Very sobering report, nothing is more true than the inertia of bureaucrats. If history is any guide we will require a war where the enemy inflicts damage in the continental US for meaningful change. As reported industries are asked to produce thousands of missiles, etc. in a very short time, 2 years in some instances. The speed of technological change more than likely will make these inventories obsolete inside 5 to 10 years and then what happens, do we build thousands of new inventories and scrap the old. Seems like we are running in a squirrel cage, chasing the newest tech but never getting ahead.
It's no great wonder Venture capitalists heavy into defense are pushing for a different kind of geopolitics behind the scenes. This was a really great piece.
If the tech bros come up with stuff that can defeat the four overarching problems against peer adversaries: distance, geography, physics, and their A2AD defenses, then the DoW (I still can’t believe I wrote the W…) will buy. The sad fact is that their “low cost” offers have performance shortcomings with distance/geography/lethality/ability-to-defeat-A2AD. They are always going to be the cautiously procured “low” is a “high-low” mix, until they can really prove themselves. Defeating Today’s adversary threats is hard, the environments are harsh, and the distances required to shoot from sanctuary get longer every year. Camcopters ain’t going to cut it against targets on the home turf of NK, China, Iran, Russia. When their stuff is demonstrated to work effectively and reliably against those threats and adversaries, then the DoW will buy. Until then, keep kicking at air. I would suggest another meme in place of Charlie Brown and Lucy: the first MIB movie where Tommy Lee Jones says to his wisecracking Will Smith: (paraphrasing) “Sure Slick, but as of right now your skills mean precisely dick!”
I would however, like to give a shout out to Castillion and their MACE effort with Naval Aviation - I hope that non-traditional offering is successful in upcoming testing. Please put some focus on that effort for regular reporting. I think that could be more promising and useful,if successful, in the short run, than all the hype given to the trusted wingman and MUSV / container stuff.
This perspective is driven by a lack of imagination (and maybe the resource curse). I think the last few years have shown us how multiple different countries have used lower cost capabilities to achieve serious operational (and political) effects.
Not saying the operational environment isn't challenging (I've seen all the threat briefs) but not every mission requires an F-47 and a 2,000 mi stand-off weapon either. We need to get better at asymmetric capabilities that can be combined with other low-cost effects.
Right now we're stuck in cold war mentality about what is needed to achieve the required military outcomes.
I will agree with @Matt that new methods of war fighting - some asymmetric to complement the traditional - are necessary. Unfortunately there’s not near enough of that critical thinking going on inside the Pentagon. That, along with much more than experimentation/demonstration, is necessary. But, this needs doing to determine the right war fighting concepts of employment for operational mission success are determined, before all the bright shiny objects are contracted for at scale.
Very sobering report, nothing is more true than the inertia of bureaucrats. If history is any guide we will require a war where the enemy inflicts damage in the continental US for meaningful change. As reported industries are asked to produce thousands of missiles, etc. in a very short time, 2 years in some instances. The speed of technological change more than likely will make these inventories obsolete inside 5 to 10 years and then what happens, do we build thousands of new inventories and scrap the old. Seems like we are running in a squirrel cage, chasing the newest tech but never getting ahead.
It's no great wonder Venture capitalists heavy into defense are pushing for a different kind of geopolitics behind the scenes. This was a really great piece.
I’d climb back on my “it’s culture” soapbox, but you got there with the comment about the Lucys 2 or 3 layers in.
If the tech bros come up with stuff that can defeat the four overarching problems against peer adversaries: distance, geography, physics, and their A2AD defenses, then the DoW (I still can’t believe I wrote the W…) will buy. The sad fact is that their “low cost” offers have performance shortcomings with distance/geography/lethality/ability-to-defeat-A2AD. They are always going to be the cautiously procured “low” is a “high-low” mix, until they can really prove themselves. Defeating Today’s adversary threats is hard, the environments are harsh, and the distances required to shoot from sanctuary get longer every year. Camcopters ain’t going to cut it against targets on the home turf of NK, China, Iran, Russia. When their stuff is demonstrated to work effectively and reliably against those threats and adversaries, then the DoW will buy. Until then, keep kicking at air. I would suggest another meme in place of Charlie Brown and Lucy: the first MIB movie where Tommy Lee Jones says to his wisecracking Will Smith: (paraphrasing) “Sure Slick, but as of right now your skills mean precisely dick!”
I would however, like to give a shout out to Castillion and their MACE effort with Naval Aviation - I hope that non-traditional offering is successful in upcoming testing. Please put some focus on that effort for regular reporting. I think that could be more promising and useful,if successful, in the short run, than all the hype given to the trusted wingman and MUSV / container stuff.
Sure. It’s the young guys who are the problem, not 800,000 old ladies. 💩
🤣
This perspective is driven by a lack of imagination (and maybe the resource curse). I think the last few years have shown us how multiple different countries have used lower cost capabilities to achieve serious operational (and political) effects.
Not saying the operational environment isn't challenging (I've seen all the threat briefs) but not every mission requires an F-47 and a 2,000 mi stand-off weapon either. We need to get better at asymmetric capabilities that can be combined with other low-cost effects.
Right now we're stuck in cold war mentality about what is needed to achieve the required military outcomes.
I will agree with @Matt that new methods of war fighting - some asymmetric to complement the traditional - are necessary. Unfortunately there’s not near enough of that critical thinking going on inside the Pentagon. That, along with much more than experimentation/demonstration, is necessary. But, this needs doing to determine the right war fighting concepts of employment for operational mission success are determined, before all the bright shiny objects are contracted for at scale.