Military AI Works

From AF Daily Report 20 Mar 09

The Other Shoe: The aerospace industry was badly rattled recently by a leaked memo that the Office of Management and Budget wanted the Pentagon to consider postponing a new aerial tanker by five years and killing the 2018 bomber project outright. But that wasn't all OMB had its eyes on, according to Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute. Speaking yesterday in Washington, D.C., at an event sponsored by AFA's Mitchell Institute for Airpower Studies (see above), Thompson said the OMB passed on other "suggestions" that signal the White House's intent to cut defense programs deeply. "What you didn't hear about," Thompson claimed, were suggestions to cut the airborne laser, the transformational satellite communications system, further C-130 purchases, and even a new aircraft carrier. And, that was just for Fiscal 2010. In 2011, Thompson asserted, OMB wants the Pentagon to terminate the F-22 and Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet and sharply reduce buys of the F-35. "These are exciting times," Thompson joked, "like Pearl Harbor was exciting." Unless China suddenly gets visibly belligerent or terrorist attacks in the US resume, Thompson sees little traction for keeping all these programs in a budget drowning in red ink. "This spells big trouble for US airpower," he said.

Its really sad imho. I know this has been talked about before but we're setting ourselves up to be caught with our pants down in the future.

I understand money doesn't grow on trees but at the same time I don't think most people on the hill really understand how the military works and what it needs to be effective.

All these talks are really, really starting to make me fairly nervous

It's just the same situation we have in France...politics don't know how much the militaries are important both in economical and social ways

In this crisis period, increasing military orders would be good for the economy and can improve our efficiency...

The following won't be a popular argument in this forum... but, here goes anyway.

If the Air War in Yugoslavia, Gulf Wars 1 and 2, and Afghanistan have shown anything, they've illustrated clearly that one can bomb people back to the Stone Age but without troops on the ground, you actually gain nothing in terms of controlling what occurs politically on the ground over the long term. As such, I think we/the US will see a return to funding more mobile, relatively lightly equipped (gun caliber-wise) ground forces. They're likely to be forces somewhere between a regular infantry division and an airborne assault division in terms of unit composition.

The financing of such units is much less and therefore more palatable and easily sold to the American public than the over-budget, over-hyped "8666th" generation stealth-fighter/-bomber/tanker of the future. PArt of the rhetorical sales-pitch problem is the American public doesn't see any aviation threat because of the success in the conflicts I mentioned above. In today's economy, big ticket, gee-whiz aviation items will be hard to justify while ground units will be argued to be more reasonable and "sufficient" (you'll probably hear arguments, however, that producing such aircraft is a necessity on a local economy scale - from every Congressman/Senator with a plant in his district/state).

The politics of the last 30 years has illustrated this boom-bust cycle for USAF/USN funding multiple times while USA/USMC-ground forces have had minimal successes in total $$ comparison. I think it's really likely that the Obama administration will follow Clinton and try to cut the deficit by cutting out big ticket items while offering "sop's" of maintaining or slightly building up ground forces as a "political middle road". This middle road might result in more transport aircraft contracts in 2-3 years, but my crystal ball is still cloudy on that point.

One person's opinion.

Well said Ford. While I don't like it, I can't disagree with anything you said lol.

No, I agree with you...what I said in one of the other posts. You have to have boots on the ground. I am all for more airborne units!

We are actually getting our own SF units here in Texas which will be kind of neat. If I was only 10 years younger...

Ford,
You neglected to say the 'battles' you cite were without any enemy airpower. If you ask those boots on the ground if they like aircover I think you will get an answer counter to your premise. Also if you look at how they get 'on the ground' and how the beans and bullets get to them you may get off the idea that it is a one service fight. It is not and never will be decided by one service.
Boots on the ground makes a stirring emotional appeal, but emotional appeals do not replace statistics and the reality of needing an airstrike or supply run. We aren't the Spartans, this is the 21st century.

I think we can all agree on the need for airpower. Especially in a forum and site dedicated to military simulation air power. Us guys on the ground most of all! Circumstances can come upon you in an instant, and you feel like your all alone out there, and all help is greatly appreciated, from anywhere!

However, I think the point really is that this country pulled the military to a too low level to fight a sustained war/large insurgency/war on terror, whatever, it is war. While all services have felt that, the ground forces have felt it the most. Now we are going into a time of scarce resources, thanks to the Wall Street and banking idiots whom have practically brought this country down financially, all in the name of greed! Now everybody including the services are going to feel the bite, and in the end compromises will be made, and nobody will get what they want. This will cause lots of partisan battles, and, of course, the media will make big deals of it, because controversy sells!

End Rant 101 (sigh)....ahh, feels much better!

Lol. Forget Afghanistan, turn the military on AIG!!!!

