4 ms·

> In the mid-2000s, the Army decided to cancel the technologically revolutionary, expensive, and long-delayed RAH-66 and Congress allowed it to reinvest the RAH

> In the mid-2000s, the Army decided to cancel the technologically revolutionary, expensive, and long-delayed RAH-66 and Congress allowed it to reinvest the RAH-66 money into known quantities like UH-60, CH-47, and AH-64 instead. We got whole new fleets of those aircraft with upgraded capabilities, and then we all saw how they were reliable workhorses over the last 20 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think that choosing the Valor reflects this lesson-learned. ... If we actually want to get something out of this program, the right decision is probably to "not let perfect be the enemy of good." ... That seems to be the Department of Defense's general approach these days, but I wonder if they are just fighting the last war. Against forces that are already massively outgunned, such as ISIL or the Taliban who generally had only rifles, explosives, and RPGs, improving technology generally doesn't help. Against 'near-peer' foes (the euphemism for China), it may pay to invest in the truly exceptional, ground-breaking technology - you don't want your ship or city defended by good-enough, economical fighters and anti-air; you want to see some X-wing fighters up there shooting lasers at their old turbine and missile buggies; you want what stealth bombers looked like next to the Soviet fleet. That said, tilt-rotors are still a big step forward from standard helicopters.

mandevil 3y ago
With the obvious caveat that if there ever actually is a shooting war with China on one side and the US on the other then the whole world is in serious trouble and there are no good options: I am not sure that having superior technology is critical to winning wars against "peer" competitors. The last time there was a full out peer-competitor bleeding edge war between major powers (World War Two) the side that invested in a few wonderwaffen that were supposed to eviscerate their larger number of enemies lost, and the side that invested in a lot of pretty good weapons and most importantly, the logistics and reliability to have these pretty good weapons actually show up at the battlefront won the war. It's hard to directly translate this into modern terms, but I would say that a few pieces of "exceptional, ground-breaking technology" wasn't what decided World War Two, so why do you think it would decide this hypothetical war?
- wolverine876 3y ago
  Good points, especially about the extremely hypothetical nature of these issues, though I'm not suggesting better technology to the exclusion of logistics. As a counterpoint, NATOs strategy in the Cold War was to 'offset' superior Soviet numbers by having better technology - first by having more nuclear weapons, then by using the superior technology of precision munitions and the associated global navigation and sensor network (so the munitions can track their own position and locate their targets) as demonstrated in the Gulf War. But by far the most important point: > With the obvious caveat that if there ever actually is a shooting war with China on one side and the US on the other then the whole world is in serious trouble and there are no good options: I think about that, and I never heard it said (so thanks): At the end of WWII, the leaders of the combatants thought that future large-scale war must be prevented because the improving technology would wipe out civilization, thus they created the UN, (proto-)EU, etc. That was 80 years ago. A war with China may very well include, for example, missiles hitting San Francisco, LA, SD, Seattle. Even if the US won, it would lose badly.
  - SEJeff 3y ago
    > A war with China may very well include, for example, missiles hitting San Francisco, LA, SD, Seattle. Even if the US won, it would lose badly. This is how ALL wars are, and I can say this confidently as a combat veteran from Operation Iraqi Freedom II. When you fight in a war, you always lose a small bit of yourself. There is no turning back. When someone in either side is injured or especially dies, both sides permanently lose. The thing about war many civilians never seem to understand is that one side loses less, but both sides still lose. If this was untrue, we would not have such a high number of homeless veterans or veterans who commit suicide. Personally, I know of six soldiers I deployed to Iraq with who have committed suicide over the past 20 years (OIF II was ~2003-2004). No one ever wants to talk about these things in polite company, but you can never take these things back. War is hell.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      Hey - you are right and I should have included that essential point. I was focused on other issues, but the whole thing makes me angry. The all-volunteer, professional US military, for all its advantages, loses civilian familiarity with the realities of the military and warfare - people seem to know Call of Duty, where killing is like shooting baskets. When I see people glorify the military, soldiers and warfare, or talk about it like a sporting event ('win' and 'lose' (my bad) should be banned from the discussion of warfare) I feel very uneasy: First, people have those extreme, romantic conceptions of things they don't understand; when there was universal conscription, the military was a stand-in for bureaucratic absurdity (e.g., Gomer Pyle, MASH, expressions like FUBAR and SNAFU), not glorification; war veterans generally (IME) are not war mongers. Also, I feel a little queasy; I think, 'it creates (intentionally, in the hands of some public figures) the public mindset that makes it easier'. And finally - again, maybe intentionally for some, maybe subconsciously for many - it shuts down the actual experiences of veterans; it makes clear that there is only space for the 'glorious' version of warfare and anything else is almost antisocial. Finally, it all lets people put warfare on the back burner, which IMHO is how Afghanistan and Iraq lasted so long. My (very amateur) policy idea is that the US should bring back universal conscription but only for the reserves (and no exceptions, as a hard and fast rule). Sure, it's not as optimal as volunteers, former active duty, etc. But then there would be real skin in the game for everyone, and everyone's families and friends. They'd understand the military, and what warfare was about. I hope no more hyping war with China (or Iran!). I'm very sorry about your friends and for what you lost. We need to do far better with how seriously we take warfare and how we treat soldiers when they come home. It's really absurd. Thanks for sharing your experience.
warner25 3y ago
You're right, this is always the tension because we're assuming risks either way. My half-serious CH-47 proposal, in particular, is probably the extreme version of "fighting the last war." I think the consensus within the DoD by the mid to late-2000s was that the pendulum had swung way too far in the direction of technologically advanced but small and expensive, and there was a cultural revolution to swing things back in the other direction. Senior DoD and service leaders today are really a product of that. I read a fresh opinion piece just yesterday arguing that we're still erring on the side of being too small and expensive, with which I tend to agree: https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2024/01/pentagon-has-been-learning-wrong-lessons-three-decades/393765/ https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2024/01/pentagon-has-been-l...
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > I think the consensus within the DoD by the mid to late-2000s was that the pendulum had swung way too far in the direction of technologically advanced but small and expensive, and there was a cultural revolution to swing things back in the other direction. Senior DoD and service leaders today are really a product of that. Yes, the joke was that US military bought fewer and fewer, more and more expensive items, and soon the entire DoD budget would be spent on one plane.

