Mine is busted to. 'Ours' seems to stay in the
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Umar Al-Mokhtār
. . .
Ken, unfortunately my crystal ball is busted... :wry:
shop -- ours as in the US Government. However, my history books are still available and we have not been great at predicting our next war. We also, historically since WW II have not had very accurate foreign intelligence....
Quote:
While I dare not predict the length of the "GWOT" many inside the building are favoring the term "the Long War." IMHO we will be faced with more LIC/COIN scenarios vice conventional ones over the next decade or two. Why? OEF and OIF demonstrated that it is hard to meet us head on in a conventional slug fest. We will win. So our enemies tear a page out of Ho and Giap and cannot help but notice they might do better in a long, exhaustive conflict. Easier to test our political will than our overwhelming firepower.
No big argument from me over any of that; Other than a minor quibble or two, I'd say the odds are about 75:25 that will be correct. However, I do have two questions about the probability -- (1) What occurs if we prepare for such conflicts and a Political decision is made not to engage? I suggest that given the experience in Afghanistan and Iraq that is a likely prospect. (2) What do we do if that 25% chance occurs ( in the Balkans, in South America, if a bilateral treaty with any of a dozen nations is invoked)?
Quote:
Both the B-52 and the C-130 have lasted a long time, granted fighters work in a different realm thus requiring a different set of upgrades, but the advances in technology are more in the avionics than in the airframe. The AF needs a cultural paradigm shift, compared to the other services they have a tendency to squander funding on “nice to haves.” Having created some really nice infrastructure in the name of QOL they now spend more O&M to maintain it. Their champagne taste is now funded on a beer budget. ;)
Agreed -- but that doesn't affect my point on the practicalities of potential conflict. To me, that potential is the issue and parochial 'who shot John' arguments don't address that point.
Quote:
Who is our conventional opponent in the air?
China? They have an air force of some merit but I do not foresee a head on with them. If we tangle with the Chinese I feel it will be by proxy, possibly in Africa, so it will be LIC/COIN.
Russia? Despite Putin’s recent bellicosity, it will take them many years to straighten out their internal problems before they become more than just a regional power.
Iran? After the NIE the strident calls for war have subsided and a convential war against them at this juncture might be unwise.
Who else has the power to challenge us decisively in the air?
Define decisively? :D Who could achieve temporary local superiority to achieve some tactical or operational gains at some cost to us a dozen places in the world? What nut could decide to take on the USAF in an air dominance battle no matter how stupid or doomed is the idea? Who would take advantage of our involvement in, say Afghanistan and Iraq, to foment hatred and discontent elsewhere to further occupy us and create a distraction while they really aim for greater turmoil in a third location?
Decisively is not the issue; avoiding any challenge in the air is to our advantage. Recall also that in both Korea and Viet Nam, proxy wars with small air forces for our opponenets, the opposition managed to shoot down a lot US planes. We prevailed in the air because we had a lot more planes. Given the costs of those things today, we don't have that quantity nowadays...
Quote:
Yet we are so enamored with technology. The ABL is one example of a program gone amok, a cash cow for defense contractors but a money pit for the taxpayer. JIEDDO also squandered funding searching for "silver bullet" techno answers, many of which proved to be pipe dreams.
Agree in part. Totally with respect over reliance on technology and to JIEDDO, less so on the ABL, I suspect we'll gain some good spin offs from that, one of which may be DEW for the AC130 replacement program -- and another for the F35. :)
There are, of course others that meet your criteria, FCS for one (again, some good spin offs but an unnecessary and ill conceived end goal).
We have always tended to reach for technological solutions instead of starting with better and tailored training which would probably be more effective and cheaper. Unfortunately, training dollars don't help numerous Congressional Districts, big ticket hi tech items do.
(quote)I have no special prescience and realize it is a tough call to posture our military for success in multiple scenarios that involve varying levels of technology.(/quote)
Yes, it is and I too realize that. I also know that all the services sometimes do it well, sometimes not -- and it goes in cycles. The Air Force flubbed it for a few years and bought themselves a problem. I'm merely suggesting that, yeah, it IS their problem -- but, like it or not it unfortunately affects us all and it needs to fixed.
(quote)But I do know those tasked with being the stewards of the citizen’s taxes can do a much better job.[/QUOTE]
With that, I can totally agree, Perhaps unlike you, my hate list on that topic starts with the Congresses (plural, the last 20 or so...).
