Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Emerging Military Aviation Trends and Potential US Aerospace Adversaries

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Global Defense Procurement and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

  • 518 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter describes and analyzes emerging international military aviation, geopolitical, and security trends which could see the F-35’s operational deployment. Particular emphasis is placed on combat scenarios involving China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia and facilities in these countries which could be targeted by the United States and F-35’s from US allied countries. Coverage is also provided of potential combat scenarios involving aerial operations against transnational terrorist organizations across the globe.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Stephen Sloan, International Terrorism: An Action Strategy for Preemption and Punishment, rev. ed. (Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University Press, 2000); http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS20458; Accessed June 16, 2017; Combatting Terrorism: Strategies of Ten Countries, Yonah Alexander, ed., (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002); James S. Corum and Wray R. Johnson, Airpower in Small Wars: Fighting Insurgents and Terrorists, (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2003); Qaa’id K.M. Al-Khuzaa’I, “The Use of Airpower in Combatting Terrorism in Iraq,” Air and Space Power Journal, 32 (1)(Spring 2009): 11–18; http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj09/spr09/alkhuzaai.html; Accessed June 16, 2017; and Airpower in Afghanistan 2005–2010: The Air Commanders’ Perspectives, Dag Henriksen, ed., (Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University Press, 2014); http://www.au.af.mil/au/aupress/digital/pdf/book/b_0000_henriksen_commanders_perspectives.pdf; Accessed June 16, 2017.

  2. 2.

    See U.S. Department of State, International Narcotics Control Strategy Report 2014, (Washington, DC: Department of State, 2014): http://www.state.gov/j/inl/rls/nrcrpt/2014/; Accessed June 16, 2017; U.S. Department of State, Counterterrorism Bureau, Country Reports on Terrorism 2014, (Washington, DC: Department of State, 2015): http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/239631.pdf; Accessed June 23, 2017; and U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report 2014, (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State, 2014): http://www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/2014/; Accessed June 16, 2017.

  3. 3.

    See Colin S. Gray, Air Power for Strategic Effect, (Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University Press, 2012); http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/GPO56522; Accessed June 16, 2017; Ross Harrison, “Confronting the ‘Islamic State’: Towards a Regional Strategy Contra ISIS,” Parameters, 44 (3)(Autumn 2014): 39–46; and Michael M. Gunter, “Iraq, Syria, ISIS, and the Kurds: Geostrategic Concerns for the U.S. and Turkey,” Middle East Policy, 22 (1)(Spring 2015): 102–111.

  4. 4.

    See Sumit Ganguly, “Nuclear Stability in South Asia,” International Security, 33 (2)(Fall 2008): 45–70; Kevin A. O’Brian, “Assessing Hostile Reconnaissance and Terrorist Intelligence Activities,” RUSI Journal, 153 (3)(October 2008): 134–139; David E. Thaler, Theodore W. Kerasik, et al., Future U.S. Security Relationships with Iraq and Afghanistan: U.S. Air Force Roles, (Santa Monica: Rand Corporation, 2008): http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG681.pdf; Accessed June 16, 2017; and Dhiraj Kukreja, “Air Power: Future Challenges and Emerging Roles,” Air Power Journal, 9 (3)(July–September 2014): 55–78; http://capsindia.org/files/documents/APJ-Jul-Sep-2014-inside.pdf; Accessed June 16, 2017.

  5. 5.

    Examples of the proliferating literature on drone aircraft includes Jordan J. Paust, “Self-Defense Targetings of Non-State Actors and Permissibility of U.S. Use of Drones in Pakistan,” Journal of Transnational Law and Policy, 19 (2)(2010): 237–280; Tyler Wall and Torin Monahan, “Surveillance and Violence from Afar: The Politics of Drones and Liminal Security-Scapes,” Theoretical Criminology, 15 (3)(2011): 239–254; https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480610396650; The American Way of Bombing: Changing Ethical and Legal Norms from Flying Fortresses to Drones, Matthew Evangelista and Henry Shue, eds., (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2014); Drone Wars: Transforming Conflict, Law, and Policy, Peter L. Bergen and Daniel Rothenberg, eds., (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014); and Michael J. Boyle, “The Race for Drones,” Orbis, 59 (1)(Winter 2015): 76–94; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orbis.2014.11.007.

  6. 6.

