The two decade long Afghanistan debacle has clearly demonstrated that our military leaders are absolute idiots who have no idea how to conduct a war. This is no longer even debatable.
Now, these same demonstrably failed military geniuses are leading us down the path of an ever weaker military chasing the illusion of data and networks. Here’s something that should scare you to your core: the military is now envisioning replacing kinetic effects with data. According to Air Force chief of staff Gen. CQ Brown,
… advances in artificial intelligence, supercomputing, cyber weapons and space point to an ever-increased reliance on data and software, as well as a trend toward non-kinetic effects. (1)
Gen. Brown is looking to significantly reduce our kinetic combat capabilities.
“I can’t predict the future, but I would bet the non-kinetic effects will reign supreme,” Brown said during the Dubai International Air Chiefs Conference. “Now we’re somewhere stuck in the thinking that mass needs to be physical. What if we did not have to produce sorties to achieve the same effect? What if a future small diameter bomb looks like ones and zeros?” (1)
Mental masturbation about data and networks is all well and good until a Chinese amphibious fleet appears off Guam and none of our data matters at all. At that point, it’s all about firepower and attrition and we are voluntarily and systematically giving up both firepower and numbers, steadily weakening our forces.
We just got kicked out of Afghanistan – a war in which we had total information dominance – and our military leaders want to double down on that failure by further eliminating firepower and emphasizing data? Remember the definition of insanity?
China doesn’t even need to build up their military any further, they just need to wait while we tear down ours!
_________________________________
(1)Breaking Defense, “Could kinetic warfare go the way of Blockbuster?: US Air Force chief ”, Valerie Insinna, 16-Nov-2021,
Nonsense:) the Navy planning to spend $21.5 billion on the CPS hypersonic missiles for 40 development missiles and 200 operational by 2040 plus another ~$6+ billion on converting the 3 Zumwalts and 10 Virginia Block Vs with their ~$500 million VPM 84' mid hull plug, a ~$27.5 billion program (more when you factor in future Virginia's and SSN(X) VPM) which each operational missile costing approx $140 million each.
ReplyDeleteSo only 200 missiles, range approx 1,700 miles with one ton warhead? a bargain.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-12/hypersonic-sticker-shock-u-s-weapons-may-run-106-million-each
There was once a man whose party trick was ask everyone what they thought the best method for data protection and destruction was.
ReplyDeleteThen he grabbed a hammer, a demo laptop, and smashed it to pieces.
That said, if you're willing to do that, "ones and zeroes" can do a lot more damage than quite a few bombs.
ReplyDelete'ones and zeroes can do a lot more damage than quite a few bombs'
DeleteTrue enough.
If we're talking pre-war and during-war Information Warfare, while I am sure a lot of secret squirrel stuff goes on that isn't hinted at in the public domain, the impression this civilian gets is that China is a lot more active in the Information Warfare domain in the US than the US is within China. Sacrificing firepower for IW seems to be preparing to fight where the opponent is currently strong rather than where they aren't. Not saying it shouldn't be done, only that it shouldn't be a sole focus.
If we're talking ECM, then the hierarchial nature of Chinese/Communist/Autocracy militaries no doubt creates points of vulnerabilities. However, the Chinese decision makers are likely to have radios, and be sitting at missile range from US bases and suspected carrier locations at the start of any conflict. Does the US have the systems and doctrine to transmit useful signal strength that far? I'm guessing not at present. Stealth aircraft work best not putting out any ones and zeros, so perhaps they shouldn't scrap those S-3 Vikings just yet.
"If we're talking pre-war"
DeleteExcellent! This kind of cyber warfare is useful in peacetime scenarios but are we willing to potentially inflict mass civilian casualties on China by, say, cyber attacking dam control systems and flooding/killing massive numbers of people during war?
The Chinese infrastructure is likely susceptible to cyber attack (though less so than ours!) but I strongly suspect that their military is far more 'hardened' against cyber attack than ours is. Cyber attacks during war, against the military, will likely have limited success.
"preparing to fight where the opponent is currently strong rather than where they aren't."
Again, excellent! My unsubstantiated impression is that China is far ahead of us in cyber warfare capabilities, both offense and defense. I think they'd welcome a cyber vs. cyber war.
Our strength - to the extent it still is - is firepower and delivery systems. To willingly give up that advantage is treasonous as well as criminally stupid.
"but are we willing to potentially inflict mass civilian casualties on China by, say, cyber attacking dam control systems and flooding/killing massive numbers of people during war?"
DeleteI'd guess no, which is why I added "if you're willing to do that", but if there's the will, well... I'm always looking for a job that pays well.
Wow... The lunacy is strong in that one!!!
