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