    See Houston R. Cantwell, “Operators of Air Force Unmanned Systems: Breaking Paradigms,” Air & Space Power Journal, 23 (Summer 2009): 67–77; Dave Blair, “Ten Thousand Feet and Ten Thousand Miles: Reconciling our Air Force Culture to Remotely Piloted Aircraft and the New Nature of Aerial Combat,” Air & Space Power Journal, 26 (3)(May–June 2012): 61–69; http://www.au.af.mil/au/afri/aspj/digital/pdf/articles/2012-May-Jun/V-Blair.pdf; Accessed June 16, 2017; and “Medals for Drone Pilots,” The Economist, 410 (8880) (March 29, 2014): 33.

  7. 7.

    Mark Bowden, “Predator Drone,” Smithsonian Magazine, 41 (7)(November 2013): 53–56.

  8. 8.

    Amitai Etzioni, “The Great Drone Debate,” Military Review, 93 (2)(March–April 2013): 2.

  9. 9.

    See U.S. Air Force, Factsheet: MQ-1B Predator, (Washington, DC: U.S. Air Force, 2010): 1–2; http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104469/mq-1b-predator.aspx; Accessed June 16, 2017; and U.S. Government Accountability Office, Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapons Programs, (Washington, DC: GAO, 2013): 101; http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/653379.pdf; Accessed June 17, 2017

  10. 10.

    See U.S. Air Force, Factsheet: MQ-9 Reaper, (Washington, DC: U.S. Air Force, 2010): 1–2; http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104470/mq-9-reaper.aspx; Accessed June 17, 2017; and Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapons Programs, 105.

  11. 11.

    See U.S. Air Force, Factsheet: RQ-4 Global Hawk, (Washington, DC: U.S. Air Force, 2014): 1–2; http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104516/rq-4-global-hawk.aspx; Accessed June 17, 2017; Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapons Programs, 113; and U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer, Program Acquisition Cost by Weapon System, (Washington, DC: DOD, 2013): 1–4; http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2014/FY2014_Weapons.pdf; Accessed June 17, 2017.

  12. 12.

    United Nations, Division for Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea, Submission by China, (New York: United Nations Commission on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), May 7, 2009): 1–2; http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/mysvnm33_09/chn_2009re_mys_vnm_e.pdf; Accessed June 17, 2017.

  13. 13.

    Jun Ozawa, China’s ADIZ Over the East China Sea: A “Great Wall in the Sky”?, (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2013): http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/12/17-china-air-defense-identification-zone-osawa; Accessed June 17, 2017.

  14. 14.

    See Bert Chapman, “China’s Nine-Dashed Map: Maritime Source of Geopolitical Tension,” Geopolitics, History, and International Relations, 8 (1)(2016): 155–157; http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/lib_fsdocs/121/; Accessed June 17, 2017; and Japan, Ministry of Defense, “Statistics on Scrambles During the First Quarter of FY 2016): 1, 4; http://www.mod.go.jp/js/Press/press2016/press_pdf/p20161014_06.pdf; Accessed May 30, 2018.

  15. 15.

    See Lawrence E. Grinter, Chinese Military Scenarios Against Taiwan: Premises, Options, Implications, (Maxwell AFB, AL: USAF Counterproliferation Center, 2002): http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cpc-pubs/grinter.pdf; Accessed June 17, 2017; The Chinese Air Force: Evolving Concepts, Roles, and Capabilities, Richard P. Hallion, Roger Cliff, and Phillip C. Saunders, eds., (Washington, DC: National Defense University Press, 2012); www.ndu.edu/press/lib/pdf/books/chinese-air-force.pdf; Accessed June 17, 2017.

  16. 16.

    U.S. Department of Defense, Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2015, (Washington, DC: DOD, 2015): 8–11; http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2015_China_Military_Power_Report.pdf; Accessed June 17, 2017.

  17. 17.

    Ibid., 11.

  18. 18.

