Response to the rising cost of advanced military hardware

[maxwell]

Recently the US Secretary of Defence highlighted the dilemma that advanced, and thus expensive, platforms such as naval ships and aircraft are posing for the military. In particular their cost results in far fewer platforms that is desirable. We have seen this already impact smaller nations such as New Zealand which moved away from deploying jet fighters some years ago. Recent announcements in the United Kingdom will result in the reduction of the Royal Navy fleet of destroyers / frigates to not much more than a handful. Long range maritime anti submarine aircraft are being phased out altogether. Even the United States cannot afford more than a dozen B2 bombers and numbers of F22’s are lower than initially planned which perversely expands per unit costs even more. I suspect F35 procurement will be lower than currently projected.
I know we often focus upon the quality, the performance of individual platforms. However Stalin once said that quantity has a quality all of its own. In his war huge numbers of simple T34’s drove smaller numbers of more capable Panthers and Tigers from the Russian homeland. Do larger numbers of more austere platforms have a role in the future? For example would a squadron of propeller driven light counterinsurgency aircraft be more effective than a single Apache attack helicopter? Would a squadron of small simple but nimble jet fighters perhaps carrying modern munitions do the job of a F35?
My concern is if such options are not created we shall find an increasingly number of western nations being unable to field a worthwhile military capacity. Many of these nations currently face the implications of an economic recession but the issue is in fact long term. Their populations are aging and the focus on their governments will increasingly be health and welfare.
The situation for many nations is not that much different from Soviet Russia when in the last days of the cold war they were unable to keep up investment in the arms race without driving their economy down. Western democracies won’t do this; they will reduce their military budgets first.
Without change toward more affordable platforms the military capacity of the west will wither.
So what are the options?

 

[Sampanviking]

Its an interesting area and one I wonder about quite a lot myself.

Part of the problem is that we are reliving in a sense the late 19th Century, where people are looking at "Colonial" wars against local uprisings and thinking that they have a model for a major power confrontation.

Modern Hi-Tech warfare has looked very impressive in short campaigns and of course against less than front echelon opponents.

The question then is what happens when a major confrontation between hi-tech powers occurs? More specifically what happens after the opening gambits and hi-tech inventories are highly depleted or in need of significant maintenance? The procurement cycle itself tells a story as an active battlefield needs kit today not in several years time. If you have to mass conscript for a war, how are you going to equip forces based on those time scales?

WW2 did provide an answer and one that is going to be even more pronounced in a future major conflict. This will be a hi-lo mix of mass cheap, fast to build kit for non-professional forces, while leaving the good stuff with the elite professionals.

The differences now though are stark - In 1943 I think you could build an entire Spitfire in little more than a week. I have no idea what you could get in that time scale today!

 

[Waylander]

What I find interesting about this is that navys and air forces are much more affected by this than land forces.

Not that land systems don't get more complex an expensive, too, but a country with a decent industrial base (not the UK, cough...) can still produce huge numbers of modern AFVs (If they have existing designs halfway ready). In a total war situation (Or the build up to one) money isn't that much of an issue and the bottle necks are more production capabilities and training.

And these bottle necks are much more of a problem when it comes to modern naval and air units than for land units.

As for quantity vs quality. The problem is that in WWII the difference in quality wasn't all that big between the different powers.
The analogy of using cheap and simple planes in numbers to counter the few high tech fighters doesn't cut.

The difference in performance is now so big that huge numbers of simple low tech stuff would get slaughtered (if no big difference in training exists).

 

[Sampanviking]

I agree with you Waylander.

The question though is what happens in a protracted situation and most of the expensive stuff has run out?

High Intensity Warfare has its own tempo and consumes men and material at its own rate. It is the mismatch in production times as much as the cost that would matter here.

Conflicts would either just grind to halt or head back down the tech ladder. Alternatively would we suddenly find that Manufacturers could indeed produce viable hi level platforms at much increased speed and reduced cost ?

That would raise a few interesting questions would it not?

 

[Gremlin29]

I agree with you Waylander.

The question though is what happens in a protracted situation and most of the expensive stuff has run out?

High Intensity Warfare has its own tempo and consumes men and material at its own rate. It is the mismatch in production times as much as the cost that would matter here.

Conflicts would either just grind to halt or head back down the tech ladder. Alternatively would we suddenly find that Manufacturers could indeed produce viable hi level platforms at much increased speed and reduced cost ?

That would raise a few interesting questions would it not?

I believe materials and manufacturing processes will prevent us from ever again seeing production on the scale seen during WW2. Back then the materials and techniques were not unlike those already in use for high rate of production industries.

