Future Peer Competitor?

[Granite_State]

In the debate about small wars, the long war against Islamic extremism (I'm not a big fan of the "GWOT" label), and where the defense budget should be going, can anyone really point to a plausible peer competitor even twenty years down the line? I'm probably too influenced by Martin Van Creveld, Bill Lind, and the current environment, but I have trouble seeing any state realistically attempting to match the U.S. on the conventional battlefield, given the two Gulf Wars and the obvious supremacy of the U.S. at putting firepower on targets.

Even the Chinese, as much as they're spending, are still decades behind us, some of you guys probably know that better than I do. As much as people were justifiably pissed about the Israeli help in their newest fighter, I think it was the J-10, it was still outdated before it even entered service. If you're scared of Russia, look at their demographics. Not too many future soldiers coming down the pipeline.

Not saying we can ignore conventional warfare obviously, and we have to prepare for the "unknown unknowns," but does it make sense for us to be spending a quarter of a billion dollars per F-22 (not Air Force bashing, just the best example that springs to mind) when we're struggling to fight two small wars and staring at the huge readiness issues SWJED has posted about?

[SWJED]

... does it make sense for us to be spending a quarter of a billion dollars per F-22... ?

Not only no, but hell no.

[Rob Thornton]

As a reasonably enlightened "Bo-Tagz" or whatever it was land power component members were referred to in MG Dunlap’s AFJ article, I'd say it depends on who you ask. The Air Force will tell you its worth it, and from their perspective they have some valid reasons. As was pointed out to me recently - the Air Force relies greatly on technology as their environment requires it - you can't get and stay airborne without it.

The question I think is, how much should we invest in maintaining that edge when we are in a fiscally constrained environment, which by the way so are they (the AF) - they have allot of fighters and attack AC in need of refit - not to mention their lift frames.

I'd say it also is in their strategic culture - the theory of Air Power goes back to Douhet and "Command of the Skies" which we translate into Air Superiority. Frankly, like the American Express, I believe its preferable not to leave home without it. It may not be an immediate concern, but given the opportunity, somebody would eventually make you pay for not having it - think of the idea of securing your rear, or route.

It also provides policy makers & war fighters options (go to the "non-cents" thread for that discussion). The trick here is knowing when to play to short term gains vs. long term consequences - its not as cut and dry as just killing folks any more for all kinds of reasons, and ultimately somebody has to take responsibility for the decisions.

The problem as you point out is the price tag - the best technology (or the best of anything) is usually the most expensive. The Chinese example (or you could use Russian subs, or several others) is interesting because the advertisement does not always reflect the end product. Other cultures often come up short for a number of reasons even when they have the blueprints. Our own Defense Industry takes a different tack that seems to be more in line with Capitalism, the "we've run into some difficulties and are going to need more $$$" line seems to drive up the projected costs. They then offer bargains by reducing the amount per copy if the buyer agrees to buy more - think Sam's Club.

My personal opinion is that we require balance, and probably need to adjust the way we do business with the Defense Industry. Allot of the technology we pay for seems to create non-military dividends in other products, so they get additional benefit - if we (the government) invest in the development of a technology, then we should receive some benefits - call it an end of the year return, a discount or what have you. I'd also say that if the seller does not or cannot live up to the terms of the contract, then they are penalized - we are actually getting better at that. We need Industry to better balance their obligation to their shareholders and CEOs with their obligation to the national defense - again personal opinion after working some on "future" technology.

I think often we can gain short term edges by adding new payloads to existing platforms and by investing in people to get more out of an existing technology. However, these are short term gains, and the trick is knowing when to (and when you can) invest in a new technology that provides the long term edge you require to remain viable on the battlefield. Constantly investing in new technologies creates ignorance and expectations that create their own problems though as there are some problems that technology just can't solve, or can't solve without a cost ineffective strategy.

I'm not in favor of ignoring all of one type of advantage in favor of developing out of proportion another. We have four services (5 for you CG types), and they all fulfill critical roles in our national defense, and in the pursuit of winning small wars as well as big ones. What we have to understand is when the tail is in danger of wagging the dog.


Regards, Rob

[J.C.]