    See Ibid., 11–12; and U.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces, Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) Requirements Assessment, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2015): http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo56620; Accessed June 17, 2017. Literature on Chinese Anti-Access Aerial Denial includes Christopher D. Yung, “Sinica Rules the Waves?: The People’s Liberation Army Navy’s Power Projection and Anti-Access/Aerial Denial Lessons From the Falklands/Malvinas Conflict,” in Chinese Lessons from Other People’s Wars, Andrew Scobell, David Lai, and Roy Kamphausen, eds., (Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, 2011): 75–114; http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/download.cfm?q=1090; Accessed June 17, 2017; Ronald Wilgenbusch and Alan Heisig, “Command and Control Vulnerabilities to Communications Jamming,” Joint Force Quarterly, 69 (2nd Quarter 2013): 56–63; http://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/jfq/jfq-69/JFQ-69_56-63_Wilgenbusch-Heisig.pdf; Accessed June 17, 2017; James M. Keagle, Richard D. Fisher, Jr., and Brian Johnson, “Enhancing the U.S. Rebalance Toward Asia: Elevating Allies,” Joint Force Quarterly, 70 (3rd Quarter 2013): 59–65; http://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/jfq/jfq-70/JFQ-70_59-65_Keagle-Fisher-Johnson.pdf; Accessed June 17, 2017; Beyond the Wall: Chinese Far Sea Operations, Peter A. Dutton and Ryan A. Martinson, eds., (Newport: U.S. Naval War College, Chinese Maritime Studies Institute, 2015); http://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=cmsi-red-books; Accessed May 30, 2018; William H. Ballard, Mark C. Harysch, Kevin J. Cole, and Brian S. Hall, “Operationalizing Air-Sea Battle in the Pacific,” Air & Space Power Journal, 29 (1)(January–February 2015): 20–47; http://www.au.af.mil/au/afri/aspj/digital/pdf/articles/2015-Jan-Feb/F-Ballard_Harysch_Cole_Hall.pdf; Accessed June 17, 2017; and Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2015, 33–38.

  19. 19.

    Ibid., 11–12.

  20. 20.

    Ibid., 80.

  21. 21.

    Kimberly Hsu, Craig Murray, Jeremy Cook, and Amalia Field, China’s Military Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Industry, (Washington, DC: U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, 2013): http://origin.www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/China%27s%20Military%20UAV%20Industry_14%20June%202013.pdf; Accessed June 19, 2017; U.S. Defense Science Board, The Role of Autonomy in DOD Systems, (Washington, DC: Defense Science Board, 2012): 71; http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/AutonomyReport.pdf; Accessed June 19, 2017; and Tai Ming Cheung, “The Chinese Defense Economy’s Long March from Imitation to Innovation,” Journal of Strategic Studies, 34 (3)(June 2011): 325–354; https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2011.574976.

  22. 22.

    See U.S. Department of Defense, Air-Sea Battle Office, Air-Sea Battle: Service Collaboration to Address Anti-Access and Area Denial Challenges, (Washington, DC: DOD Air-Sea Battle Office, 2013): 4–7; http://archive.defense.gov/pubs/ASB-ConceptImplementation-Summary-May-2013.pdf; Accessed June 17, 2017; Jan van Tol, Mark Gunzinger, Andrew Krepinevich, and Jim Thomas, AirSea Battle: A Point of Departure Operational Concept, (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2010); http://csbaonline.org/publications/2010/05/airsea-battle-concept/; Accessed June 17, 2017.

  23. 23.

    See Jeffrey P. Kline and Wayne P. Hughes, Jr., “Between Peace and the Air-Sea Battle: A War at Sea Strategy,” Naval War College Review, 65 (4)(Autumn 2012): 35–40; Aaron Friedberg, Beyond Air-Sea Battle: The Debate Over U.S. Military Strategy in Asia, (London: IISS, 2014); Amitai Etzioni, “The Air-Sea Battle ‘Concept’: A Critique,” International Politics, 51 (5)(2014): 577–596; https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2014.27; David W. Kearn, Jr., “Air-Sea Battle and China’s Anti-Access and Area Denial Challenge,” Orbis, 58 (1)(Winter 2014): 132–146; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orbis.2013.11.006; and Raymond Millen, “Air Sea Battle and the Danger of Fostering a Maginot Line Mentality,” Military Review, 95 (2)(March–April 2015): 125–132.

  24. 24.

    Ronald O’ Rourke, China’s Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities-Background and Issues for Congress, (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, 2015): 48; https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33153.pdf; Accessed June 17, 2017.

  25. 25.

    Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2015, 81.

  26. 26.

    Ibid., 82.

  27. 27.

    Ibid., 83.

  28. 28.

    Ibid., 85.

  29. 29.

    Ibid., 87–89. The concept of “tyranny of distance” as applied to the Pacific Ocean’s vast geographic regions was originally used to describe Australia’s onetime geographic isolation and inaccessibility in Geoffrey Blainey, The Tyranny of Distance: How Distance Shaped Australia’s History, (Melbourne: Macmillan, 1968).

