>>64407709
So did the concept that direct engagement in naval warfare was no longer optimal.
As did the concept of mass infantry is unviable against a precision based mechanized army.
War is ever evolving. Some albatrosses are more prominent than others.
It's just hard to justify air power as anything less than a win now button with the amount of money being spent on it.
A well entrenched opfor, with access to extensive drone deployment and infrastructure, is no longer at a untenable disadvantage relative to the army with air supremacy - not in information, not in force multipliers, and certainly not in mobility.
This is on a operational and a tactical level. On a strategic level, air power was extremely cost efficient for the US because b52s are cost effective bomb trucks and jdams are basically cheat codes in terms of range and precision.
With the advent of drones the US will continue to enjoy these advantages, but there's now an equalizer for the other side. Previously, fortified Sam batteries and artillery positions as well as troop concentration was food for wild weasel/sead missions and Airforce mission planners - with real-time opfor wide communication, coordination via app networks and drones for deployable fire, as well as traditional methods of fortifications, it's really hard to see an expeditionary force having cost parity regardless of the strength of its logistics infrastructure.
To be overwhelming, even against non peer opponents, NATO doctrine armies will need to plan for larger deployments - potentially much larger, by an order of magnitude.
