Sorry to re-raise this older topic but I've recently come back to the SWJ and I've been thinking about this issue for awhile, particularly in regards to the fighter procurement. (sometimes I like to dream in the skies too.)
Looking back much of the focus on this QDR has been on Conventional vs Stabilization warfare, and rightly so. The dynamic is a critical one and carving out a strategy for where the United States will be in 10, 15 years globally is a critical part of getting procurement right.
Yet there is another dynamic that doesn't get much attention, but plays an important influence in the choices he made. Its particularly apparent concerning the F-22/F-35; neither is fighter of the future. Instead the OSD might be hedging their bets that the UAV revolution will provide a new set of capabilities in the near future. I think Distiller touched upon it a bit.
We don't know what the nature of airforces will look like in a decade or two's time. In the last 10 years we've seen a complete revolution in the use of UAVs and its not clear where that revolution might go. Why would they invest in a $150 million Dollar F-22 when in a decade a $50 million dollar UAV will appear to do its job far more effectively? So there might be significant hesitance to commit to manned aircraft, which is somewhat apparent in the following quote;
We will not pursue a development program for a follow-on Air Force bomber until we have a better understanding of the need, the requirement, and the technology.
I think a historical parallel exists with the Royal Navy at the turn of the last century, when they invested heavily in standard battleships only to have to rearm again with the dreadnaught. If this scenario rings true, then United States is avoiding investing on platforms that might become obsolete in the near future, when there is no pressing geo-strategic need for these capabilities. The F-35 program can be scaled back in the future and the F-22 is utterly expendable at this time.
Bookmarks