ReplyDeleteSounds like the walk away from firepower is being pushed to a run. Unreal. Right now, we should be in panic mode, trying to field a Tomahawk replacement in the next couple years. And while doing so, look at stopgap measures to upgrade what we have, as well as spooling up the lines to get our inventory built up. We can chase hypersonics, but we have to have somthing better, and lots of them now, nay, yesterday. NOT 2040. We need huge strides made in the next couple years. Wheres the urgency??
"Right now, we should be in panic mode, trying to field a Tomahawk replacement in the next couple years. And while doing so, look at stopgap measures to upgrade what we have, as well as spooling up the lines to get our inventory built up. We can chase hypersonics, but we have to have somthing better, and lots of them now, nay, yesterday. NOT 2040."
DeleteYou're putting in far more thought into this, than the Pentagon does with the stupid "skip a generation" ideas it inherited from Donald Rumsfeld. We need programs that are EVOLUTIONARY- say we do as the Chinese did while developing the Type 052 destroyer, and start with incrementally upgrading existing weapon systems one component at a time, until all their components are next generation- instead of the ALL NEW, ALL DIFFERENT approach that delayed the F-35's entry to service by decades, the Zumwalt class and the LCSs indefinitely, the FCS permanently (as in, cancelled with nothing to show for the Army).
"...instead of the ALL NEW, ALL DIFFERENT"
DeleteExactly!! That was my train of thought. Look at what we have, and then what we need. Then, baby steps (but with urgency) from here to there. A good example is how our BBs evolved. The "standards" kept up a slow but steady evolution and increase in capability, and then the fast BBs came along as the environment and doctrine began to change. Todays mentality is tantamount to trying to jump from the South Carolinas straight to the Iowas, but in, say, 1925, long before all the advancements that arguably made the Iowas best-in-class even existed...
Again, our history has lots to teach us, and much to emulate, if we'd just pay attention!!
"Todays mentality is tantamount to trying to jump from the South Carolinas straight to the Iowas..."
DeleteIt's worse than that: Rumsfeld and his successors tried to go from 1862's USS Monitor to 1906's HMS Dreadnought, thinking they can magic up the technology that could let a ship that "skipped a generation" go more than three times faster than its predecessor, packing guns that shoot four times further, without even a clear idea of HOW they could develop this technology- and then they made us waste money building ships incorporating technology that didn't even exist yet, an opportunity cost that prevented us from building ships that could actually work.
"'I can’t predict the future, but I would bet the non-kinetic effects will reign supreme,' Brown said..."
ReplyDeleteWhy would he believe that? "Non-kinetic effects" are like stealth technology, something that improves a weapon system's ability to do its job- attack, perform reconnaissance against enemy units, etc.- but which do nothing on their own. A stealth fighter contributes NOTHING to the mission if the pilot only uses it for joyrides.
Is Brown so afraid CNN will broadcast images of enemy casualties and accuse his service of committing war crimes, he refuses to actually inflict enemy casualties, until the enemy is in position to inflict casualties on his forces?
What's wrong with these people?
ReplyDeleteWhy is this a binary choice?
As much as we spend on our military, I don't understand why we can't have "electronic" warfare (to try and use a catch-all phrase) and also have robust kinetic capability.
I like the idea of using technology for soft kills but at some point you need to wreck things and blow shit up.
Lutefisk
"The two decade long Afghanistan debacle has clearly demonstrated that our military leaders are absolute idiots who have no idea how to conduct a war. This is no longer even debatable."
ReplyDeleteCheap shot, how would have conducted it? Unless you have a good way to both make Pakistan close its border to the Taliban and/or find an alternative logistical route you have a problem. Oh wait than also convince rural Afghans who kinda do want to live in the 13th century to change you end up where we are now sooner or later.
Reality is we achieved all we have could achieve in a year and should walked away after two.
Not all wars are WW2 and not all either can sustain domestic support for that effort or that kind of willingness to kill people of any sort recklessly with no consequence. Neither AQ or the Taliban were a threat to the US in any meaningful way. AQ's greatest success was a not their one one lucky attack but sucking the US in to forever war and massive amount of wasted blood and treasure.
"Cheap shot, how would have conducted it? Unless you have a good way to both make Pakistan close its border to the Taliban and/or find an alternative logistical route you have a problem. Oh wait than also convince rural Afghans who kinda do want to live in the 13th century to change you end up where we are now sooner or later."
DeleteNot wage a prolonged war with no goals or objectives. Since that path wasn't taken, firing senior leadership for their incompetence is a good first step on course correction.
I would hate to have the "professionals" that failed us for 20 years in Afghanistan still be running the show when we have a war with China...
"Cheap shot"
DeleteHardly. A cheap shot would be to suggest that you've learned nothing from following this blog because, if you had, you'd know how this war should have been conducted. But, I wouldn't stoop to such a cheap shot so I won't suggest that.
