Thanks for the comment and for the historical examples! Fully agree that historically the defense has been cheaper and stronger than the offense. Maybe I failed to make that clear in my first point where I see GEN Rainey wrong in stating that tech is making the defense stronger now. It already was—as was it already cheaper.
But technology is making it easier for asymmetric threats to have conventional effects. I would argue that ALL warfare is asymmetric. Doctrinally, the first step of developing any course of action is to analyze relative combat power and find asymmetries to exploit. Or, in the words of Sun Tzu, “if the enemy is superior in strength, evade him. If his forces are united, separate them. Attack him where he is unprepared. Appear where you are not expected.”
Which isn’t to say I don’t understand your point about tank-on-tank battles with air cover. But, it is to say that the future of warfare could be shifting away from those, as the asymmetries make them less attractive. Our adversaries know that we’re under-invested in air defense and can likely win air superiority over anything currently fielded. So, why try to go toe-to-toe, even with J-20s, when they can invest in hypersonic missiles, attritable one-way attack systems, and other means of overwhelming our air defenses. As you said, “a war of numbers.” Mass is a principle of war and one that our adversaries are leveraging tech to scale and increase its importance…
I’m working with a company that is attempting to rebuild America’s DIB. Up for a conversation on the topic sometime?
We’ve enjoyed Air Supremacy since Vietnam and Air Superiority since the end of WWII. It’s nearly impossible for them to imagine not having it—especially for ground commanders. There’s often a planning assumption baked into exercises, experiments, etc that we’ll have air superiority at a minimum. I think the Air Force is being a bit more pragmatic and realistic about that reality, but their solutions may or may not be on the mark.
On minefield breaching, have you seen the recent work from the XVIII Airborne Corps to remove sappers from the breach? Canada just issued a solicitation for solutions as well. But yes, the ability to ensure freedom of maneuver in the face of complex obstacles is a MASSIVE capability gap currently.
Hi Keith,
Thanks for the comment and for the historical examples! Fully agree that historically the defense has been cheaper and stronger than the offense. Maybe I failed to make that clear in my first point where I see GEN Rainey wrong in stating that tech is making the defense stronger now. It already was—as was it already cheaper.
But technology is making it easier for asymmetric threats to have conventional effects. I would argue that ALL warfare is asymmetric. Doctrinally, the first step of developing any course of action is to analyze relative combat power and find asymmetries to exploit. Or, in the words of Sun Tzu, “if the enemy is superior in strength, evade him. If his forces are united, separate them. Attack him where he is unprepared. Appear where you are not expected.”
Which isn’t to say I don’t understand your point about tank-on-tank battles with air cover. But, it is to say that the future of warfare could be shifting away from those, as the asymmetries make them less attractive. Our adversaries know that we’re under-invested in air defense and can likely win air superiority over anything currently fielded. So, why try to go toe-to-toe, even with J-20s, when they can invest in hypersonic missiles, attritable one-way attack systems, and other means of overwhelming our air defenses. As you said, “a war of numbers.” Mass is a principle of war and one that our adversaries are leveraging tech to scale and increase its importance…
“Mass production is a precondition to victory in any sustained conventional war”
LOVE THIS! You are 100% correct Keith! We need to solve the problem of the atrophied defense industrial base.
I’m working with a company that is attempting to rebuild America’s DIB. Up for a conversation on the topic sometime?
We’ve enjoyed Air Supremacy since Vietnam and Air Superiority since the end of WWII. It’s nearly impossible for them to imagine not having it—especially for ground commanders. There’s often a planning assumption baked into exercises, experiments, etc that we’ll have air superiority at a minimum. I think the Air Force is being a bit more pragmatic and realistic about that reality, but their solutions may or may not be on the mark.
On minefield breaching, have you seen the recent work from the XVIII Airborne Corps to remove sappers from the breach? Canada just issued a solicitation for solutions as well. But yes, the ability to ensure freedom of maneuver in the face of complex obstacles is a MASSIVE capability gap currently.