mandevil 3y ago

With the obvious caveat that if there ever actually is a shooting war with China on one side and the US on the other then the whole world is in serious trouble and there are no good options: I am not sure that having superior technology is critical to winning wars against "peer" competitors. The last time there was a full out peer-competitor bleeding edge war between major powers (World War Two) the side that invested in a few wonderwaffen that were supposed to eviscerate their larger number of enemies lost, and the side that invested in a lot of pretty good weapons and most importantly, the logistics and reliability to have these pretty good weapons actually show up at the battlefront won the war. It's hard to directly translate this into modern terms, but I would say that a few pieces of "exceptional, ground-breaking technology" wasn't what decided World War Two, so why do you think it would decide this hypothetical war?

wolverine876 3y ago
Good points, especially about the extremely hypothetical nature of these issues, though I'm not suggesting better technology to the exclusion of logistics. As a counterpoint, NATOs strategy in the Cold War was to 'offset' superior Soviet numbers by having better technology - first by having more nuclear weapons, then by using the superior technology of precision munitions and the associated global navigation and sensor network (so the munitions can track their own position and locate their targets) as demonstrated in the Gulf War. But by far the most important point: > With the obvious caveat that if there ever actually is a shooting war with China on one side and the US on the other then the whole world is in serious trouble and there are no good options: I think about that, and I never heard it said (so thanks): At the end of WWII, the leaders of the combatants thought that future large-scale war must be prevented because the improving technology would wipe out civilization, thus they created the UN, (proto-)EU, etc. That was 80 years ago. A war with China may very well include, for example, missiles hitting San Francisco, LA, SD, Seattle. Even if the US won, it would lose badly.
- SEJeff 3y ago
  > A war with China may very well include, for example, missiles hitting San Francisco, LA, SD, Seattle. Even if the US won, it would lose badly. This is how ALL wars are, and I can say this confidently as a combat veteran from Operation Iraqi Freedom II. When you fight in a war, you always lose a small bit of yourself. There is no turning back. When someone in either side is injured or especially dies, both sides permanently lose. The thing about war many civilians never seem to understand is that one side loses less, but both sides still lose. If this was untrue, we would not have such a high number of homeless veterans or veterans who commit suicide. Personally, I know of six soldiers I deployed to Iraq with who have committed suicide over the past 20 years (OIF II was ~2003-2004). No one ever wants to talk about these things in polite company, but you can never take these things back. War is hell.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    Hey - you are right and I should have included that essential point. I was focused on other issues, but the whole thing makes me angry. The all-volunteer, professional US military, for all its advantages, loses civilian familiarity with the realities of the military and warfare - people seem to know Call of Duty, where killing is like shooting baskets. When I see people glorify the military, soldiers and warfare, or talk about it like a sporting event ('win' and 'lose' (my bad) should be banned from the discussion of warfare) I feel very uneasy: First, people have those extreme, romantic conceptions of things they don't understand; when there was universal conscription, the military was a stand-in for bureaucratic absurdity (e.g., Gomer Pyle, MASH, expressions like FUBAR and SNAFU), not glorification; war veterans generally (IME) are not war mongers. Also, I feel a little queasy; I think, 'it creates (intentionally, in the hands of some public figures) the public mindset that makes it easier'. And finally - again, maybe intentionally for some, maybe subconsciously for many - it shuts down the actual experiences of veterans; it makes clear that there is only space for the 'glorious' version of warfare and anything else is almost antisocial. Finally, it all lets people put warfare on the back burner, which IMHO is how Afghanistan and Iraq lasted so long. My (very amateur) policy idea is that the US should bring back universal conscription but only for the reserves (and no exceptions, as a hard and fast rule). Sure, it's not as optimal as volunteers, former active duty, etc. But then there would be real skin in the game for everyone, and everyone's families and friends. They'd understand the military, and what warfare was about. I hope no more hyping war with China (or Iran!). I'm very sorry about your friends and for what you lost. We need to do far better with how seriously we take warfare and how we treat soldiers when they come home. It's really absurd. Thanks for sharing your experience.

warner25 3y ago

You're right, this is always the tension because we're assuming risks either way. My half-serious CH-47 proposal, in particular, is probably the extreme version of "fighting the last war." I think the consensus within the DoD by the mid to late-2000s was that the pendulum had swung way too far in the direction of technologically advanced but small and expensive, and there was a cultural revolution to swing things back in the other direction. Senior DoD and service leaders today are really a product of that. I read a fresh opinion piece just yesterday arguing that we're still erring on the side of being too small and expensive, with which I tend to agree: https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2024/01/pentagon-has-been-learning-wrong-lessons-three-decades/393765/ https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2024/01/pentagon-has-been-l...

wolverine876 3y ago
> I think the consensus within the DoD by the mid to late-2000s was that the pendulum had swung way too far in the direction of technologically advanced but small and expensive, and there was a cultural revolution to swing things back in the other direction. Senior DoD and service leaders today are really a product of that. Yes, the joke was that US military bought fewer and fewer, more and more expensive items, and soon the entire DoD budget would be spent on one plane.