Now, it's hardly a cheap shot to acknowledge the massive failure of our Afghanistan effort just as you did when you stated that Afg was a "forever war and massive amount of wasted blood and treasure" - the very definition of an abject failure. Nor is it a cheap shot to acknowledge that our so-called professional warriors had two decades to defeat a bunch of primitives and failed utterly. Instead, it is incumbent on us to learn what we can from our leader's failure so as not to repeat their mistakes in the future.
I would also point out that our own military leaders have publicly stated that Afg was a failure and I've posted on that with references provided. So, unless you believe our leaders were taking cheap shots at themselves, simply criticizing our failure is hardly a cheap shot. It's a simple recognition of the reality of failure.
As far as how the affair should have been conducted, I've described in great detail throughout this blog how to conduct wars. Peruse almost any post and you'll find ideas for how to conduct a war.
" convince rural Afghans who kinda do want to live in the 13th century to change"
This is the one correct and intelligent thought in your comment. One of our [many] failings was our inability or refusal to recognize that we could not successfully impose our way on the Afghans. This also goes back to your question about how to conduct the war because the starting point for any war is to have a set of realistic, achievable victory conditions (an end result). We didn't have that so it's no surprise that we failed. You've almost answered your own question … minus the unproductive snarkiness, of course.
If you'd like to contribute a productive, helpful, and informative comment I encourage you to offer your own thoughts on how we should have conducted the war. Feel free to compare and contrast your approach to the general and specific methods I've described throughout this blog.
"I would hate to have the "professionals" that failed us for 20 years in Afghanistan still be running the show when we have a war with China..."
DeleteAnd yet they will because they're the very people who are restructuring our military for the coming China war. That's the insidious problem here. Those military geniuses who couldn't beat tribesmen in two decades are the same people who are pushing down the path of networks instead of firepower. What's the odds that after being wrong about everything for two decades, they're right about how our future military needs to be structured?
"Unless you have a good way to both make Pakistan close its border to the Taliban and/or find an alternative logistical route you have a problem."
DeleteThat sounds like a job for B-52s. They can lay minefields in a hurry and last I read we even have guidance packages for the dispensers. We need to start fighting wars to win instead of playing games.
Afghanistan was lost for much of the same reason Vietnam was lost. When the enemy has a refuge over an imaginary line on a map you might as well pack up and leave. The United States has forgotten how to wage WAR.
"make Pakistan close its border to the Taliban"
DeleteWell, that would be one approach - a bad one. The correct approach is to not care about the border and pursue the enemy WHEREVER THEY GO and eradicate them.
Forced depopulation and people movement, completely empty the border era between Afghanistan and Pakistan and blast anyone who is found there no questions asked or detained them if that is too much.
DeleteMove everyone suspected of Taliban sympathies into new village style settlements complete with barbed wires, farming plots and schools. Enforce mandatory education among youths in US funded schools instead of village madrasas.
The biggest mistake the US ever made in Afghanistan was that it thought it could fight the Taliban on conventional WW2 terms and that the "liberated" citizens will automatically embrace them.
China also pays lots of attention on information and network but more realistically. Network works beautifully in peace time (drills, etc.) but not in war time as competent opponents would interfere and jam yours. Recently, I saw a report on electronic interferences (such as GPS, etc.) around US base in Syria. You can see that China sells their Netfire system overseas but not equip them as these export versions:
ReplyDeletehttps://inf.news/en/military/48d7958fb1aea9d06000379155538320.html
It would be too long to explain what I know about China's information and network systems working with fire power (kinetics).
Flag Officers have a limited attention span and so some of them must have watched the first episode of the 2009 Battlestar Galactica reboot and figure that can translate to the real world. They also know in thei hearts that they will not be the ones throwing 1s & 0s at the enemy while getting bombed into the next life. They instead will be on the boards of ammuinition companies gouging the Military to produce kinetic weapons. Lastly just like the good intentioned Bomber Mafia, a humae way to win without having to conduct total war, is always appealing and makes these Flag Officers more appealing to Corporate Boards.
ReplyDeleteHey, BSG was very 'kinetic'
DeleteNot when their computer systems were shut down and they couldn't move. Both figthers and Battlestars were shut down. It then became a kinetic war.
DeleteI completely agree with CNO using Afghanistan as an example. I mean come on, if this all singing and dancing marvel of AI, data integration, processing, time sensitive and reducing effects to just kill the "right" people should work....its in Afghanistan! We had it all PLUS AIR DOMINANCE! PLUS 20 YEARS! PLUS NO THREAT to the homeland! PLUS an enemy that's not even in the same century as the USA!!!
ReplyDeleteIf this is so marvelous, shouldn't it work on most if not all wars USA fights?!?
Having all these electronic toys is neat, but how does it put warheads on foreheads?
ReplyDelete