Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawker View Post
Bottom line is we won't know what force we'll need for the next war as our track record on predicting that is a part of the problem manifesting itself now in the AF. Realizing that, we have to have a good mix of capabilities and even me (an AF guy who loves studying small wars) has to advocate for fast movers, efficient air lifters, effective bombers, and other things.

This would be less of a problem if the USAF learned to love "need to have" more than "nice to have." If you haven't spent decades trying to develop an aircraft that is the best in the world with every possibly conceived capability that ultimately costs more than the GDP of many small countries than it's not so much a problem if you don't get the future predicting just right.

The US and allies won WWII not with the best aircraft, ships, and tanks, but with the ones that were good enough and that could be gotten to the battlefield in a timely manner without breaking the bank.

I would suggest that the way to get to having this sort of frame of mind is to drop the idea that a force can arrive on the battlefield with "superiority" or "dominance" already settled. If that were the case, then war would be made relatively obsolete. To believe it's possible is not only problematic for R&D, acquisition and procurement, it's also the fast route to hubris.

Cheers,
Jill