1. Influence of Air Force New Equipment Development on Operation 2. Introduction

Having been incepted in 1947, the United States Air Force (USAF) is effectively the country’s youngest military formation. It is important to note, from the onset, that USAF came to be as a consequence of the need to ensure that the U.S. has a decisive advantage as far as the character of warfare is concerned. This is more so the case in reference to long-range bombing. The USAF has, since then, continued to be seen as the force of the future. It therefore follows that the relevance of modernizing USAF and equipping it with new tools of engagement cannot be overstated as far as the further enhancement of its operational capabilities is concerned.

3. Discussion

3.1. The Relevance of USAF from an Operational Perspective

In basic terms, USAF has immense maneuver advantages as a result of its vertical perch. This is an advantage that ground forces do not ordinarily normally have. Also, the air force, unlike other military formations has the capability of global deployment. Its versatility is unrivaled when it comes to not only tactical goals, but also the advancement of operational as well as tactical objectives. Further, the air force also possesses the unique ability to overwhelm a broad target spectrum with simultaneous attacks – which could significantly weaken the capability of enemy troops to remain on the offensive. For this reason, with the appropriate equipment, USAF has the potential to significantly stress enemy defenses.

3.2. The Need for New Equipment Development

It could be argued that the steady development of new equipment appears to have slowed down in recent times – and most particularly post the Cold War years. There is ample evidence to this effect. For instance, in the words of Mark Welsh, former Air Force Chief of Staff General, “airplanes are falling apart… they’re just flat too old” (O’Brein, 2016, p. 137). It is also important to point out that Army General John Campbell has in the past warned that although the U.S. military personnel is largely adaptive, a sudden crisis would effectively expose some inherent weaknesses as far as degradations are concerned (Laslie, 2015). The B-52 bomber, for instance, has not been fully retired despite having been a common heavy bomber for slightly over five decades (Laslie, 2015). Although there has been significant progress in the refurbishment as well as replacement of USAF airlifters, there is still more to be done on the new equipment development front – particularly given that there are still some planes in this case that still utilize the analogue electronic systems.

USAF must stay ahead of enemy capabilities. While a slow pace of new equipment development does not necessarily hurt the operational capabilities of USAF against enemies that do not have robust air defenses or air forces (such as ISIS), USAF’s potential could wane in the face of rising powers such as Russia and China.

3.3. Key Considerations

According to O’Brein (2016), USAF has in the past attempted to ensure that its technological advantage is far much greater than that of its real and perceived adversaries. This it has done by way of staying ahead of the game as far as new equipment development is concerned. Towards this end, O’Brein (2016) is of the opinion that the equipment of the future ought to have a number of key attributes. The said attributes include, but they...

These ought to be seen as the fundamental characteristics of airpower. Speed, as one of the key factors that new equipment development ought to take into consideration, “means that missions can be completed in shorter times and more missions can be carried out each day” (Fino, 2017, p. 112). Further, it adds to the element of surprise and leverages on the unpreparedness of the enemy.
When it comes to range, considerations are inclusive of the need to ensure that the offensive advantage that USAF has over surface forces is further enhanced. According to Fino (2017) rage also means that USAF has greater potential as far as the defense of the U.S. airspace is concerned. At the operational level, flexibility as yet another key component that ought to be taken into account in the development of new equipment permits air forces to implement maneuvers – whereby it becomes easier to shift decisively and quickly from a specific objective of a campaign to another (Fino, 2017).

Lastly, it should be noted that when battles space...…be noted that although UAV are yet to be fully autonomous, significant technological advancements have effectively made this goal even more realistic in the coming years. In basic terms, “the ability of a UAV to take off, execute a mission, and return to its base without significant human intervention promises to enhance UAV deployment in many application domains” (Valavanis and Vachtsevanos, 2014, p. 104). Minimal human intervention would mean that operational capabilities are further enhanced via the removal of human emotions from the equation. Hypothetically, an ‘intelligent’ UAV capable of formulating and executing various courses of action would most likely make better tactical decisions devoid of human judgmental errors. Still on intelligent autonomy, UAVs of the future ought to be able to share the relevant data in the course of conducting joint operations in shared airspace. Such data could relate to target identification.

Next, smaller UAVs are also likely to have greater tactical utility in the future. In essence, micro-UAVs would have the impact of bringing to the individual soldier some key benefits of a bigger air vehicle (Jaffer, 2016). The author further points out that the micro-UAVs would enable the soldier to evade surface obstacles and offer a sneak preview of specific targets - more specifically in confrontations taking place in an urban setting. Further, micro-UAVs would come in handy in situations calling for post-bombing damage assessment.

4. Conclusion

The United States continues to face a cocktail of threats from a wide range of actors – some with unique military capabilities. Going forward, there is need for USAF to further enhance its capabilities via the development of new equipment. This is a move that would come in handy in attempts to keep the U.S. safe not just from non-state actors, but also from sophisticated adversaries. One of the key setbacks to new equipment development is budget constraints. Other setbacks include oversight roles of congress and the defense industry, as well as bureaucracy. These factors ought to be assessed in greater detail with an aim of developing viable solutions. In the final analysis, the relevance of ensuring that the effectiveness of the available resources is optimized cannot be overstated. This is more so the case when it comes to not only the recapitalization, but also the development of…