Posted on 07/20/2015 1:56:10 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Terrorism and Middle East insurgencies are not going away. Yet in the 21st century, the United States must understand it faces a return of a serious national-security concern that shaped the last century: the risk of great-power conflict.
The Defense Department’s new military strategy acknowledges this by noting the implications of the renewed rivalry with China and Russia. The possibility of a major war with great powers, like World Wars One and Two, is “growing,” according to the U.S. National Military Strategy released this month.
Consider, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is back on high alert after Russia’s land grab in Ukraine, while the United States and China are competing in an arms race over the Pacific Ocean. When the nominee for chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff recently testified before Congress about the most critical security threats, he led with Russia, not Islamic State.
Yet the U.S. defense establishment still has one foot in the past and only a tentative one in the future. The Pentagon talks the talk of military innovation to deal with this new mix of threats but doggedly pursues costly weapons programs anchored in dangerous past compromises. Not only are the weapon systems unlikely to deliver well in today’s conflicts, they also could become vulnerabilities exploited by America’s adversaries during wartime.
The risks of these old ways of thinking were highlighted recently when a test pilot’s report was leaked to the War Is Boring website. The report revealed that an F-16 fighter — with 40-year-old technology — had bested the Pentagon’s planned new warplane, an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, in simulated combat.
The F-35 being tested, according to the report, couldn’t hold its own in close-in dogfighting. The Pentagon and manufacturer didn’t challenge the story’s merits,
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.reuters.com ...
Thanks
It is said military leaders are always prepared to fight the last war over.
The Pentagon adopts a fairy dust and rainbows scenario to justify producing sexy weapons they want. For example, one thing we learned in WW2 is that tank armor must be sloped, generally at 30 degrees and it must be thick enough to withstand a direct hit from both fielded weapons and potential weapons. But the army had been sold (by contractors) on the Future Combat Systems notion that each vehicle could do simply amazing things. But to put even a fraction of the amazing potential and still have them fit on a C5A the vehicles had to be small, light and have vertical sides.
I asked an Army officer in charge of our portion of the development about the armor and sloped sides. He said, “we’ll have complete control of the battle, including air dominance and ground control out beyond the range of any enemy weapon big enough to take out a vehicle.” (It sounded like he’d memorized a talking point.)
That was before IED’s and the merging of the battlefield with the civilian population. Even Hummers were getting their crews killed and in some respects they were more robust than the FCS vehicles we were designing.
It was pure fantasy. But the program continued and billions of dollars were wasted. But the important thing was accomplished. Those dollars transferred from the government to industry. Industry kicked money back to politicians. Military men got to add to their resumes and to direct money to companies that they would later work for when they retired. Mission accomplished.
I see the F-35 as another FCS. And, the first time an F-35 shoots down a civilian target that it fired at beyond visual range the president will sign a new ROI specifying that the pilot must have a visual on the target before he fires. When that happens, say goodbye to the F-35.
Use their religion AGAINST them !
The issue, though, is not just one of pursuing new innovations in weaponry. Expecting modern warfare to play out the way the Pentagon plans is a risk that has to be addressed head-on.
The Pentagon must plan for the worst day of war, not the best."
We’ll need to look to Israel. Due to lack of resources the Israelis have invested heavily in drones. They are the largest producer of drones in the world. I suspect that if there’s a war with Iran the Israelis will rely mostly on drones. Cheap, cost effective and disposable, they’ll likely run rings around manned aircraft. And, if you lose them at a ratio of one to one, who cares. The economics work out. You don’t risk having a pilot being captured and used to torture your side with heart-rending videos.
We should be investing in pilotless drones, brilliant mines and space technology. Instead we’re investing in upgraded world war two concepts like aircraft carriers. Our huge Navy is mostly to protect them. Knock them out and the rest of the Navy is without a job.
I recently read that for the cost of one aircraft carrier China could build over a million drones. Flood the air with just a fraction of that number and one will get through and do the job.
Bush 1 wanted to replace aircraft carriers with submergible bombardment platforms that were mostly automated. While admirals delivered the pitch to Congress senior captains visited each Senator and Representative to tell them what a bad idea it was. The plan was to replace entire carrier battle groups with this largely automated and essentially disposable platform that could deliver substantially more ordinance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.