2 ms·

The U.S. military publicly agreed with your argument until a few years ago. To bomb primitive foes like ISIL or the Taliban, they don't even need F-16s; low-end

The U.S. military publicly agreed with your argument until a few years ago. To bomb primitive foes like ISIL or the Taliban, they don't even need F-16s; low-end planes or drones can do the job. Sec Def Bob Gates canceled several high-end weapons programs planned in the Cold War for that reason. But now the U.S. military expects to compete with 'near-peer' enemies such as China and Russia, and that is what they are preparing for. In that threat environment, any advantage or disadvantage can be significant.

philwelch 9y ago
Direct, conventional war between the US and another major nuclear power isn’t a likely threat model. As soon as one side starts losing, the nukes are gonna come out and conventional forces become irrelevant. So it doesn’t matter if the USAF can go toe-to-toe with the Russian Air Force or the Chinese. What does matter is whether Ukraine or Poland or Turkey or Japan or Korea can effectively resist Russian or Chinese conventional warfare. As long as they can, then we only have to worry about being able to stomp countries like Iran, and in that environment, Super Hornets are plenty.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  > Direct, conventional war between the US and another major nuclear power isn’t a likely threat model. As soon as one side starts losing, the nukes are gonna come out and conventional forces become irrelevant. A few thoughts: 1. You may be correct. 2. But 'not likely' isn't sufficient odds when it comes to survival of the U.S. and its allies. The U.S. has to be prepared for unlikely and even very unlikely threats when they are existential. 3. The U.S. government believes it must prepare for near-peer warfare; it's unchallenged consensus in national security circles AFAICT. That doesn't make it correct, but that does have some weight. 4. The Russians explicitly disagree. Look up their 'escalate to de-escalate' tactics, which includes use of nuclear weapons in limited warfare. 5. Some hawks in China believe they can, through a fast, aggressive strike, drive the U.S. out of certain strategic areas and intimidate the U.S. into substantially withdrawing from East Asia. 6. Strong conventional forces can deter Russian and Chinese hawks from doing something crazy.
  - philwelch 9y ago
    OK, those are some fair points. I'm still not convinced that the marginal difference between specialized naval and terrestrial fighter-bombers is the most cost-effective way to move the needle, though. Even against near-peer adversaries, the US and its allies have substantial naval and air superiority. Wouldn't it make more sense to focus on pressing those advantages? (Of course, we kind of foreclosed on that by shutting down the F-22 and doubling down on the F-35...)

philwelch 9y ago

Direct, conventional war between the US and another major nuclear power isn’t a likely threat model. As soon as one side starts losing, the nukes are gonna come out and conventional forces become irrelevant. So it doesn’t matter if the USAF can go toe-to-toe with the Russian Air Force or the Chinese. What does matter is whether Ukraine or Poland or Turkey or Japan or Korea can effectively resist Russian or Chinese conventional warfare. As long as they can, then we only have to worry about being able to stomp countries like Iran, and in that environment, Super Hornets are plenty.

forapurpose 9y ago
> Direct, conventional war between the US and another major nuclear power isn’t a likely threat model. As soon as one side starts losing, the nukes are gonna come out and conventional forces become irrelevant. A few thoughts: 1. You may be correct. 2. But 'not likely' isn't sufficient odds when it comes to survival of the U.S. and its allies. The U.S. has to be prepared for unlikely and even very unlikely threats when they are existential. 3. The U.S. government believes it must prepare for near-peer warfare; it's unchallenged consensus in national security circles AFAICT. That doesn't make it correct, but that does have some weight. 4. The Russians explicitly disagree. Look up their 'escalate to de-escalate' tactics, which includes use of nuclear weapons in limited warfare. 5. Some hawks in China believe they can, through a fast, aggressive strike, drive the U.S. out of certain strategic areas and intimidate the U.S. into substantially withdrawing from East Asia. 6. Strong conventional forces can deter Russian and Chinese hawks from doing something crazy.
- philwelch 9y ago
  OK, those are some fair points. I'm still not convinced that the marginal difference between specialized naval and terrestrial fighter-bombers is the most cost-effective way to move the needle, though. Even against near-peer adversaries, the US and its allies have substantial naval and air superiority. Wouldn't it make more sense to focus on pressing those advantages? (Of course, we kind of foreclosed on that by shutting down the F-22 and doubling down on the F-35...)