  30. 30.

    See Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran, Henry Sokolski and Patrick Clawson, eds., (Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, 2005); U.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, Addressing the Iranian Nuclear Challenge: Understanding the Military Options, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2012): http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo32363; Accessed May 18, 2017; U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Counterterrorism, Country Reports on Terrorism, 2013, (Washington, DC: Department of State, 2014): 228–230; http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/225886.pdf; Accessed May 18, 2017; Shahram Chubin, “Is Iran a Military Threat,” Survival: Global Politics and Strategy, 56 (2)(2014): 65–88; https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2014.901733; Accessed June 18, 2015; U.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, P5+1 Negotiations Over Iran’s Nuclear Program and Its Implications for United States Defense, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2015); http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo54839; Accessed June 18, 2017; and Vipin Narang, “Nuclear Strategies of Emerging Nuclear Powers: North Korea and Iran,” The Washington Quarterly, 38 (1)(Spring 2015): 73–91; https://doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2015.1038175.

  31. 31.

    See Anthony Cordesman, “The Conventional Military,” in The Iran Primer: Power, Politics, and U.S. Policy, Robin Wright, ed., (Washington, DC: U.S. Institute of Peace Press, 2010): 66–69; and Stephen R. Ward, Immortal: A Military History of Iran and Its Armed Forces, (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2014).

  32. 32.

    See Ibid., Jonathan Herman, “Iran’s Unconventional Counter U.S. Strategy,” M.A. Thesis, (Johns Hopkins University, 2014); https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/bitstream/handle/1774.2/37306/HERMAN-THESIS-2014.pdf?sequence=1; Accessed June 18, 2017; and U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence, Iranian Naval Forces: A Tale of Two Navies. (Washington, DC: Office of Naval Intelligence, 2017): https://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo85530; Accessed December 19, 2017.

  33. 33.

    Anthony H. Cordesman, Scott Modell, Aaron Lin, and Michael Peacock, Iran’s Rocket and Missile Forces and Strategic Options, (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2014): iv–v; http://csis.org/files/publication/141007_Iran_Rocket_Missile_forces.pdf; Accessed June 18, 2017.

  34. 34.

    See Mark Manyin, Mary Beth Nikitin, Emma Chanlett-Avery, Ian E. Rinehart, and William H. Cooper, U.S.-South Korea Relations, (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, 2013); http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc462192/m1/1/high_res_d/R41481_2013Apr26.pdf; Accessed June 19, 2017; and “Cross-Border Shootout,” Korea Times, October 12, 2014.

  35. 35.

    National Air and Space Intelligence Center, Ballistic & Cruise Missile Threat 2017, (Wright Patterson AFB, OH: NASIC 2017): 21; https://www.nasic.af.mil/Portals/19/images/Fact%20Sheet%20Images/2017%20Ballistic%20and%20Cruise%20Missile%20Threat_Final_small.pdf?ver=2017-07-21-083234-343; Accessed August 20, 2018.

  36. 36.

    Ibid., 25.

  37. 37.

    Ibid., 29.

  38. 38.

    U.S. Department of Defense, Military and Security Developments Involving the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea 2013: Annual Report to Congress, (Washington, DC: DOD, 2013): 16; http://www.defense.gov/pubs/North_Korea_Military_Power_Report_2013-2014.pdf; Accessed June 19, 2017.

  39. 39.

    Ibid., 17.

  40. 40.

    Ibid., 18.

  41. 41.

    See Andrew Scobell and John M. Sanford, North Korea’s Military Threat: Pyongyang’s Conventional Forces, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and Ballistic Missiles, (Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, 2007); http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB771.pdf; Accessed June 19, 2017; and Ibid., 12–13.

  42. 42.

    See Oh Jae-hwan, “Security Agencies of North Korea Under the Kim Jong Un Regime,” The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis, 26 (1)(March 2014): 117–131; Paul K. Kerr, Mary Beth D. Nikitin, and Steven A. Hildreth, “Iran-North Korea-Syria Ballistic Missile and Nuclear Cooperation,” Current Politics and Economics of the Middle East, 5 (1)(2014): 1–16.

  43. 43.