Mine is busted to. 'Ours' seems to stay in the
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Umar Al-Mokhtār
. . .
Ken, unfortunately my crystal ball is busted... :wry:
shop -- ours as in the US Government. However, my history books are still available and we have not been great at predicting our next war. We also, historically since WW II have not had very accurate foreign intelligence....
Quote:
While I dare not predict the length of the "GWOT" many inside the building are favoring the term "the Long War." IMHO we will be faced with more LIC/COIN scenarios vice conventional ones over the next decade or two. Why? OEF and OIF demonstrated that it is hard to meet us head on in a conventional slug fest. We will win. So our enemies tear a page out of Ho and Giap and cannot help but notice they might do better in a long, exhaustive conflict. Easier to test our political will than our overwhelming firepower.
No big argument from me over any of that; Other than a minor quibble or two, I'd say the odds are about 75:25 that will be correct. However, I do have two questions about the probability -- (1) What occurs if we prepare for such conflicts and a Political decision is made not to engage? I suggest that given the experience in Afghanistan and Iraq that is a likely prospect. (2) What do we do if that 25% chance occurs ( in the Balkans, in South America, if a bilateral treaty with any of a dozen nations is invoked)?
Quote:
Both the B-52 and the C-130 have lasted a long time, granted fighters work in a different realm thus requiring a different set of upgrades, but the advances in technology are more in the avionics than in the airframe. The AF needs a cultural paradigm shift, compared to the other services they have a tendency to squander funding on “nice to haves.” Having created some really nice infrastructure in the name of QOL they now spend more O&M to maintain it. Their champagne taste is now funded on a beer budget. ;)
Agreed -- but that doesn't affect my point on the practicalities of potential conflict. To me, that potential is the issue and parochial 'who shot John' arguments don't address that point.
Quote:
Who is our conventional opponent in the air?
China? They have an air force of some merit but I do not foresee a head on with them. If we tangle with the Chinese I feel it will be by proxy, possibly in Africa, so it will be LIC/COIN.
Russia? Despite Putin’s recent bellicosity, it will take them many years to straighten out their internal problems before they become more than just a regional power.
Iran? After the NIE the strident calls for war have subsided and a convential war against them at this juncture might be unwise.
Who else has the power to challenge us decisively in the air?
Define decisively? :D Who could achieve temporary local superiority to achieve some tactical or operational gains at some cost to us a dozen places in the world? What nut could decide to take on the USAF in an air dominance battle no matter how stupid or doomed is the idea? Who would take advantage of our involvement in, say Afghanistan and Iraq, to foment hatred and discontent elsewhere to further occupy us and create a distraction while they really aim for greater turmoil in a third location?
Decisively is not the issue; avoiding any challenge in the air is to our advantage. Recall also that in both Korea and Viet Nam, proxy wars with small air forces for our opponenets, the opposition managed to shoot down a lot US planes. We prevailed in the air because we had a lot more planes. Given the costs of those things today, we don't have that quantity nowadays...
Quote:
Yet we are so enamored with technology. The ABL is one example of a program gone amok, a cash cow for defense contractors but a money pit for the taxpayer. JIEDDO also squandered funding searching for "silver bullet" techno answers, many of which proved to be pipe dreams.
Agree in part. Totally with respect over reliance on technology and to JIEDDO, less so on the ABL, I suspect we'll gain some good spin offs from that, one of which may be DEW for the AC130 replacement program -- and another for the F35. :)
There are, of course others that meet your criteria, FCS for one (again, some good spin offs but an unnecessary and ill conceived end goal).
We have always tended to reach for technological solutions instead of starting with better and tailored training which would probably be more effective and cheaper. Unfortunately, training dollars don't help numerous Congressional Districts, big ticket hi tech items do.
(quote)I have no special prescience and realize it is a tough call to posture our military for success in multiple scenarios that involve varying levels of technology.(/quote)
Yes, it is and I too realize that. I also know that all the services sometimes do it well, sometimes not -- and it goes in cycles. The Air Force flubbed it for a few years and bought themselves a problem. I'm merely suggesting that, yeah, it IS their problem -- but, like it or not it unfortunately affects us all and it needs to fixed.
(quote)But I do know those tasked with being the stewards of the citizen’s taxes can do a much better job.[/QUOTE]
With that, I can totally agree, Perhaps unlike you, my hate list on that topic starts with the Congresses (plural, the last 20 or so...).