force Modernization Plan, which was unveiled in April 2000. Under the plan, AH-1 Cobras were divested by October 2001, and UH-1 Iroquois and A and C model OH-58 Kiowas retired by 2004. According to the plan, the UH-1s are replaced by UH-60 Black Hawks. The Cobras and Kiowas are replaced by AH-64D Apaches and eventually by RAH-66 Comanches, the new reconnaissance and attack helicopter scheduled to begin joining the Army in 2008. Later-model Kiowas are scheduled for retirement in fiscal year 2013, according to the plan.

To meet the "full spectrum capable force" objective of the modernization plan, the Army plans to fix reconnaissance and security shortfalls," update the force with digital technology. The Army will transform to the multi-functional battalion structure by 2004. The multi-functional battalion structure is made up of 10 AH-64D Apache attack helicopters, 10 UH-60 Blackhawk utility helicopters and will eventually include 10 RAH-66 Comanche reconnaissance and attack helicopters. The Army will begin structuring battalions in this manner soon, although the Comanche requirement will have to be filled with Apaches and Kiowas until Comanche fully comes on-line. The reserve component will have an almost mirror version of the active component's multi-functional battalion, containing 10 more UH-60 helicopters than its counterpart. Army officials said this will make transitioning the reserve component into active duty during dual deployments easier.

Naval aircraft require different capabilities to perform various types of missions. As a background for understanding NAVAIR's role and organization, this section briefly discusses the various naval aviation missions and the aircraft that perform them. These mission descriptions are not all encompassing and consist mainly of aircraft currently in production.

Naval aircraft missions can be categorized under eight job types: fleet air defense, strike warfare, antisubmarine warfare (ASW), electronic warfare, early warning, amphibious assault, training, and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). Each mission requires different capabilities in the craft that perform them. Most aircraft are able to perform more than one type of mission and may perform support functions as well. To accomplish these missions, the Navy and Marine Corps have over six thousand active and reserve aircraft

Strike aircraft attack enemy surface targets such as ships and ground forces. Strike aircraft are classified into two types, medium and light, depending on the weight of the payload they carry. There are several major design factors involved in attack aircraft design. Range, payload, and weapon delivery precision determine how far away a target can be attacked and the amount of damage that can be inflicted. Maneuverability and stealth will allow the aircraft to evade surface to air missiles and enemy fighters as well as making them less visible to enemy sensors. Marine Corps aircraft emphasize vertical or short takeoff capability to provide air power in the absence of airfields. The A-6 Intruder, once the backbone of the Navy's attack force, was withdrawn from service in the 1990s. The F/A-18 is proving everyday to be a reliable, flexible platform and is expected to remain so well into the 2lst century. Upgrades to the F/A-18 radar, engines, weapons, and enhanced all weather attack capability are currently being planned. The AV-8B Harrier is demonstrating to be a safe, effective aircraft. Upgraded engines and night attack capability will provide the Navy and Marine Corps more control over a broader spectrum of operational and threat scenarios.

The fleet air defense mission performed by Navy and Marine Corps fighters is to defend the fleet from shore and sea based air attacks. Fighters attack incoming bombers seeking to destroy aircraft carriers and their accompanying ships. Cruise missiles are also a threat since they can be launched from air, surface, and subsurface platforms, thereby making the speed, range, and loiter time of the defending Navy aircraft critical design considerations. The F-14D provides air dominance for the carrier task force and strike aircraft while over hostile territory. The F-14D digitized avionics allow maximum hardware/software commonality with the F/A- 18.

The naval airborne early warning mission provides all weather active and passive air and sea surveillance of enemy targets and maritime traffic. The E-2C Hawkeye is a carrier based early warning aircraft that serves as the eyes and ears of the fleet. A preplanned product improvement program consisting of upgrading the engines and radar will improve the E-2C's ability to counter the 1 990's threat.

Electronic countermeasure aircraft reduce the electronic vision of the enemy by jamming the opposing force's sensors. These capabilities enhance those of fighter and strike aircraft by providing information on the location and identity of the enemy while degrading enemy capabilities. The EA-6B Prowler remains the primary platform for suppression and degradation of enemy defense systems by tactical jamming. Modernization of the EA-6B involves major upgrades to the aircraft's navigation, communications jamming, radar, instruments, and computer systems. These upgrades will allow the crew to more accurately and rapidly evaluate a large number of threats.

The Tactical Electronic Warfare Reconnaissance Force performs electronic support measures and signal intelligence functions. This includes interception of radiated electromagnetic energy for intelligence purposes to support military operations. During the 1980s the force consisted of EA-3B aircraft which were approaching the end of their service life. A program to replace the EA-3B aircraft involved removing a number of S-3 aircraft from the ASW inventory for conversion to a dedicated ES-3 configuration. Despite the modification of S-3 aircraft to an ES-3 electronic surveillance aircraft, the ES-3 was withdrawn from service by the end of the 1990s.