GZR_Sactargets wrote:Ford,
You neglected to say the 'battles' you cite were without any enemy airpower. If you ask those boots on the ground if they like aircover I think you will get an answer counter to your premise. Also if you look at how they get 'on the ground' and how the beans and bullets get to them you may get off the idea that it is a one service fight. It is not and never will be decided by one service.
Boots on the ground makes a stirring emotional appeal, but emotional appeals do not replace statistics and the reality of needing an airstrike or supply run. We aren't the Spartans, this is the 21st century.

What a ridiculous argument. Sorry, that's not meant as a personal attack. But your post is logically, factually and otherwise simply inane from the perspective of answering mine.

I know that I didn't write that there should only be one military service. Please don't put words in my mouth. And I'm pretty sure that no one else here has either. So, that was a truly wasted sentence.

Do ground troops like air cover? Do children like chocolate? What was your REAL point? Was that what was being posited elsewhere?

Every one of the "actions" I referred to had an "air war". When opfor air forces flee or refuse to engage, well, do you REALLY need the latest and greatest? I assume that you forgot that Iraqi forces essentially did that in GW1 (yes, there were a few engagements) and Serb/Yugoslavian aviation "refused to play" over Yugoslavia. Air to air fighter engagements do NOT define "air war". I'd certainly have thought you, of all people, would grant that. Tell me flyboys enroute somewhere in bad guy land didn't look out their bung holes for SAMs. To me, that's part of "air war". But it doesn't require 100% of forces to be 100% the latest and greatest - not that you argued that. Still, knowing that, I would have expected a generous interpretation of what I wrote, not a narrow one.

Enemy "air power"? You've obviously got a USAF-oriented perspective that not all of us share, nor should we IMHO. To do so is myopic.

Simple fact. If you don't have boots on the ground, you can bomb all day long and not control the contested battelfield. That IS a fact. The underground tunnels in Vietnam are a good example of that fact "in action". So is the Ho Chi Ming trail. Dispute that??? PLEASE don't offer specious "with control of the air we will always win"-style declarations. That's the type of my-service-above-all ridiculousness that has hampered the development of a coherent, cohesive, unifying national military strategy on multiple dimensions since 1776.

IF you read my posts, here and in another thread, I grant that air transport is likely to get a bigger budget share. That pretty much deals with "how the beans and bullets get" to the battlefield. Shrug. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I guess you missed that.

You want to defend a big USAF budget? You want the US to buy new, over-hyped, over-priced, techno/scifi/geewhiz fighters, bombers and transports? Make an argument for them that stands on its own or directly addresses something I/someone else wrote. But please don't distort the argument you are faced with by twisting anything I said.

The worst aspect of my joint service duty was having to deal with "my service" arguments when faced with "threats to the country" arguments. I certainly didn't expect to run into them on this forum.

As I said at the begininng of this post, I don't mean this as a personal attack. But I'm still shaking my head in astonishment as I hit the submit button.

I'm going to go take a Valium now.

Ford Friendly wrote:

GZR_Sactargets wrote:Ford,
You neglected to say the 'battles' you cite were without any enemy airpower. If you ask those boots on the ground if they like aircover I think you will get an answer counter to your premise. Also if you look at how they get 'on the ground' and how the beans and bullets get to them you may get off the idea that it is a one service fight. It is not and never will be decided by one service.
Boots on the ground makes a stirring emotional appeal, but emotional appeals do not replace statistics and the reality of needing an airstrike or supply run. We aren't the Spartans, this is the 21st century.

What a ridiculous argument. Sorry, that's not meant as a personal attack. But your post is logically, factually and otherwise simply inane from the perspective of answering mine.

I know that I didn't write that there should only be one military service. Please don't put words in my mouth. And I'm pretty sure that no one else here has either. So, that was a truly wasted sentence.

Do ground troops like air cover? Do children like chocolate? What was your REAL point? Was that what was being posited elsewhere?

Every one of the "actions" I referred to had an "air war". When opfor air forces flee or refuse to engage, well, do you REALLY need the latest and greatest? I assume that you forgot that Iraqi forces essentially did that in GW1 (yes, there were a few engagements) and Serb/Yugoslavian aviation "refused to play" over Yugoslavia. Air to air fighter engagements do NOT define "air war". I'd certainly have thought you, of all people, would grant that. Tell me flyboys enroute somewhere in bad guy land didn't look out their bung holes for SAMs. To me, that's part of "air war". But it doesn't require 100% of forces to be 100% the latest and greatest - not that you argued that. Still, knowing that, I would have expected a generous interpretation of what I wrote, not a narrow one.

Enemy "air power"? You've obviously got a USAF-oriented perspective that not all of us share, nor should we IMHO. To do so is myopic.

Simple fact. If you don't have boots on the ground, you can bomb all day long and not control the contested battelfield. That IS a fact. The underground tunnels in Vietnam are a good example of that fact "in action". So is the Ho Chi Ming trail. Dispute that??? PLEASE don't offer specious "with control of the air we will always win"-style declarations. That's the type of my-service-above-all ridiculousness that has hampered the development of a coherent, cohesive, unifying national military strategy on multiple dimensions since 1776.

