It's now official...

The F-22 will continue in production.
The Zumwalt DDG will continue in production.
The Virginia SSNs will also be around.
MV / CV-22 production will expand.
Missile defense will continue deploymrnt.
There will be no cuts in nuclear weapons.
USAF and USN personnel cuts will be reversed.
Ground force expansion will be slowed.
Liitoral Combat Ship production will be curtailed.
National Guard and Reserve re-equipping will slow.

Well, it's difficult to make predictions, especially about the future :D

However, given this Editorial recommendation LINK and the demonstrated ability of the source for originality, knowledge and accuracy in the defense realm, my suspicion is that at least half the predictions above will be correct... :cool:

Larry Korb and the Center for American Digress will be happy; their over cautious recommendations were adopted by someone...

If the majority of wars fought in the future will be asymmetric, why then is the military still investing in such high tech equipment that will not help win hearts and minds? I am not saying that technology or firepower is bad but we need to get out of the 3GW mindset.

(The article you linked to was really interesting.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by s.noll

If the majority of wars fought in the future will be asymmetric...

---

I very much doubt you can guarantee that...

Quote:

---

why then is the military still investing in such high tech equipment that will not help win hearts and minds? I am not saying that technology or firepower is bad but we need to get out of the 3GW mindset.

---

Because that so-called '3GW' (if you believe in generations of warfare -- I do not; warfare is multi faceted and multi generational) capability that we have is necessary to insure there are no near term '3GW' wars -- and to drive opponents to that 'asymmetric' model you mention. We can handle that as well and more easily and cheaply in all terms.

Quote:

---

(The article you linked to was really interesting.)

---

You think so? Well, here's the paper that gave the editor that wrote that article all his ideas: LINK. Not much original in that article...

The paper I linked was posted on the SWJ Blog on 10 dec 08 LINK. As I recall it got no serious comment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by s.noll

If the majority of wars fought in the future will be asymmetric, why then is the military still investing in such high tech equipment that will not help win hearts and minds? I am not saying that technology or firepower is bad but we need to get out of the 3GW mindset.

---

Our possession of such weapons is part of the reason we are not likely to be fighting traditional wars. It is the deterrence provided by our military strength that allows us to even think about "hearts and minds." I also recommend this thread. "Hearts and minds" isn't a very well defined term; people attach very different connotations to it. {Also, I find that the term makes me shudder since it has been hijacked by people whose idea of "conflict resolution" is a "group hug." You know, the kind of people who actually think we should send executives (maybe even the Joint Chiefs or corrections officers and correctees) into the wilderness (except they call it "nature" and yet have very nice civilized facilities) so that they can do some trust, bonding and understanding exercises. :D LOL! }


Adam L

We go to war with the Army we've got, not the one we wish we had. When the media talks budget numbers it's funny how they forget that a lot of that money is going to get the force up to speed so to speak. After cuts in the 1990s we were not where we needed to be in endstrength or equipment. Most of our equipment was still Desert Storm used/era. As the GWOT progressed much outdated equipment needed to be updated. There were soldier's who forgot that first line of my post and thought it right to raise a fuss about equipment. The people started raising hell about uparmoured vehicles and body armour for all. I remember crossing the border in soft skin vehicles hanging body armour over the doors. The administration kicked the funds into getting all this, then we adapted to IEDs and there's a huge chunk of the money. Nothing is mentioned of this, I guess to most MRAPs grow on trees and we plant IBA fields that get harvested every fall. Would hate to see the numbers if we had A/C being shot down and tanks being destroyed on a daily basis. Sad thing is that in 4-8 years from now we will be back in the same boat we were 7 years ago. No one has the foresight to know what we will face next. All we can do is go to war with the Army we have and adjust from there. Unfortunately that costs money, who knows the next threat my take away our technological advantage then what do we have? They'll be call us old timers back up that know how to do without computers, GPS, radios, blue force trackers, etc.....

One cannot say all future wars will be asymmetrical. We need to be as well versed as possible, multi dimensional, and capabilities abound. I think we need people that actual know how to employ what we already have properly rather than developing more and more. We can't properly use what we already have, so how do we know if we truly need something newer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by s.noll

If the majority of wars fought in the future will be asymmetric, why then is the military still investing in such high tech equipment that will not help win hearts and minds?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

I very much doubt you can guarantee that...

---

What is often overlooked is just how far ahead we must look when we are evaluating what our military requires. At this time there does not seem to be a non-asymmetric war on the horizon, but in 10-30 years time there very well may be. The F22 program took almost twenty years to mature. Some programs mature more quickly, but many can take much longer. Also, we need to remember that most systems, especially those that are high-tech, start to become obsolete as soon as they become active. It can be argued that many are quite a few years behind the envelope before they even go online.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by s.noll

I am not saying that technology or firepower is bad but we need to get out of the 3GW mindset.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

Because that so-called '3GW' (if you believe in generations of warfare -- I do not; warfare is multi faceted and multi generational) capability that we have is necessary to insure there are no near term '3GW' wars -- and to drive opponents to that 'asymmetric' model you mention. We can handle that as well and more easily and cheaply in all terms.

---

I agree with you 100% Ken. In my opinion, our problem is that we view it to be necessary to have “mindsets.” I often find it misguided to try to categorize something such as warfare which is so complex and conceptually abstract. Although it can be useful, it often leads to over-analysis, followed by over-categorization and finally dogmatism. In the end, you have a case of form over substance. Unfortunately, the human desire to see order where there is none is more powerful than our pragmatism.


Adam L

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam L

What is often overlooked is just how far ahead we must look when we are evaluating what our military requires. At this time there does not seem to be a non-asymmetric war on the horizon, but in 10-30 years time there very well may be. The F22 program took almost twenty years to mature. Some programs mature more quickly, but many can take much longer. Also, we need to remember that most systems, especially those that are high-tech, start to become obsolete as soon as they become active. It can be argued that many are quite a few years behind the envelope before they even go online.

---

1 year before the F-4D's 1st flight (‘56), planning began for the F-15.
3 years before the F-15A's 1st flight (‘72), planning began for the F-22.
6 years ago was the F-22's 1st flight (‘02).
What aircraft are we planning to replace the F-22?

At the risk of dating myself...

It was early 79 when Chrysler Motor Corporation asked the Ordnance Corps to put together a team and send them to Michigan.

Our task: Using the dash 10, 20 and 30 manuals, take the XM1 apart and put her back together :eek:

I got the snappy little mechanical pencil and a great photo, but that iron pig was never the same :D

Seems Chrysler was working on the XM1 in late 75 following the failed MBT-70 project.

This Sierra takes time :cool: