3 ms·
Part of the problem is the missions the Pentagon imagines itself in, versus the missions they wind up in. Dreaming of fighting a high-tech peer is one thing, bu
by beat 8y ago
Part of the problem is the missions the Pentagon imagines itself in, versus the missions they wind up in. Dreaming of fighting a high-tech peer is one thing, but we've spent 15 years needing close air support for ground troops under fire from irregular infantry who are themselves in light vehicles or under minimal fortification (ie behind rocks or in regular buildings). And when your weapon for that is a single high-end bomb from a plane that costs tens of millions of dollars and is flying too fast to actually see the battlefield... well, that's a recipe for ineffective air support, collateral damage, and friendly fire deaths, not to mention some outrageous costs and a lot of air time on planes that cost a lot to maintain.
But another problem with American policy is a need to keep American casualties to a minimum, to the point of being the overriding directive.
So from a combat perspective, a good solution is light, low-cost planes that can fly from very rough airstrips close by, armed with a light cannon that can shred buildings, light armor, and other low-intensity cover, and fly slow enough to make in-the-moment decisions from visual inspection by a human pilot. But such a plane is a tempting target for inexpensive, widely available shoulder-fired missiles, or even old-fashioned flak. And then casualties go up. This isn't WWII anymore. America won't tolerate high casualty rates politically for problems that are not existential threats to our nation.
And a cheap low-tech plane solution also has to slot in somewhere between drones (expensive but effective), and the helicopter gunships that have had the mission since Vietnam.
So instead, we're going to keep using hammers to swat flies, because we might need hammers against Russia someday and we're rich anyhow.
- golergka 8y ago> Part of the problem is the missions the Pentagon imagines itself in, versus the missions they wind up in. > So instead, we're going to keep using hammers to swat flies, because we might need hammers against Russia someday and we're rich anyhow. It's the basic game theory: you have to be prepared in wars you don't want to happen, exactly because you being prepared for them prevents it. Preventing conflict by developing ways of measuring outcome of a potential conflict without actually acting it out is a technique that's been used by animals way before humans came along.
- beat 8y agoMutual Assured Destruction has been more effective than high-tech planes at preventing wars between major powers.
- golergka 8y agoMAD prevented a full-on nuclear war. Fighter planes and other high-tech equipment have helpved preventing proxy wars in a lot of hot regions around the globe.
- beat 8y agoWe've been in proxy wars pretty much nonstop since MAD became a thing.
- golergka 8y agoThis is true, but in no way contradicts or disproves my point.
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoWell, it makes it seem that "preventing" means something different to you than it does to me. Perhaps you could clarify your point a bit?
- golergka 8y agoThere are a lot more of proxy countries that don't go to active war and act out conflicts in a diplomatic manner – but you almost always don't notice these situations. Appealing to proxy wars that do happen is a survivorship bias.
- hectorr1 8y agoWhy are drones too expensive? When you consider pilot cost and risk it seems like you should be able to get a ton of savings. Seems like you could build a drone that meets your other specifications. You can either spend the saved lbs on more armor and weapons, or make the aircraft lighter for even shorter takeoff. My cynical view is that too many people wearing stars grew up in the cockpit, and are still fixated on human pilots. If a remote drone manager in Henderson can handoff a CAS asset to your control, why do you need a human pilot in the mix?