iscover
US Air Force Chief of Staff General David Allvin has issued a challenge for the incoming Trump administration to rebuild the US Air Force as the world’s premier air combat force, in response to the rapid modernisation and capability of China and others in the face of the challenges posed by great power competition across the globe.
The evolution of airpower has been a defining element of modern warfare, shaping the strategic and tactical dimensions of conflicts since its inception. From the first powered flight by the Wright brothers in 1903, the concept of leveraging the skies for military purposes quickly gained momentum.
By the First World War, aircraft transitioned from rudimentary reconnaissance platforms to offensive tools capable of strafing enemy positions and engaging in air-to-air combat, this early period marked the genesis of airpower as a pivotal element in the multi-domain battlefield.
The inter-war years saw rapid advancements in aerodynamics, propulsion systems and weaponry. These innovations laid the groundwork for the strategic bombing campaigns of World War II, where airpower became instrumental in achieving victory. The conflict demonstrated the potential of air superiority to shape the outcome of wars, exemplified by the Battle of Britain and the strategic bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan. By the war’s end, the introduction of jet engines and nuclear-capable bombers, such as the B-29 Superfortress, heralded a new era of airpower.
During the Cold War, the advent of supersonic jets, intercontinental ballistic missiles and advancements in radar and stealth technology transformed airpower into a critical component of deterrence and power projection.
The United States Air Force (USAF) emerged as a global leader in air dominance, developing iconic platforms such as the F-15 Eagle and the B-2 Spirit, concurrently, the integration of satellites and unmanned aerial systems expanded the scope of airpower into space and cyber domains.
As of 2025, airpower remains an indispensable pillar of the USAF’s strategy, particularly in the context of great power competition. Emerging threats from peer adversaries, including China and Russia, have underscored the importance of maintaining a technological edge. Innovations in fifth- and sixth-generation aircraft, hypersonic weapons and integrated command and control systems are redefining the capabilities required to secure air superiority.
While the USAF’s F-35 Lightning II and the B-21 Raider exemplify these advancements, offering unparalleled stealth, networked warfare capabilities and versatility, the overall age and size of the US Air Force’s inventory raises significant concerns about the capacity of the force to actively project sustainable airpower at mass across the globe, particularly in the face of mounting great power competition.
Highlighting these challenges is US Air Force Chief of Staff General David Allvin in a piece for the US-based Breaking Defense, in which he stated, “It’s make or break time. America needs more air force.”
To win great power competition, we need ‘more air force’
Over the past decade, the People’s Liberation Army Air Force, like much of the People’s Liberation Army, has undergone an increasingly rapid modernisation and expansion of capability, rapidly becoming a well-equipped, integrated and outwardly focused global air force.
Highlighting this, Gen Allvin detailed, “Last month, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) released videos of not just one, but two new sixth-generation aircraft. And while the US Air Force was not surprised by this development, it is my sincere hope that this got America’s attention and serves as a wake-up call, because we need the nation’s assistance advancing the Air Force with the sense of strategic urgency this moment requires...
“We also lack control of our own force structure, which is the oldest in our history, as we are blocked from divesting aircraft and programs ill-suited for today’s threat environment and even more so for the one emerging. Our fleet today contains aircraft as old as if we had fought the Vietnam War with Wright Flyers,” Gen Allvin said.
Of particular concern is the introduction of fifth-generation fighters like the J-20 and J-35, alongside the widespread mass production of modern Russian/Soviet airframes and the incorporation of unmanned and autonomous systems, advanced airborne early warning and control aircraft, tankers, modern airlift and rumours of their own stealth strategic bomber that have all seen Beijing’s air force rapidly ascend global power rankings.
“With the character of war changing before our eyes, it is more important than ever to provide the airpower America’s joint forces need to deter conflict and win the fight if called upon. But that’s easier said than done, because our service lacks the required funding and resources, even as the potential for near-term conflict grows. In short, America needs more air force and it needs it now,” Gen Allvin said.
Most recently, the revelation of two, distinct sixth-generation fighter aircraft, to the shock of many analysts across the globe but particularly in the United States, has once again stressed the importance of contemporary airpower in the calculations of great power competition.
These revelations were particularly startling given the long delays in the development of America’s own sixth-generation fighter programs, coupled with continued issues with the F-35 Lightning II production and capability as a whole, combined with the ageing nature of much of the US Air Force fleet, much of which dates back to the early to mid-1980s, raising significant questions about the viability of the US Air Force as a “force in being”.