Antisubmarine Warfare [ASW] is a cornerstone of naval strategy. ASW type platforms include several kinds of aircraft and helicopters. The aircraft are designed to seek out and destroy enemy submarines. The sensors carried by these aircraft are primarily acoustic devices. Maximum loiter times and long ranges are key characteristics of ASW aircraft. Aircraft and helicopters are more effective, sustainable, and survivable ASW platforms when compared to ships and submarines. The P-3C, S-3B, SH-2F, and SH-60B/F can quickly position sensors and prosecute targets at mid to long ranges.

The transport of troops and supplies ashore from ships is termed amphibious assault. The Marine Corps uses both fixed wing and helicopters to accomplish the airborne portion of this mission. Artillery, support vehicles, troops, and supplies must be brought ashore in a short period of time making aircraft an essential element in this mission. To modernize the airborne amphibious force, the MV-22 OSPREY tilt-rotor aircraft is being developed as a replacement for the aging CH-46 medium lift helicopter. The medium lift force is used primarily to transport personnel.

The current heavy lift force consists of CH-53 helicopters which have a sixteen ton lift capacity, providing increased logistic lift for heavy equipment and weapons. Command and Control and light lift capability is provided by the UH-1. The Marine attack helicopter force consists of AH-1 attack helicopters. Their mission provides fire support for aerial and ground operations during ship to shore movement and subsequent operations ashore.

Ship to shore transport of weapons and supplies are provided by Navy vertical replenishment forces. The present force consists of CH-46 helicopters. A variety of helicopters; H-l's, H-2's, H-3's, H-46's, H-53's, and H-60's, provide numerous essential services in all aspects of naval aviation. Sea air rescue, utility, and logistic support to the shore establishment, fleet, test facilities, and ranges are the types of services provided by support helicopters.

The Navy organic airlift inventory includes C-9, CT-39, UC-12, C-130, C-131, C-20, US-3 and C-2 aircraft. The organic air lift force provides flexibility for timely support to fleet commanders and their ships at sea.

Mine warfare consists of mine laying and mine countermeasures. These tasks consist of denial of harbors to the enemy and destruction or neutralization of hostile mine fields. The Navy's airborne mine countermeasure force conducts mine clearing operations. The RH-53 helicopters initially performed this mission, until the MH-53E replaced the RH-53 force. The MH-53E has increased fuel capacity, a hover/tow coupler, and improved mission capabilities.

A little known but very important mission involving naval aviation is Fleet Ballistic Missile Communications. TACAMO (Take Charge and Move Out) aircraft fill the role of relaying very low frequency signals to strategic missile submarines. Initially the force consisted of EC-130Q's. These aging aircraft were replaced by a modified 707/E-3 design designated E-6A, which maintained the same basic equipment currently installed in the EC-130Q.

Intermediate and advanced training needs are accomplished by T-45 aircraft, simulators, academics and training management systems. The T-45 aircraft is one of naval aviation's top priorities. The T-45 will replaced the T-2C and TA-4J as they reached the end of their service life.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and their associated sensors, launch, recovery, mission planning and control, data relay, sensor data processing, and exploitation subsystems are managed under the UAV Joint Project Office with Navy as executive service. The role of UAVs in all of the services is expected to grow due to technology and sensor miniaturization resulting in increased UAV utility and cost effectiveness.

The Air Force has proposed to recast the operational employment of the bulk of its tactical aviation forces through the creation of aerospace expeditionary forces (AEFs). Under this concept, the fighter/attack force, as well as some bomber, tanker, and transport aircraft, will be grouped into ten AEFs for the purpose of specifying day-to-day readiness levels and availability for overseas contingency deployments. Readiness to meet MTW demands will remain unchanged. The main benefit of the AEF process will be the long-term predictability of future deployment prospects, much as the Navy has accomplished with its cyclical overseas deployments. This predictability should greatly aid Service personnel in planning personal and family commitments. The Air Force’s basic unit organization—squadrons and wings— will not change. Air Force reconnaissance and surveillance aircraft will remain outside the aerospace expeditionary force concept for the time being, based on their relatively small numbers and occasionally very heavy deployment demands.

During FY 2000, the aviation combat force structure will include 20.2 Air Force FWEs (72 aircraft each), 11 Navy carrier air wings (50 fighter/attack aircraft each), and four Marine aircraft wings (which are task organized and include varying numbers and types of aircraft).

Tactical Air Forces

 

FY 1993

FY 1994

FY 1995

FY 1996

FY 1997

FY 1998

FY 1999

FY 2000

FY 2001

(PMAI/Squadron) Primary mission aircraft inventory (combat–coded aircraft only).