IF you read my posts, here and in another thread, I grant that air transport is likely to get a bigger budget share. That pretty much deals with "how the beans and bullets get" to the battlefield. Shrug. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I guess you missed that.

You want to defend a big USAF budget? You want the US to buy new, over-hyped, over-priced, techno/scifi/geewhiz fighters, bombers and transports? Make an argument for them that stands on its own or directly addresses something I/someone else wrote. But please don't distort the argument you are faced with by twisting anything I said.

The worst aspect of my joint service duty was having to deal with "my service" arguments when faced with "threats to the country" arguments. I certainly didn't expect to run into them on this forum.

As I said at the begininng of this post, I don't mean this as a personal attack. But I'm still shaking my head in astonishment as I hit the submit button.

I'm going to go take a Valium now.

Didn't mean to put you on the defensive. But go back and read your own comments to me and put them on your own discourse. This is a waste of my time and yours. I do see it as a personel attack regardless of your disclaimer. This forum is for rational discussion(I think). Glad you think I don't know what I am talking about. I will consider the source and Ignore it.

At ease men.

BadPvtDan wrote:At ease men.

Yes Sir! It had gone beyond rational responses.

GZR_Sactargets wrote:

BadPvtDan wrote:At ease men.

Yes Sir! It had gone beyond rational responses.

Nope I'm an NCO

GZR_Sactargets wrote:I do see it as a personel attack regardless of your disclaimer. This forum is for rational discussion(I think). Glad you think I don't know what I am talking about. I will consider the source and Ignore it.

I can't control what your reaction to what I wrote is. If you took offense.... shrug. You either believe what I said - that it wasn't an attack - or you don't. I'll repeat here and now, I didn't intend it as a personal attack.

I didn't say you don't know what you are talking about. I said you made an inane argument. That's my opinion. I have done so myself once or twice. That's a fact. Intelligent people can make questionable arguments regardless of their life experiences.

If anyone chooses to ignore my posts, okay. I won't take insult at that. I'm pretty sure that I've lived in ignorance of such things by other people at various times in my life.

If people want to continue to discuss the original post, responses to it, etc., great. I'll sit back and watch for a while. Perhaps others have something to contribute?

Where's the love tonight?

She's out with her friends, Mike.

Back on to the main discussion, I believe that in these times the one thing that the military planners try to work out is can we still do the job we want to do.
The simple reality is that todays planes are more capable and flexible, individually, than 20 years ago. They are also more expensive to buy and operate. One of the factors here is that this is the same for all nations. Consequently all nations reduce their force numbers, so you actually get an overall number reduction which means you get to keep your comparative level of capability with less aircraft.

This is what will be going through the planners minds as they attempt to keep to the targets set by the civilian leaders.

On the subject of air power and ground troops, you can't chose one. You have to have both, its that simple. Also the capability of the infantry is far more than it used to be and also the same global reductions in size apply here also.

Changing tack somewhat, there is something that has been going around in my mind for sometime, and I wouldn't be surprised if somebody doesn't at least create a study on this.
Taking into account the smaller numbers of combat aircraft in all forces, the longer design times, and the longer active service lives of aircraft, we might actually be reaching a time where you buy more aircraft than you actually need and place a percentage straight into storage.
It may sound daft but it will give you built in attrition replacements, reduce the problem of end of service lives and fatigue issues. When the inevitable upgrades appear you upgrade the ones in storage first to eliminate disruption to front line units, and build in airframe rotation, and the final piece is that with greater numbers of aircraft bought and built the individual unit price falls.

This policy would serve the RAF very well with their Typhoons.

What do I know though, I am not a strategic planner.

Bleh........"Air Power" will be nothing but UAV's and UCAV's in a couple of years anyhow. Just a bunch of kids eating Cheetos and dropping ordinance while Twittering away about their World of Warcraft character..........

You heard it here first!

Bleh........"Air Power" will be nothing but UAV's and UCAV's in a couple of years anyhow. Just a bunch of kids eating Cheetos and dropping ordinance while Twittering away about their World of Warcraft character..........

You heard it here first!

That makes me nauseaus....

I hate that. 'Cause then war bcomes just a "game"

Firebird wrote:
Taking into account the smaller numbers of combat aircraft in all forces, the longer design times, and the longer active service lives of aircraft, we might actually be reaching a time where you buy more aircraft than you actually need and place a percentage straight into storage.
It may sound daft but it will give you built in attrition replacements, reduce the problem of end of service lives and fatigue issues. When the inevitable upgrades appear you upgrade the ones in storage first to eliminate disruption to front line units, and build in airframe rotation, and the final piece is that with greater numbers of aircraft bought and built the individual unit price falls.

This policy would serve the RAF very well with their Typhoons.

What do I know though, I am not a strategic planner.

I thought the RAF were doing this? I'm sure Nick said he'd seen some tiffies at Coningsby in hangers for this very reason.