While I admit the cost of state of the art weapons has become a serious problem of epic proportion I also believe the root cause is in the procurement process. Typically military contracting more than doubles the cost of the same service/goods as found in the competitive market. This isn't just the case with weapons systems, it's also true for things like housing, road construction, or paving parking lots.

 

[Ananda]

I believe materials and manufacturing processes will prevent us from ever again seeing production on the scale seen during WW2. Back then the materials and techniques were not unlike those already in use for high rate of production industries.

While I admit the cost of state of the art weapons has become a serious problem of epic proportion I also believe the root cause is in the procurement process. Typically military contracting more than doubles the cost of the same service/goods as found in the competitive market. This isn't just the case with weapons systems, it's also true for things like housing, road construction, or paving parking lots.

Agree in the sense that the need for mass producing (on WW 2 standard) is not there. However if we look example of Essex class carriers, it's still a complex and high tech weapon platform for the 40's era (and from I read also involved many new building techniques and systems).
Still US manage to produced extraordinary numbers of that cariers on relative short time. The longevity of Essex class carriers in the USN service show that this class is not just another simplified carriers for war effort like many escort cariers class.

In other word if the procurement process being simplified like in the time of great war, perhaps it can make the differences in the costs, and off course the economic of scale of the projects. However I do still believe if the need come, even a complex and highly tech weapon system still can be mass produced on much larger number and lower costs. It's just simply 'if' the need arrises.

 

[Waylander]

Another problem is training. The Germans, Russians and Japanese suffered from low training levels the longer the war went.
And back then getting a fighter pilot ready was a totally different thing than now.
I expect for example the US to be able to produce a big number of F-22s/35s if the need really arises. But can the training keep up with increased production numbers?

 

[Belesari]

Yes but the essex and other ships of WW2 lacked the thing that makes a moder warship. Electronics. Electronics and the computer systems make up something like 30% or more of the cost of modern top of the line warships. Add in all the other things into the cost of warships and weapons-more computers and such yet again- and you see where some of that increase in cost lies.

 

[rip]

Yes but the essex and other ships of WW2 lacked the thing that makes a moder warship. Electronics. Electronics and the computer systems make up something like 30% or more of the cost of modern top of the line warships. Add in all the other things into the cost of warships and weapons-more computers and such yet again- and you see where some of that increase in cost lies.

Most of you have done very well bringing up and clearly stating that the realities of what requirements a major war between two or more great powers (not a great and a lesser power) would entail and that they are not being rationally addressed. The primary factor in the west at least, is for ever more expensive high technology weapons is simply to keep their causalities as low as possible, at least within the low intensity conflicts they have most often engaged in for the realistically last fifty years.

They would rather more spend money than lives for political reasons. It is for the simple reason that democracies do not like and will not support government policies that have many causalities as their result unless the survival of the nation is directly and obviously at stake, even though a little war conducted now may in fact prevent a much bigger and more dangerous war latter, it is difficult to persuade people of that unpleasant geo-political fact. Otherwise what do you do with rouge and failed states?

True that modern weapons are far more effective and destructive than weapons of the past. And it is also true that a weapons platform that is only objectively 10% better than its opposite will have a 50% or better outcomes against its opposite, but quantity dose have a quality all of its own. But there is also the fact that complicated weapon systems require many highly trained, highly skilled people to support them and they can be in just as short supply as the fighters they support and just as difficult to ramp up. Question, if it tacks two years to make a good fighter pilot what difference does it make if you can produce a jet every other day?

 

[Bonza]

And that leads to the next question, how much money do you save when you automate warfare and greatly reduce your overheads in training and logistics as less humans become necessary? Producing a jet fighter every other day might not do any good when pilots require years of training, but what if you could build an autonomous UCAV every other day? Or a component platform of a networked swarm?

With the pace at which robotics is moving, I'd say our perceptions of the human cost versus the material cost of war-fighting technology is going to change pretty dramatically within our lifetimes.

 

[Waylander]

Another big cost driver in the west is the peacetime manpower of professional militaries.
Salaries and pensions are a huge factor in every western military.
The only way around this is conscription but without a clear threat forcing young men to serve ist just not justified.
And even conscripts cost money in the end.
The Western militaries (apart from the US) didn't get that small because of rising procurement costs but because of a lack of imminent threats and thus the abolishment of cold war force levels.

Western Europe for example could field armed forces much bigger than the current ones just as they have at the end of the '80s but the threat is lacking.

The eighties are actually a good example of a scenario were everybody gets to the fight with what he has and were newbuild equipment wouldn't have any impact in the outcome of a NATO-WarPac conflict.
This would have been a war with destruction inflicted on both sides in such a short time that the invasions of France and Russia in WW2 would look rather slow and soft in comparison. And I am speaking of conventional conflict here.

 

[Ananda]

And that leads to the next question, how much money do you save when you automate warfare and greatly reduce your overheads in training and logistics as less humans become necessary? Producing a jet fighter every other day might not do any good when pilots require years of training, but what if you could build an autonomous UCAV every other day? Or a component platform of a networked swarm?

With the pace at which robotics is moving, I'd say our perceptions of the human cost versus the material cost of war-fighting technology is going to change pretty dramatically within our lifetimes.

And the 'Cylon' is comming to fruition, the thing in 'Caprica' will repeat again then Humanity will have to build another Battlestar to find new home somewhere out there and start all over again

Seriously though, even this dream of fighting drones with powerfull Artificial Inteligences protocols mostly come up from generations that grow up with Atari and Dos Based VGA Simmulators, but can we afford to take out the human nature from war (the soul of war if you prefered) ?

It can potentially reduce the human costs operators but can it reduce the human costs as collateral damages ? The costs of electronics on time will be reduced significantly that having drones, AI as fighting forces will be tempting for the war planners and think-thank all over the world.

Can we trusts AI to conduct our war ?
It will be a 'grand idea' though if two neighbours disputed, then they just take out their drones and have them fight somewhere, whille the rest of their Human populations conducts business as ussual, and watch the result of drones fight in coffee shop (gee I spend to much time watching sci-fi channel).

 

[rip]

And the 'Cylon' is comming to fruition, the thing in 'Caprica' will repeat again then Humanity will have to build another Battlestar to find new home somewhere out there and start all over again

Seriously though, even this dream of fighting drones with powerfull Artificial Inteligences protocols mostly come up from generations that grow up with Atari and Dos Based VGA Simmulators, but can we afford to take out the human nature from war (the soul of war if you prefered) ?

It can potentially reduce the human costs operators but can it reduce the human costs as collateral damages ? The costs of electronics on time will be reduced significantly that having drones, AI as fighting forces will be tempting for the war planners and think-thank all over the world.

Can we trusts AI to conduct our war ?
It will be a 'grand idea' though if two neighbours disputed, then they just take out their drones and have them fight somewhere, whille the rest of their Human populations conducts business as ussual, and watch the result of drones fight in coffee shop (gee I spend to much time watching sci-fi channel).

It would be nice that the issues that separate peoples and their hopes and dreams could be settled with a really good chess game but it will never happen.

War becomes inevitable when one or more of the parities capable of waging war, find the current version of peace that they are then living to be so unacceptable that they are willing to risk all that they have, including their very life for what they think will become a new version of peace that will be attained by the means of war sometime in the future.

It is the vary willingness of putting yourself and all that is yours, including your very life at risk which separates this thing called war, from just other ordinary forms of politics. War, as terrible as it is, is the final absolute arbitrator of human conflict. It is a kind of conflict reserved for the kind of problems which has failed at all other forms of resolution.

As bad as it is, war will settle the issue even if it is at the cost of the destruction of an entire people or a whole civilization. Then life goes on or at least what is left of it. If the issue is powerful enough that you are willing to put at risk everything including your children lives, compared to that standard what value has money then?

As to the issue of animated or automated warfare by whatever means which will then somehow make it then less bloodless? That would defeat the point. As far as war being impersonal and soulless? That happened then the people killing each other could no longer see or be seen by the other .

 

[Ananda]

As to the issue of animated or automated warfare by whatever means which will then somehow make it then less bloodless? That would defeat the point. As far as war being impersonal and soulless? That happened then the people killing each other could no longer see or be seen by the other .

But that's the thing about if we let AI conducts our war. The highest costs of war, no matter how expensive the systems are, still human costs. If we somehow can manage to developed AI as our tools of war, then in somepoint people can be persuaded, 'ok' the costs of human will be reduced (afterall building drones fighters will be less expensive then human fighters). Somehow it can 'tempted' to think costs of war for the human civilizations will be reduced.

However can it trully be..?? Like you say war become impersonal and souless, that the operators somehow can side-track on potential collateral damages since they only think on fighting drones with drones, just like a video game conducted.

Rellying with AI can reduce the costs of advance hardware, which if we look closely, most ofthe costs related not only to make it more efficient but also 'shield' the human operators. Take the need to shield human operators, then the costs of advance hardware will reduce significantly. It can make war more affordable, but also again more souless.

 

[Sampanviking]

The AI argument; sad to say, fails.

All you would be doing is introduce a new class of weapon system which sooner or later would be turned against flesh and blood. Indeed existing systems already have been.

AI may form a front line in a future conflict, but once breached or depleted, bodies will be put into the void or breach as per normal.

 

[rip]

But that's the thing about if we let AI conducts our war. The highest costs of war, no matter how expensive the systems are, still human costs. If we somehow can manage to developed AI as our tools of war, then in somepoint people can be persuaded, 'ok' the costs of human will be reduced (afterall building drones fighters will be less expensive then human fighters). Somehow it can 'tempted' to think costs of war for the human civilizations will be reduced.

