Promotion essay. Is it good?

Hello, I'm currently about to promote. This happens to be one of the worst essays I've written. Can someone read it? Thank you. Recommendations?

Aerospace Power in National Security

    In today's ever so complex aerospace system, the United States needs absolute control of air warfare. As time has progressed, many new improvements in air defense have been introduced; these include: Ground to air defense, air to ground defense, and air to air defense. Without a strong flying arsenal, the United States could be easily toppled.
Ground to air defense takes many forms today. Ground based radar has long been crucial in U.S. history. The purpose of radar is to detect enemy aircraft from far distances, allowing the Air Force to ready their planes and start a counter attack. Dating back to World War Two, the US still uses radar widely. Radar also has the advantage of detecting missiles that could pose a threat, such as the radar complex in northern Alaska to defend against Russia. After the defense stage, counter measures can be deployed, such as the Patriot Missiles from the Army or the Air Force “Minuteman Missiles”.
Next is air to air defense. Without defense and protection for airborne aircraft, the United States could not complete its missions. The first step in defending would be to escape surface to air missiles, or air to air missiles. The defensive aircraft can deploy infrared flares that almost “confuse” to escape the enemy projectile. Once protection has been guaranteed, the defensive aircraft can take an offensive role. Air to air missiles could be fired to suppress the enemy aircraft. Without both the defensive and offensive techniques, the U.S. aircraft will be shot down.
Finally is Air to Ground. Once the previous steps have been completed and the U.S. aircraft is safe, they can take the offensive role. This would usually be considered the time the aircraft does its mission, whether aerial reconnaissance, bombing, or airlift, the mission can be completed.
In conclusion, without the technological advancements of todays flying arsenal, the U.S. would not have a strong Air Force. Without ground defense the aircraft could be shot down by SAM missiles. Without radar, the Air Force could not see potential enemies. Air to air defense allows the U.S. aircraft to stay airborne no matter the threat. Finally, all of these critical components allow for a smooth mission, defending all at stake here at home.

counter measures can be deployed, such as the Patriot Missiles from the Army or the Air Force “Minuteman Missiles”.

...you're right,
this essay is not so great.


I only assume (if you aren' trolling) that you are attempting to answer the discussion prompt "Explain why America’s aerospace power is vital to ...national security."

Start there, and make an outline.  Make a statement of your own that supports that (your introductory paragraph), and then provide 3 pieces of evidence that support your statement (each piece of evidence should be backed up by 2 or 3 facts)(facts that you can verify by referencing reasonable sources), there are your 3 body paragraphs.  Then wrap it up with a conclusion paragraph that restates your opinion.

...also consider that aerospace power in the context of national security extends a good bit beyond jets and missiles.

Hi, Kallan09.

I'll leave the structural comments to others (coudano makes some good points) but I get your three point outline, frankly. I don't think your work is bad, but it could be improved. For the record, as a commander, I would have sent this back to you for rework in the following areas:

1. "Absolute control of air warfare". The doctrinal term is airpower, which has an approved DoD definition that's broader than you might think. If you'd like to clarify that or expand on it to support your 3-pronged treatment of the topic, see: https://doctrine.af.mil/download.jsp?filename=du_16_01.pdf. Going forward, you should get in the habit of starting with doctrinal sources and seminal references when starting a research paper, to ensure that you're using proper terms.

2. "Alaskan radar complex". Well, there are many radar complexes in AK, some more controversial than others, but none of them are explicitly stated to be a defense against Russia. In fact, Chinese and NK threats are likely, as well. I'd chop the Russian reference and just say threats.

3. Minuteman missiles aren't surface to air missiles. Please understand that they're a surface to surface ICBM weapon system.

4. A/A defense: good on you to cover flares against EO/IR threats, but far more important you should mention AEA (airborne electronic attack - jamming SAMs - via the EA-18G Growler) and EW self protection jammers and decoys. You may want to mention the use of anti radiation missiles (ARMs) in the SEAD role to suppress enemy air defenses.

5. A/G. Not bad but only two sentences, assuming you start the final paragraph with "In conclusion". Suggest you expand.

6. Now, go back to that original doctrinal reference: note the mention of "space" and "cyberspace". A comprehensive paper would at least mention these aspects, hint hint. (Foot stomp... cough cough... I would send it back to you for revisions if you didn't)!

The Armstrong essay isn't supposed to be a 10 page term paper; don't push it to 1000 words or anything, but you're on the right track.

V/r
Spam

Oh yeah, one other comment, not necessarily to you, but for the record:

Your work passed an online plagiarism check. Good commanders and CP officers and teachers DO USE THESE, and we will come down on violators with a disciplinary action if plagiarism of others work is sustained.