    See “Japan: Russian Incursions Into Airspace Have More Than Doubled in Six Months,” Washington Times, (October 21, 2014): http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/21/japan-russian-incursions-into-airspace-have-more-t/; Accessed June 19, 2017; Roy Allison, “Russian ‘Deniable’ Intervention in Ukraine: How and Why Russia Broke the Rules,” International Affairs, 90 (6)(November 2014): 1255–1297; https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12170; Roland Oliphant, “Mapped: Just How Many Incursions into NATO Airspace Has Russian Military Made?,” London Daily Telegraph, (May 15, 2015); http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11609783/Mapped-Just-how-many-incursions-into-Nato-airspace-has-Russian-military-made.html; Accessed June 19, 2017; Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, SIPRI Military Expenditure Database, (Stockholm: SIPRI, 2018); https://www.sipri.org/databases/milex; Accessed May 30, 2018; Richard Weitz, Parsing Chinese-Russian Military Exercises, (Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College Press, 2015); http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/download.cfm?q=1266; Accessed June 19, 2017; and From Cooperation to Competition: The Future of U.S.-Russian Relations: A Report on an Interdisciplinary War Game, (Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College Press, 2015); http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/download.cfm?q=1283; Accessed June 19, 2015; and Thomas Frear, List of Close Military Encounters Between Russia and the West: March 2014–March 2015, (London: European Leadership Network, 2015); http://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/medialibrary/2015/03/11/4264a5a6/ELN%20Russia%20-%20West%20Full%20List%20of%20Incidents.pdf; Accessed June 19, 2017.

  44. 44.

    See Alexander Ghaleb, Natural Gas as an Instrument of Russian State Power, (Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, 2011); and From Cooperation to Competition, 9.

  45. 45.

    Ariel Cohen, Backgrounder: A U.S. Response to Russia’s Military Modernization, (Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation, 2014): 5; http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2014/pdf/BG2901.pdf; Accessed June 19, 2017.

  46. 46.

    See Ibid., 9–10; Lukáš Tichỳa, “Security and Foreign Policy of Dmitry Medvedev in the Period 2008–2012,” The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 27 (4)(2014): 533–552, https://doi.org/10.1080/13518046.2014.963398; and Bert Chapman, “Atomic Weapons Program, Soviet,” in Russia at War: From the Mongol Conquest to Afghanistan, Chechnya, and Beyond, Timothy C. Dowling, ed., (Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2015): 69–70; http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/lib_fsdocs/91/; Accessed June 19, 2017.

  47. 47.

    Ballistic and Cruise Missile Threat, 13.

  48. 48.

    Ibid., 21.

  49. 49.

    See “Combat Robot Companies Enter the Table of Organizational Equipment,” OE Watch, 5 (1) (January 2015): 50–52; https://community.apan.org/wg/tradoc-g2/fmso/m/oe-watch-past-issues/195464; Accessed June 22, 2017; and Cindy Hurst, “The Militarization of Gazprom,” Military Review, 90 (5 September–October 2010): 59–67; http://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/military-review/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20101031_art010.pdf; Accessed December 19, 2017.

  50. 50.

    Russian Armed Forces UAV Developments in 2014,” OE Watch, 5 (2), (February 2015): 56–57; https://community.apan.org/wg/tradoc-g2/fmso/m/oe-watch-past-issues/195463. Accessed June 22, 2017.

  51. 51.

    See “U.S. Says Russia Adds Air Defense Systems Inside Ukraine,” VOA News, April 22, 2015; 1; http://www.voanews.com/content/reu-us-says-russia-adds-air-defense-systems-inside-ukraine/2731074.html; Accessed June 22, 2017; Ibid., 56; and Conor Sullivan, Schuyler Standley, and James M. Keagle, “Responding to Russia after the NATO Summit: Unmanned Aerial Systems Overmatch in the Black Sea,” Defense Horizons, 79 (April 2015): 1–8; http://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/defensehorizon/DH-79.pdf; Accessed June 22, 2017.

  52. 52.

    See Michael Pelosi and Carlo Kopp, “A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Sukhoi T-50 Prototype,” Air Power Australia Analyses, 9 (2012–03); http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2012-03.html; Accessed June 22, 2017; Zachary Keck, “Is Russia’s Lethal PAK-FA Fighter Stealthier Than America’s F-22,” The National Interest, (May 26, 2015): 1–2; http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-lethal-pak-fa-fighter-stealthier-americas-f-22-12972; Accessed June 22, 2017; and Dave Majumdar, “The Russian Air Force’s Super Weapon: Beware the PAK-FA Stealth Fighter, The National Interest, (November 26, 2014): 1–2; http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-russian-air-forces-super-weapon-beware-the-pak-fa-11742; Accessed June 22, 2017.