The problem is not the cost, but what is the cost/benifit anaylisis. When weapons systems like the F-22 where developed and some systems that are still being developed the brass where looking to fight conventional battles agianst armies that looked like us, fought like us, and held to similar conventions.

The problem is that senirio isn't around for now or the forseable future. So, weapons system like the F-22 which was developed as a purely air to air fighter in the current sit-temp are stupid when we can't even afford money for training, re-manning units, and weapons systems that we need.

An example: I just recently graduated Ranger School. In ranger school normally you got twice the ammo you requested and then some. Now, we barely had enough to conduct our patrols during each phase i.e. 40 rds 5.65 mm per rifle man, 300 rds 7.76 mm lk, and 400 rds 5.56 mm lk. Further, we were shorted on equipment during mountians training, slashed air assualt missions due to cost, and verious odds and ends throughout the course. But, it's not just happening at ranger school. Its happening at every school I've been to over the past couple of years.

Beyond training look at the state of any units MTOE. Crap, we are balking on better small arms for the cost of one F-22. Where refurbishing Saws and M240B that are in a bad state just to fill units requirments cause their wearing out in the dessert sand. I'm not putting on bitch session. But, it makes no sense. You have to look ahead and keep our military strong, but we can't keep procuring weapons systems for the wars we wish to fight over the ones we are fighting and then sacrifice training dollars to fill the gaps in the operational budget just to keep us going.

Therefore, trying to out-gun a future competitor like a resurgent Russia or trying to counter-act China's surge in weapns programs is a waste. The roll down effects of trying to maintian that kind of attitude are having and could continue to have hurts everybody. We need to fund training for our current operational eviroment, man our forces for the fight were in, and then look to procure the best guess technologies that fit our strattiegic goals and the furture as we see it. Not the other way around.

The better where maintianed, trained, and equiped with mission essiental tools, the better we can intergrate new solutions and technolgies to aid in the fight. However, if we keep straining our forces, equipment, and resources we won't be able to effectively integrate any new technologically weapons system that comes into our forces. Thus, we want be more prepared for future competators, will be less prepared, and then will have endless rounds of debates on why our high tech forces failed us. Just like with our current problems in OEF and OIF.

If the cost/benifit anaylis were different, I'd say go for it, but I just don't see how they are considering the current situation where in and have been put in by that type of thinking and policy.

[Steve Blair]

I think the key with technology and the AF is that they tend to want "super-systems" or something akin to a silver bullet platform. When they complain about the extended development cycle of their airframes, they really can only blame themselves. And with the F-22, I would have expected that they would have tested the navigation system...remember a few months back when they had to ground the entire fleet for a few days when the nav system went ####-up when they crossed the international date line?

Once the AF gets its teeth into what it considers a world-beating technology (stealth is the current flavor of the month), they want it on every aircraft built from that point on. I've spoken with some F-22 maintainers, and they have some harsh comments about the plane's actual availability rate. Others have commented on its sheer size (it's slightly bigger than an F-15)...it may not show easily on radar but you can see it coming.

What seems to cause the most confusion is that fact that you don't always need a stealthy, world-beating system to get the job done. Look at the A-10. Or the C-130. Even the F-16 was a program the AF didn't really want at first. They passed on the F-16XL, which had all the makings of a superb ground attack platform (a cranked delta design with more payload than the F-16 and if memory serves slightly better maneuverability). Don't get me wrong...the F-15E is a great attack plane, but I believe the F-16XL would have been cheaper and could have filled some of the roles (SEAD for one) that they've had to stretch the F-16 to fit.

Lift and tankers are two areas that the AF shorted to allow for the F-22 and F-35 (don't get me started on that one), and now they're paying the price for it. Sooner or later there will also be a need for an E-3 follow-on. These assets, which cut across communities and services, strike me as being more valuable than another "stealth" fighter that fills a need that is 20 years old.

[LawVol]

Crap, we are balking on better small arms for the cost of one F-22.

The Army's Future Comabt System comes to mind...

When the next big war rolls upon us, you'll thank God and the AF for all that new technology. And if that big war never happens, I'll still be satisfied with the insurance. Perhaps we should be complaining about ear marks for bridges to no where and the like rather than technology that could possible be needed one day.

"Flying high, into the wild blue yonder... Oh, I digress