However can it trully be..?? Like you say war become impersonal and souless, that the operators somehow can side-track on potential collateral damages since they only think on fighting drones with drones, just like a video game conducted.

Rellying with AI can reduce the costs of advance hardware, which if we look closely, most ofthe costs related not only to make it more efficient but also 'shield' the human operators. Take the need to shield human operators, then the costs of advance hardware will reduce significantly. It can make war more affordable, but also again more souless.

You post reminds me of a method once used by the Mayan people to settle their disputes. Two clan chiefs would line up their extended families in a long roll and then the chefs would select a member of their own family and then bash their head in with a club killing them. They would then go down the line killing their own people one after another until one of the two chefs decided that whatever the despite was about, winning it was not worth the cost if they had to kill any more of their own family. The one who stopped killing first was the one that lost. This was considered by them the Mayan people, as the civilized way of settling disputes and not just falling upon each killing each other in battle.

I guess you proposal would be more like each side just burn great big piles of money until one side or the other gave up.

But somehow I do not think it would work.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

And the 'Cylon' is comming to fruition, the thing in 'Caprica' will repeat again then Humanity will have to build another Battlestar to find new home somewhere out there and start all over again

Hey don't get me started on Battlestar Galactica I'm a huge BSG nerd.

 

[Ananda]

I guess you proposal would be more like each side just burn great big piles of money until one side or the other gave up.

But somehow I do not think it would work.

Well, the arguments that come up from time to time when developing advance new weapons is to 'reduce human costs'. However there's also arguments that after WW 3 then the WW 4 will be fight using stones and fists. In short after WW 3 the Civilizations is gone, still what's left of Humanity will not lossing their nature to fight, and will fight with what's left in their possesions.

It will be back to what's the purposed for more advanced weapons systems now this days. Is it to kill your enemy more effectively and efficiently thus reducing human costs (collateral damages, risk to humam operators, etc)...or simply it's developed to kill more.

If the latter still the aim, then the nature to value more on human costs will not matter, in which after those advance weapons gone, then they will fight by throwing bodies after bodies of what's left of their human populations.

Hey don't get me started on Battlestar Galactica I'm a huge BSG nerd.

BSG Rocks

 

[Waylander]

I think one has to remember that when people talk about reducing human casualties they are talking about their own ones and not about enemy ones.
And even this thinking goes out the window in a full all out war for national survival. A society, especially a democratic one, naturally has a lot of problems with sending their young men and women into harms way when the majority of the population is not sure about wether it is worth the casualties or not.
This is the sole reason why relatively small insurgencies can be such a pain in the a** for nominally much more powerfull countries.

In an all out war were things like Stalingrad or D-Day happen the society couldn't care less abouth some few dozen pilots which were saved due to the air force using drones instead of manned planes.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Seriously though, even this dream of fighting drones with powerfull Artificial Inteligences protocols mostly come up from generations that grow up with Atari and Dos Based VGA Simmulators, but can we afford to take out the human nature from war (the soul of war if you prefered) ?

kind of disagree with this. the issue of going to hi-tech solutions and embracing new technologies has not happened just via the Atari ST and DOS generations. You'd be surprised at the age of some of the military scientists who are driving change and see the potential for that change.

I think that there is a general unawareness also that when we look at future technology warfighting tech, we just don't look at the widgets. A significant amount of effort goes into the human factors element - ie we look at how people think, react, interface with technology, and the differences in the way that people behave.

it's a mistake to just look at the cost of the platform, or just think that the new high tech combat system has a sheer cost that is identified by what we physically see. eg most people see the tank and assume that if it cost $1 then the developments are all visible like the FCS, barrel, suspension system, C2/3/4 links etc... but these are the invisible costs that a number of people can't relate to as they see the weapons system in isolation...

eg common combat rooms, common combat systems, interfacing with likely partners capabilities, design intent, practical sustainment etc.... all of these aren't visible, but serve initially to add to the cost of a capability. the end state is that the platform can (and does) come down in end price over time.

Can we trusts AI to conduct our war ?

we don't because we have legal requirements to deal with first. permission to shoot/engage will always exist even in declared battlespace where there is an assumption that no civilians are present. not all militaries subscribe to the view, but generally all the modern sophisticated ones going through change do.

It will be a 'grand idea' though if two neighbours disputed, then they just take out their drones and have them fight somewhere, whille the rest of their Human populations conducts business as ussual, and watch the result of drones fight in coffee shop (gee I spend to much time watching sci-fi channel).

I can't see any "clash of the titans" happening anywhere anytime soon....