Interestingly, the "build thousands of cheap weapons systems/platforms vs. build a relative few very expensive weapons platforms" was the difference in approach to warfare between the USSR and the US during the Cold War. The Soviets built thousands of cheaper MIG's and the US build hundreds of very expensive F-4's, F-14's and F-15's. The…
Interestingly, the "build thousands of cheap weapons systems/platforms vs. build a relative few very expensive weapons platforms" was the difference in approach to warfare between the USSR and the US during the Cold War. The Soviets built thousands of cheaper MIG's and the US build hundreds of very expensive F-4's, F-14's and F-15's. The Soviets built 25,000 T-72 tanks at 1-2 million dollars each while America built 10,000 M-1's at something like 25 million each. Our systems, one-on-one were way more capable but the Soviets were able to field way more jets/tanks/etc. In our smallish or limited proxy wars with Soviet clients it appeared as if our approach was more valid. We and our allies shot down way more MIG's than they shot down our fighters, for example. Now it appears the "flood the battlefield with super cheap systems" has won out over our philosophy of maintaining super-expensive platforms. I hope people at the Pentagon are keeping up with the times. Of course, they will have to convince Lockheed, General Dynamics and the rest of the Military Industrial complex, and their benefactors in Congress, that small, cheap platforms are the better approach. Not holding my breath.
When I was on active duty in the 70's and 80's this was a highly debated topic both within and outside the military. I'm not sure that drones and it's related tech settles the argument forever, but it certainly appears that for the foreseeable future the battlefield will be dominated by the cheaper tech-enabled platforms.
Like WS Gilbert's modern Major General, my military knowledge though I'm plucky and adventurey (not really, but it rhymes) has only been brought down to the beginning of the century... how long will an aircraft carrier task force last against hundreds of hypersonic missiles?
Luckily I guess we won't need to worry about losing a fleet trying to defend Taiwan. Because no way will we try.
Interestingly, the "build thousands of cheap weapons systems/platforms vs. build a relative few very expensive weapons platforms" was the difference in approach to warfare between the USSR and the US during the Cold War. The Soviets built thousands of cheaper MIG's and the US build hundreds of very expensive F-4's, F-14's and F-15's. The Soviets built 25,000 T-72 tanks at 1-2 million dollars each while America built 10,000 M-1's at something like 25 million each. Our systems, one-on-one were way more capable but the Soviets were able to field way more jets/tanks/etc. In our smallish or limited proxy wars with Soviet clients it appeared as if our approach was more valid. We and our allies shot down way more MIG's than they shot down our fighters, for example. Now it appears the "flood the battlefield with super cheap systems" has won out over our philosophy of maintaining super-expensive platforms. I hope people at the Pentagon are keeping up with the times. Of course, they will have to convince Lockheed, General Dynamics and the rest of the Military Industrial complex, and their benefactors in Congress, that small, cheap platforms are the better approach. Not holding my breath.
James Fallows wrote this back when I was barely not a teenager any longer.
When I was on active duty in the 70's and 80's this was a highly debated topic both within and outside the military. I'm not sure that drones and it's related tech settles the argument forever, but it certainly appears that for the foreseeable future the battlefield will be dominated by the cheaper tech-enabled platforms.
Like WS Gilbert's modern Major General, my military knowledge though I'm plucky and adventurey (not really, but it rhymes) has only been brought down to the beginning of the century... how long will an aircraft carrier task force last against hundreds of hypersonic missiles?
Luckily I guess we won't need to worry about losing a fleet trying to defend Taiwan. Because no way will we try.