Air Force Fighter and Attack Aircraft FY 2000 and FY 2001 tentative pending QDR implementation

Active

1,131/56

966/53

936/53

936/52

936/52

936/52

906/49

906/49

906/46

Reserve

816/42

639/40

576/38

504/40

504/40

504/40

549/38

549/35

549/35

Conventional Bombers

B–1 (Active/Reserve)

0

0

0

0

0

36/18

36/18

36/18

36/18

Navy Fighter and Attack Aircraft

Active

610/56

582/50

528/44

504/37

456/36

456/36

432/36

432/36

432/36

Reserve

116/10

90/7

38/3

38/3

38/3

38/3

36/3

36/3

36/3

Marine Corps Fighter and Attack Aircraft

Active

330/23

320/23

320/23

308/21

308/21

308/21

280/21

280/21

280/21

Reserve

72/6

68/5

48/4

48/4

48/4

48/4

48/4

48/4

48/4



Aircraft Role Sorties Per Day
F-15C Air to Air 4
F-15E Air to Ground 3
F-22A/JSF Air to Ground 3
F-16 Air to Air 5
F-16 Air to Ground 4
F/A-18 Air to Air 3
F/A-18 Air to Ground 3
F-117 Air to Ground 2, hours of dark only
OA-10 Air to Ground 5
B-1 Air to Ground 1
B-2 Air to Ground 1, hours of dark only
B-52 Air to Ground 1

The United States leads the world in manufacturing aircraft and associated systems. Military aircraft form the backbone for both national defense and projection of power. These air vehicles are critical to air superiority, strike, airlift, early warning, reconnaissance, command and control, ground attack and sea control. Fully one-third of the DOD annual budget ($85 billion per year) supports aircraft expenditures. Improvements in air vehicle cost and capability therefore offer significant leveraging potential for reducing defense expenditures.

Sweeping global changes in recent years have presented significant new challenges to the US aeronautics industry. Perhaps most significant is the end of the cold war, bringing dramatic reductions in defense spending including development of new aircraft and engines.

Perhaps the most common theme is that of the aging military and commercial fleets. Aircraft service life limits are derived from structural fatigue test demonstrations. Fatigue failure is the cracking of metal under repeated stressing. For example, bending a paperclip until it breaks is a fatigue failure. Similarly, aircraft structures are exposed to cyclic stresses inflight, such as fuselage pressurization and depressurization. To ensure safety, the military retires an aircraft before it reaches its estimated fatigue limit. Aircraft designers estimate structural fatigue life -- the number of cyclesand stress levels the structure can withstand prior to failure -- through analysis and testing. The military then translates fatigue life into flight hour limits, based on assumptions about the rate at which fatigue damage will occur. This rate will vary depending on several factors,including the rate at which the plane accrues flight hours, the severity of maneuvers, and the weight of the payload.

Initiatives to address this concern exist in the following areas: corrosion detection/prevention; crack detection; high-temperature fatigue and fracture; high-cycle engine fatigue; vibration control; real-time three-dimensional flight loads; and wear monitoring, modeling, and simulation; advanced intelligent and flexible manufacturing methods; advances in materials and processes, including coatings; and application of more electric subsystems. Conversion of portions of the fleet to UAV operation could result in a dramatic increase in aircraft life owing to the drastically reduced requirement for proficiency training operations.

The likelihood that an aircraft will get hit while on a mission is referred to as the aircraft's susceptibility, and its likelihood of being killed by the hit is referred to as its vulnerability. Reduction of aircraft susceptibility is achieved by selecting the appropriate weapons, tactics, threat suppression, and support jamming for the mission; reducing the aircraft's signatures; and incorporating on-board threat warning equipment and countermeasures in the form of electromagnetic jammers and expendables. Reduction of aircraft vulnerability is achieved by using redundant flight critical components, adequately separated so that a single hit does not kill them all; locating the critical components properly to reduce vulnerability; designing the critical components, or adding equipment, to suppress the effects of any hits; and shielding those components that cannot be protected otherwise. All of these concepts for enhancing survivability affect design of the aircraft. The importance of survivability in aircraft design has varied throughout the 20th century, from total neglect to the highest priority.

Over the decades, combat survivability has evolved into a high- priority design requirement for US military aircraft. The advancements in materials, damage tolerant components, flight controls, and stealth technology demonstrated during the Persian Gulf conflict contributed to one of the most decisive victories in modern warfare, yet they were based on 15- to 20-year-old technology.

"Avoiding the Hit" has three sequential phases: preventing detection, obstructing weapon launch, and defeating the weapon in the end game. Advances in sensor, weapon, and information system technology have increased detection and tracking performance, reduced defense reaction time, and produced accurate, inexpensive weapons with high resistance to countermeasures. Two characteristics of future countermeasures are the need for a generic basis for effectiveness and increased reliance on situational information for efficient use of countermeasures. Advancements in computer technology provide for the realistic application of sensors and processors required for a "self-monitoring" aircraft. Self-protection techniques that allow US forces to avoid the hit are adequate to protect combat aircraft in any foreseeable conflict. Successful mission execution requires careful operational planning with knowledge of the threat, the strengths and limitations of countermeasures, and any side effects that could affect other US and Allied forces in the engagement area.

In the effective control of "observables," attention must be paid to the wide assortment of ways in which a military platform might be detected using radar, infrared, optical, acoustic, and emission sensors. Informed control of shaping, combined with absorbing materials, is used to yield vehicle designs that tax the capability of hostile radars. The durability of many radar-absorbing material and radar-absorbing structures (RAM/RAS) are largely unknown in an operating environment, attributed mostly to the lack of experience with such fielded systems. Improvements, including further reducing the RCS and the weight of some of these materials, have already resulted in an upgrade or replacement of source materials that had been considered state-of-the-art technology.

Sources and Resources