Book Description

The purpose of this thesis is to determine which form of airpower will best serve American power projection requirements as we approach the turn of the century. It examines three forms of airpower: carrier air, long-range combat air (B-2), and theater air (i.e., F-15, F-16, and EF-111). The author concludes that theater aircraft are the mainstay of US airpower. Theater airpower was the decisive form of airpower in our three major conflicts since World War II and will be in the regional conflicts of the future. It is superior in the broadest sense of the word economically, militarily, and politically. This analysis starts by assuming an equal monetary investment in each military instrument and then compares each instrument's ability to project airpower. The cost-effectiveness analysis is based on spending $36.3 billion on each to procure and operate (for 30 years) a carrier battle group, a package of 312 theater aircraft, and 38 B-2s. Power projection means that the instrument will enable American forces to defeat the military strategy of an adversary after crossing territory not owned or occupied by the United States. Each instrument is evaluated for power (ordnance load, ordnance flexibility, and mission flexibility), and is then evaluated for its ability to project (speed and autonomy). Each receives a relative ranking on each criterion. The criteria themselves are of differing importance. Mission flexibility and the attributes that yield power are most important. Theater aircraft are most powerful and least able to project. Long-range combat air craft project best, are powerful, but have limited mission flexibility. Carrier aircraft project very well, have mission flexibility, but are least powerful. Historically, the projection liabilities of theater aircraft have been irrelevant. Given the nature of future conflicts, theater aircraft will continue to dominate power projection. Long-range bombers and carrier air have a subsidiary role to play.