I've always through the FCS was a waste of money, at least once the decision was made to turn it into something other than a test case. There's no harm in developing a few systems to see if they work, to push tech forward, and so on...but there needs to be a limit and an understanding that we can't bank the entire force on platforms that take 20 years to develop (that's where in my view the AF is constantly shooting itself in the foot).
Technology isn't always an answer. In fact, it can become a major weakness if taken to extremes. What happens when all your batteries die? How many do you need to lug into the field to remain effective? What would have happened if the flaw in the F-22's nav system hadn't been found during peacetime? Much as I like the idea of the Osprey, is it really worth saddling troops with a helicopter that has had problems since its introduction into service in the early 1960s (the CH-47/46 family) while we wait for the silver bullet to finish development?
I really think that 4% of the GDP is sufficient for defense...provided that the waste is actually CUT and not shifted to other black budgets or areas that don't come under review. Given DoD's poor record in this area, I think the question would be turned to "why SHOULD it be more than 4%?"
Rob makes good points regarding the longer-term benefits of being able to "do" COIN. You would have thought we'd learned our lesson about putting all our strategic option eggs in one basket during the era of Massive Retaliation, but perhaps we didn't.
Bookmarks