17 August 2016

Ka Ching!

Guess what, despite the fact that the US spends more on defense than the next 7 nations, we still need to flush even more money down the toilet to combat coming Russian and Chinese technological superiority:
The fight against the Islamic State may get the headlines. But it’s the military threats from Russia and China that most worry top Pentagon officials — and are driving a new arms race to deter these great-power rivals.

This question of how to deal with Russian and Chinese military advances has gotten almost no attention in the 2016 presidential campaign. But it deserves a careful look. The programs begun in the waning days of the Obama administration could potentially change the face of warfare, in the United States’ favor, but they would require political support and new spending by the next president.

A drive to build exotic versions of conventional weapons may sound crazy in a world that already has too much military conflict. But advocates argue that strengthening U.S. conventional forces might be the only way to avoid escalation to nuclear weapons if war with Moscow or Beijing began.

Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work argued for the new deterrence strategy in a presentation this month to the bipartisan Aspen Strategy Group, amplifying comments he made to me in an interview in February. The approach, awkwardly named the “third offset strategy,” would leverage the United States’ technological superiority by creating weapons that could complicate attack planning by an adversary.

The premise is that as Russia and China modernize their militaries, the United States must exploit its lead in high-tech warfare. In the world envisioned by Pentagon planners, the United States could field an array of drones in the sky, unmanned submarines beneath the seas and advanced systems on the ground that could overwhelm an adversary’s battle-management networks. Like the two previous “offsets,” battlefield nuclear weapons in the 1950s and precise conventional weapons in the 1970s, this one would seek to restore lost U.S. military dominance.
Those lucrative retirement gigs for Generals don't pay for themselves.

The US military is looking at reducing the number of troops, to pay for the bling, which is exactly the wrong thing to do.

The markedly inferior Grumman F4F Wildcat achieved a 6.9:1 kill ratio over the Mitsubishi A6M Zero, an aircraft that could literally fly rings around it.

They did so because of superior tactics, superior situational awareness (better radar and radios), and a training regime that produced better trained pilots more quickly.

Technological superiority does not necessarily win wars.  Ask a Tiger tank commander in WWII about that.


Post a Comment