Air & Space Power, 2026, v. 36, no. 2

Air University Press | Staff Writer

Air University Press released volume 36, number 2 of Air & Space Power (2026), focusing on twenty-first-century air operations, denial strategies, and evolving doctrine for great power competition. The publication features strategic analyses assessing air operations superiority, a taxonomy evaluating air strategy across 30-year intervals, and operator dynamics as future aerial warfighters transition out of physical cockpits.

Additional studies examine expanding US military roles on the Moon alongside structural reforms designed to overhaul the fiscal architecture of warfighting acquisition systems. Long-term military competition requires operational flexibility. To address these demands, authors propose reconstituting Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) field training using competency-validation frameworks tailored for great power rivalries. Finally, historical research evaluates General Curtis LeMay’s WWII firebombing campaign to assess leadership in extremis. Together, these papers outline theoretical concepts and fiscal proposals, though their practical efficacy remains unverified in active peer-level combat operations.

Comment

Transitioning US Air Force aircrews from tactical airframes to remote ground stations shifts command-and-control friction from human physiological endurance to data link resilience. In uncrewed platforms like the MQ-9 Reaper operating via Remote Split Operations, mission execution depends on continuous satellite connectivity linking Creech Air Force Base with forward operational nodes. Electronic warfare targeting these Beyond-Line-of-Sight channels introduces unquantified signal latency that interrupts tactical decision cycles.

This structural decoupling creates severe vulnerability during electromagnetic spectrum denial. Disrupted sensor telemetry forces distributed battle management nodes to rely on pre-programmed strike routines rather than real-time pilot intervention. Consequently, satellite link disruption across SATCOM architectures degrades terminal engagement authority before remote operators can confirm target validation.

Strategic Question for Discussion

Which factor imposes a greater operational constraint on Remote Split Operations during high-intensity conflict: SATCOM bandwidth degradation from adversary jamming or command latency between Creech Air Force Base and forward tactical units?

The available evidence points toward SATCOM bandwidth degradation as the more critical operational vulnerability during peer-level confrontation. While command latency complicates real-time targeting, total loss of Beyond-Line-of-Sight links completely severs terminal engagement authority for platforms like the MQ-9 Reaper. Consequently, mission survival in contested spectrum environments hinges more on resilient satellite architecture than on human decision cycle speed.

Share your assessment in the comments below.