|
This and the carrier article on the navy section of the board and the f-22 /JSF articles on the airwarfare section all have alot in common based on force decisioning for the near future. The US is at a crossroads between deciding to try and have numerically large enough forces to face continuing worldwide conflicts and with having technologicaly superior on all fronts weaponry as it is not politically possible to support both without a clear-cut national enemy. While the islamic terrorist is a huge threat to the social welfare of the west it is not really a significant military threat. The powers that be in the US have appearently to my mind decided to go for smaller numbers and having the best equipment which in a small conflict will serve them well, however this strategy can leave force issues with larger scall or multiple conflicts at the same time, it can/could also cause problems with a ramp-up in times of serious global conflict. It is politicaly far easier for a congressman to sell to his constituants that he voted for the best possible equipment to go to their serving children. In many ways if the US is going to continue to try and support its current global footprint they/we would be better served by having numerically superior equipment that is good enough.
While a f-22 may be able to shoot down 6 fulcrums and only cost the same as 4, That F-22 can't be running a strike on a sam site, providing top cover for a helo troop delivery mission and be 400 miles away running a combat air patrol. The same is true of having a squad and their infantry fighting vechile. There is alot to be said for having superior troops and equipment however that smaller number of troops and equipment can't be everywhere at once.
|