Militaries are expensive for a country to maintain and develop. It has always been that way. Every tribe, nation and empire has contended with the scarcity of resources. Economic output and materials used for a military is resources and development denied elsewhere. The United States is no different. We have a very plush defense budget with unparalleled military power. The U.S. has relied more on machines and developing newer technology than from sheer manpower. No where did this stand out more than in WWII. Sure we had the capacity and the resources to out produce the other countries involved in the conflict. And there was economic value in turning out thousands of tanks, aircraft, vehicles, and ships. It employed a nation coming out of its greatest depression. But in the process America grew accustomed to providing the very best equipment and machines to lower the burden on the American soldier and families. That has continued more so today. Secondly, you only have to build it once, maintain it and then scrap it when it is done. Machines don’t need housing, training, healthcare, paychecks, incentives or retirement. They don’t come back in flag draped coffins when they are permanently knocked out of operation. A few good armored divisions and adequate air support can make up for an army of a million men while also being substantially less expensive.
Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, relayed those sentiments by making a bold statement back in May that concluded, in his opinion, the future of aviation and military warfare will continue progress along that same standard. He sees the very real chance that the F-35 may be the last pilot-manned fighter for the U.S.
So, what the aviation side of this is, I think, is very much focused on this change. And I think we’re at the beginning of this change. I mean, there are those that see JSF as the last manned fighter — or fighter-bomber, or jet. And I’m one of — you know, I’m one that’s inclined to believe that. I don’t know if that’s exactly right. But, this all speaks to the change that goes out, you know, many — obviously, decades, including how much unmanned we’re going to have and how it’s going to be resourced.
My initial thought is that there is probably a lot of merit and truth to that. It is only a matter of time before better technology can out produce what we have now for unmanned drones, which are substantially increasing in efficiency and have proven to be the workhorse for missions in Afghanistan. Plus, it would reduce costs by reducing the number in manpower. But, I would caution anyone who thinks America’s wars will be fought by cyborgs or Rambots. That includes future aviation. The need for human intelligence, planning, expertise and decision making will never be replaced. A natural transition for better hardware and technology to assist the war fighter doesn’t constitute a total usurpation of the human element of warfare. Our struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan show beyond any comparison the need for a large, well trained and well equipped army. Newer unmanned aircraft can and will do the job more efficiently at lower costs, both economically and in terms of human capital, where it is possible. But, there will always be the highest demand for well trained men asked to do an impossible job in the name of national defense. Just as it has always been since the primitive age of Achilles’ day. To the Special Forces operator on a mountain in Afghanistan trained to speak two languages and make head shots 1,000 meters away. And to think otherwise is pure fantasy.
Besides, what will they tell these guys.
Update: Looks like I am not the only that sees it this way. American Power has a good post on the subject discussing the quick political endorsement from the left, along with nuclear disarmament, “Unmanned Fighter Aircraft (And the Left)“
Jason
Mike
2 responses so far ↓
Mike // July 10, 2009 at 2:02 am
Here is the problem with the F-35 concept.
From Global Security,
“Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Denmark, Australia, and Norway recently joined the F-35’s system development and demonstration (SDD) phase.”
It’s the “international” thing I am hung up on. How many countries do we have to share our military tech with before we can make it fair for our opponents?
sanityinjection // July 13, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Actually, the cost of military technology is higher than you think. Machines do need “housing” – not only requiring long-term storage facilities but also short-term facilities in operational theaters. Implementation of new military technology requires new training for the soldiers who work with it and often increased pay to reflect their new specialization. Also – and I hate to even say this – from a purely economic perspective it’s more expensive to replace a fighter jet than to replace the pilot who flies it.
We’ve seen the limitations of technology all too well in Iraq and Afghanistan. We can obliterate any opposing military force with technology, but without a sufficient number of bodies on the ground (in the absence of a capable native force to work with) we can’t hold territory and prevent the enemy from returning once our fancy machines have moved on to another target. In military terms, this means that technology is great for “degrading enemy capabilities” and lousy for “pacification”.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against technology at all. It is the essence of the advantage our military has over even our own allies, and it’s a key ingredient in our security. I believe in spending money to make sure we are at the forefront of military technology, but like you I think we need to be realistic about its limitations.
Interestingly, this has a corollary with respect to immigration policy. Many of America’s top military technologies – including the atomic bomb – were developed by immigrants. In formulating a 21st century immigration policy, we must be sure to maintain incentives for scientists, engineers, doctors, and students to bring their talents here as opposed to someplace else. If we hang a “No Vacancy” sign on our borders as some of the more extreme anti-immigration voices would have us do, there could be long-term consequences for our own national security.