V/r
Spam

Thank you very much! I know I've got a bit of work to do. Great points.

Good work Cadet!! A very good start. My own Cadet/offspring is working on it as well.

Please, let us know how it goes

No. This is not a very good essay.
Start from scratch.
What is aerospace power? Why is it important?
What are the USAF's core missions?
Decide what the topic is and go from there.

I think what people are driving at is to approach this more strategically.  Air and Space power more than putting bombs on targets and shooting airplanes down.  That is a tactical level function.  Strategically our air power includes obviously our strike capabilities, it also includes rapid global mobility, and inelegance, surveillance and reconnaissance(ISR).  It also includes our space borne assets as well like ISR satellites, our GPS constellations and communication systems.  Those all may mundane, but without them we are critically crippled.

The question on a strategic level, why do we need air and space power for national security?  What function if gone, leaves us more vulnerable?  What are near-peer and peer competitors doing that we need to counter?  I think you have the right idea.  I don't think you do not need to narrow the scope to specific systems.

Example: I can say we need advance aerospace systems to be able to counter upgraded capabilities of our competitors.  Without it we are less able move assets into an area that is initially denied.  If we are denied the freedom of movement to operate in, than we can not achieve our mission objective.  If we are unable to do accomplish this, it shows a critical vulnerability in our global response capabilities.  This can indirectly lead to national security issues because we will no longer have leverage to compel a nation state from engaging in hostilities.

That's probably what the scope when we are talking about when you want to approach what does our air power provide for enhancing our national security?  My example is off the cuff and may not be the perfect one.  But it is an example of a thesis statement that can be expanded to go into some more specifics and wrap it up with a conclusion.   TBH my example is probably a little too narrow also.  Hopefully it gives you an idea to work off of.

Check this out.

I think what people are driving at is to approach this more strategically.  Air and Space power more than putting bombs on targets and shooting airplanes down.  That is a tactical level function.  Strategically our air power includes obviously our strike capabilities, it also includes rapid global mobility, and inelegance, surveillance and reconnaissance(ISR).  It also includes our space borne assets as well like ISR satellites, our GPS constellations and communication systems.  Those all may mundane, but without them we are critically crippled.

The question on a strategic level, why do we need air and space power for national security?  What function if gone, leaves us more vulnerable?  What are near-peer and peer competitors doing that we need to counter?  I think you have the right idea.  I don't think you do not need to narrow the scope to specific systems.

Example: I can say we need advance aerospace systems to be able to counter upgraded capabilities of our competitors.  Without it we are less able move assets into an area that is initially denied.  If we are denied the freedom of movement to operate in, than we can not achieve our mission objective.  If we are unable to do accomplish this, it shows a critical vulnerability in our global response capabilities.  This can indirectly lead to national security issues because we will no longer have leverage to compel a nation state from engaging in hostilities.

That's probably what the scope when we are talking about when you want to approach what does our air power provide for enhancing our national security?  My example is off the cuff and may not be the perfect one.  But it is an example of a thesis statement that can be expanded to go into some more specifics and wrap it up with a conclusion.   TBH my example is probably a little too narrow also.  Hopefully it gives you an idea to work off of.

Hi Starbux!

On ISR:  if it is inelegant, but it gets me inside their OODA loop, its pretty elegant after all.
Can we call your version NTISR?

(grin)
Spam

Check this out.

That's pretty good gouge ("In Gouge We Trust")!

Can we plagiarize for instructional purposes?

Thanks shipmate,
Spam

Sure, I stabbed it from somewhere else. The basic idea is (used to be?) taught in HS and college.

Sent from my phone.

Dragon,

 Used to be taught is correct. I work in a high school and I constantly have to tell students how to write a basic paragraph and essay. But if the Cadets really read the Learn to Lead, I forget the chapter, it tells them exactly how to write the essay, and what they are being scored on.

IMHO, I feel that everyone involved with Cadet Programs should take and pass the tests that the Cadets do, We can't teach what we don't know.

That would be Volume 2, Chapter 8.

Check this out.

That's pretty good gouge ("In Gouge We Trust")!

Can we plagiarize for instructional purposes?

Thanks shipmate,
Spam

If only the author of that thing were around to approve its distribution and use.

Thought that was a given. Apologies for failing to cive credit.

Folks, I give you Coudano, author of my linked example essay.

Here are the two earlier posts where he shared his wisdom:

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=13717.msg247952#msg247952

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=19796.msg365246#msg365246

Check this out.

That's pretty good gouge ("In Gouge We Trust")!

Can we plagiarize for instructional purposes?

Thanks shipmate,
Spam

If only the author of that thing were around to approve its distribution and use.

Dan The Man!  Of Course!
Thanks so much, sir.

V/r
Spam