  53. 53.

    Jennifer Griffin, “Budget Cuts Impact US Ability to Fight the Enemy, Air Force General Warns,” Fox News, (May 26, 2015): 1–4; http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/26/budget-cuts-impact-us-ability-to-fight-enemy-air-force-general-warns/; Accessed June 22, 2017. For foreign espionage against the JSF see Siobhan Gorman, August Cole, and Yochi Dreazen, “Computer Spies Breach Fighter Jet Project,” Wall Street Journal, (April 21, 2009): A1; U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, 2009 Report to Congress, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2009): 167; https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/annual_reports/2009-Report-to-Congress.pdf; Accessed December 19, 2017; Magnus Hjortdal, “China’s Use of Cyber Warfare: Espionage Meets Strategic Deterrence,” Journal of Strategic Security, 4 (2)(Summer 2011): 1–24; http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jss/vol4/iss2/2/; Accessed June 22, 2017; and Amitai Etzioni, “Cybersecurity in the Private Sector,” Issues in Science and Technology, 28 (1)(Fall 2011): 59; and U.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, The State of the Military, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2017): 75–80; https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-115hhrg24676/pdf/CHRG-115hhrg24676.pdf; Accessed May 31, 2018.

  54. 54.

    See Marco Wyss, “Clashing Over Fighters: Winners and Losers,” CSS Analysis in Security Policy, 92 (2011): 1–3; http://e-collection.library.ethz.ch/eserv/eth:2957/eth-2957-01.pdf; Accessed June 22, 2017; and Julian Cooper, “The Military Dimension of a More Militant Russia,” Russian Journal of Economics, 2 (2016): 143; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ruje/2016.06.002.

  55. 55.

    See The State Council of the People’s Republic of China, Made in China 2025, (Beijing: The State Council, 2016); 1–3; http://english.gov.cn/2016special/madeinchina2025/; Accessed May 30, 2018; Michael Raska, “China’s Defence Aviation Industry: Searching for Innovation-Analysis,” Eurasia Review, (October 18, 2012): 1–4; http://www.eurasiareview.com/18102012-chinas-defence-aviation-industry-searching-for-innovation-analysis/; Accessed May 30, 2018; and Alexander Hammer, “Made in China 2025” Attempts to Re-Stimulate Domestic Innovation,” (Washington, DC: U.S. International Trade Commission, September 2017): 1–2; http://usitc.gov/publications/332/executive_briefings/ebot_madeinchina2025hammer.pdf; Accessed May 30, 2018; and Scott Kennedy, The Fat Tech Dragon: Benchmarking China’s Innovation Drive, (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2017). https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publication/170829_Kennedy_FatTechDragon_Web.pdf?.6agddecKW.hKNzCkVYvvUSDsQCeK9mN. Accessed May 30, 2018.

  56. 56.

    See Gallup Organization. Gallup Poll, Feb, 2015 [survey question]. USGALLUP.022015.R01. Gallup Organization. Storrs, CT: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, iPOLL, accessed June 22, 2017; Politico/Harvard Public Health Poll, Aug. 2017 [survey question]. USSSRS091517PH.R01H., Cornell Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, iPOLL, Accessed December 19, 2017; and Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Kaiser Health Tracking Poll, Nov. [2017] [survey question]. USSSRS.111517K.R06E, Cornell University: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, iPOLL, Accessed December 19, 2017.

  57. 57.

    2017 Index of U.S. Military Strength, Dakota Wood, ed., (Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation, 2016); http://ims-2017.s3.amazonaws.com/2017_Index_of_Military_Strength_WEB.pdf; 6, 81, 213–214, 247–249, 275, Accessed June 22, 2017.

  58. 58.

    Ibid., 301–305.

  59. 59.

    Ibid., 316.

  60. 60.

    Ibid., 380.

  61. 61.

    Ibid., 316–317.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

    Bert Chapman

Authors
  1. Bert Chapman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Chapman, B. (2019). Emerging Military Aviation Trends and Potential US Aerospace Adversaries. In: Global Defense Procurement and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01367-7_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation