GP vs. Specialized Capabilities -- COIN & Beyond

[Van]

Note to self: don't bring up edged weapons or specific smallarms - will exceed safe load of thread

Back on track-

Since we're focused on A/C, consider the two most (arguably, as always) successful airframes since WWII, the C-130 and the UH-1. These two have done everything; transport, SAR, ELINT, gunships, etc for decades. The common factor is a capable and flexible base airframe. I would argue that this is relevant to almost any catagory of combat equipment. Look at, well, not a specific weapon system, but a caliber, the Browning .50 (12.7 x 99mm). Capable and flexible, it has been AA, anti-armor, heavy MG, and a sniper round. And it's little brother, the .30-06 and to a slightly lesser extent, the 7.62 x51mm NATO, flexible and capable. Rather than some super-specialized flechette, exotic projectile material, or radical weapon configuration, flexible and capable carry the day.

So why don't we just seek out flexible and capable from the git go, rather than falling back to it after the over-specialized items out-live their niche and make themselves obsolete.

I would argue that the principle here has broad application, from side arms to strategic weapons platforms...

Sadly, I know the basic answer why we don't follow this strategy; more money flows to congressional districts when 100 gadgets are made for 100 discrete tasks rather than a handful of gadgets that can accomplich the same 100 tasks.

[120mm]

Aircraft development is my very, very favorite subject. This discussion reminds me of the tendency for aircraft to become heavier and more complex. WWI aircraft development is an interesting case in point: As conventional competitiveness became more intense, airframes became heavier and faster (with lots of counter-intuitive designs staying "light", such as the Fokker D-VIII, due to other factors) culminating in large, complicated and heavy designs like the Bristol Fighter.

Ironically, the Bristol Fighter became the simple, light, multi-role COIN aircraft for between the wars, as airplanes became even bigger, faster and heavier.

If you take away the competitiveness of conventional warfare, you really don't gain an edge in technological advancement. But you DO make a lot of money, if you are a defense contractor.

[Lastdingo]

Is this really about specialization vs. multi-role or is it about small wars forces vs. multi-role forces?

I believe in either case I'd opt for multi-role.

Small wars might be the norm, but I bet that it takes a while till memory has faded enough to trip off a new big COIN war. There was a generation between Vietnam end and Iraq beginning.
Even if small wars would be fought permanently, a small wars army would suck. A small wars-optimized army with lots of military police, light infantry, aerial surveillance, convoy forces, base defenses, civil affairs, military intellligence troops would simply be a poor deterrent against conventional foes. Think keeping Iran out of Iraq, for example. If Iran wanted to invade, it wouldn't be intimidated by a small wars army, no matter how large that would be.

Concerning mult-irole vs. specialized in general, it's important to remember that more serious and brutal wars can inflict as much losses to an army in a week as Iraqi insurgents in four years. The losses won't be evenly distributed, so the desired mix of capabilities wouldn't be kept if the force had lots of specialized assets. With lots of multi-role assets, it's possible to keep going after severe losses. And multi-role forces adapt more easily to changing conditions of warfare.



@120mm; combat aircraft don't become heavier anymore. Eurofighter is a weight category below F-15 for the same role. F-2 is (very) comparable to F-16. Gripen is even lighter as F-16. Super Hornet is similar weight as Tomcat.
Minor states develop typically light planes (like the Chinese, India, Taiwan, South Korea). I believe the heaviness trend ended with the F-15.

And today size and weight are not the primary problems. It's the long development, the gold plating and the super expensive electronics. Planes like Flanker/Berkut prove that size still permits high agility - only large target area, high fuel costs and high visibility remain as real problems of large aircraft.