Military air and space power is at a crossroads, and there are now multiple paths that air forces can follow. The issues now demanding prioritisation and direction include crewed or uncrewed combat aircraft (most likely both but in what mix); automated, highly automated or autonomous air systems; the pace of introducing artificial intelligence (and in which roles); and managing the military space environment. All these issues are being debated as the use of real-world air power, and the importance of control of the air, is being played out as part of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Integrated thinkingUnderpinning the exploitation of the above are the notions of integration and interoperability. All the aforementioned issues featured in discussions at the Royal Air Force’s (RAF) Global Air and Space Chief’s Conference 2022, held in London from 13–14 July. United States Air Force (USAF) Chief of Staff General Charles Q. Brown told the attendees he was looking for ‘day zero interoperability’. Improving interoperability with allies has been a leitmotif of Brown’s tenure as USAF chief.
The UK chief of the air staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Mike Wigston, also stressed the importance of interoperability, noting it ‘doesn’t happen by accident, and it cannot rely on systems integration alone: it is the result of the hours of training we do together, the investment decisions we make as a collective’. Brown also reiterated his aim of greater technology sharing and development with alliance partners under the banner of being ‘integrated by design’.
While in many ways a laudable aim, there are bureaucratic and security impediments in the US system that will slow, if not stymie, progress in this direction. Brown is looking to see improvements in export policy and a more realistic approach to the classification of information, and technology, in order to help lower some of the barriers to interoperability. The extent that US industry in any way embraces Brown’s vision, or otherwise, will also be key. One European defence aerospace industrialist was sceptical that it would be met with enthusiasm, unless ‘integrated by design’ was based on purchasing merely more from the US. For some allies, affordability will remain a challenge. More widespread adoption of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II by European air forces may help, alongside commonality in areas like tactical data links, but these will likely not be affordable for all.
Equality isn’t always good While the Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) are widely regarded to have underperformed in Moscow’s war on Kyiv, and Wigston said ‘its inability to conduct complex missions or integrate air effects across domains is plain to see’, this was no reason for complacency. Brown cautioned, without identifying a specific country, that the ‘next global threat’ might have to be faced on the basis of ‘parity’. The unnamed nation is undoubtedly China.
Air power proponents view Russia’s war with Ukraine as yet again underscoring the importance of effective military use of air and space, and control of the air. Wigston highlighted, however, that ‘unchallenged access’ to the air and space domains could no longer be assumed. The surface-to-air missile systems fielded by Ukrainian and Russian forces have inflicted notable combat aircraft and helicopter losses on both sides. This is a further reminder, were one needed, of the requirement to effectively counter ground-based air defence, a task the VKS has so far found difficult. Within NATO, this capability is in short supply – at least outside of the US – since many of NATO’s European members have disinvested in the capabilities needed to suppress or destroy enemy air defence in recent decades.
Wigston stressed the importance of the Future Combat Air System, the programme intended to identify a successor to the air force’s Eurofighter Typhoon fleet ‘from the late 2030s’. Whatever emerges to meet this requirement, it will likely be a mix of crewed and uncrewed aircraft, combined with swarming uninhabited aerial vehicles, he suggested. Wigston added that trials with swarming systems had underlined their potential as a means of countering ground-based air defences.
What high ground?Nature abhors a vacuum, not least of all when it comes to the continuing concern, and long-running debates, regarding the adoption, roles, and use of artificial intelligence by armed forces. The conference, organised by the Air & Space Power Association, also considered ethical and moral issues, including the application of artificial intelligence, particularly in the air domain. Armed forces have been slow to articulate arguments in the previous decade about the utility and management of armed uninhabited aerial vehicles, thus ceding ground to those opposed to such systems and the ‘killer robots’ narrative, and there is now recognition of the need to better engage the public on this issue. The increasing introduction of highly automated systems combined with the use of artificial intelligence is likely to be contentious, whether justified or not. Air Marshal Johnny Stringer, Deputy Commander NATO Allied Air command (Designate), speaking at the conference, said there was a need to be ‘active in the debate’.
That the air and space domain is central to the military capability required for deterrence in a peer-on-peer threat environment remains a constant. But as the event underscored, how this capacity is delivered remains in flux as Western air powers attempt to shape their future needs.
No comments:
Post a Comment