Explaining the impact of Beijing’s rapid expansion and modernisation, Gen Allvin stated, “The PRC has invested in a first-rate air force and has instituted realistic training programs rivalling our own. The fact that these advances have been built on intellectual property stolen from our industrial base (and, on occasion, with the help of Western-trained pilots for hire) tells us we still maintain an advantage worthy of their dogged pursuit. But to leverage these advantages, we must invest in them.”
These factors, of course, compare with the state of the United States Air Force as it currently stands to which Gen Allvin stated, “Today, our aircraft fleet is smaller and older than any time in history, and the gap between our high-end combat training and that of our pacing competitors has closed dramatically. As the arc of the threat increases daily, it is my assessment this risk is unacceptable and will continue to rise without substantially increased investment in airpower – one of our remaining sources of competitive advantage.”
A better air force doesn’t always mean more expensive ‘stuff’
Overcoming these challenges isn’t without issues of its own. This is particularly the case when like many of its allies, the US faces mounting concerns about the fiscal constraints and the levels of government debt that ultimately have a dramatic impact on the nation’s defence spending conversations.
This has prompted the US and partners, including Australia, to seek out more cost-effective platforms, over large, expensive and exquisite platforms that can only be procured in small numbers, thus limiting the overall capability delivered by the air force as a whole, rather seeking to balance out the capabilities developed and fielded by the US in order to provide both quality and quantity in a financially sustainable model.
Gen Allvin detailed the logic behind this development, saying, “More air force doesn’t just mean buying more expensive ‘stuff’. It means an appropriate mix of exquisite and low-cost capabilities to provide dilemmas for adversaries and stay on the right side of the cost curve. It means funding a nimble force strategically postured on the doorstep of our adversary to asymmetrically deny its ability to rapidly seize territory.”
Building on this point, Gen Allvin added, “More air force means funding a family of medium- and long-range penetrating airframes coupled with modern munitions, survivable refuelling, human-machine teaming and a hardened warfighting network – a combination designed to protect American interests and capable of disabling our adversary’s ability to defend themselves. More air force means defending those systems and supporting them through a robust logistics chain.”
In order to deliver this and the key effectors of airpower, the only way to achieve the capability outcomes required at both the tactical and strategic level is to allow the US Air Force to expand, which will come as a key challenge for the incoming Trump administration which has promised to not only rebuild the US Armed Forces, but to also do so by establishing a more sustainable, efficient and effective model for defence funding from the capability requirement stage, through to the acquisition, sustainment and operational stages of the life cycle.
Gen Allvin explained this, saying, “The solution is clear: We must be allowed to grow. That requires significant financial investment on behalf of the American people. Yes, major investments are a tough ask right now. But this is about the security of the nation, and as we saw last month, China is hellbent on lapping us in the skies. It cannot be allowed to do so.
“Moreover, America’s sons and daughters deserve the best training, weapons and equipment we can provide so they can fly, fight, win and come home. They don’t have all those right now. To fix that, our airmen and America itself need more air force,” Gen Allvin said.
Final thoughts
With the Australian government identifying in the 2024 Integrated Investment Program that it intends to keep the nation’s small fleet of F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets and E/A-18G Growlers in service well into the 2040s, alongside the 72 F-35 Lightning IIs and an as yet undisclosed or perhaps unknown final number of MQ-28A Ghost Bat aircraft, it is time to think outside the box.
Air combat and air superiority, in particular, are only going to increase in importance over the coming decades and keeping the Royal Australian Air Force at the leading edge of that shift will require a more nuanced, bespoke approach that delivers Australian decision makers with a robust, focused and balanced military capability and advantage of peer and near-peer competitors alike.
Yet little remains changed in the way of material difference for the Royal Australian Air Force. Ultimately, in the case of the Air Force, little remains changed from the earliest incarnations of the 2016 Defence White Paper and, arguably, even further back than that to the 2009 Defence White Paper.
In this case, it is hard to clearly see how, beyond a series of by now well “known knowns”, the Air Force is going to be materially in a significantly different place in five years’ time, let alone a decade’s time as is the proposed funding timeline for the 2024 Integrated Investment Program and the 2024 National Defence Strategy.
One can’t help but feel that this comes as a result of the Army being positioned as the “long-range strike” partner of choice for Defence via the acquisition of the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System and weapons systems like the Precision Strike Missile (at least until the arrival of our nuclear submarine fleet), leaving Air Force with a confused role and undefined sense of being beyond the poorly defined idea of the “application of expeditionary air power”.
Get involved with the discussion and let us know your thoughts on Australia’s future role and position in the Indo-Pacific region and what you would like to see from Australia’s political leaders in terms of partisan and bipartisan agenda setting in the comments section below, or get in touch at
