Is the military overly reliant on technology, especially in the face of low-intensity conflicts?

2015-04-08T16:38:52-04:00

Currently the DOD spends more than any other country (and the next 16 or 17 combined) on our military, with large portions of that going to the procurement of new technology (or first we spend billions and then cancel it i.e. Crusader). Even in the face of low-tech enemies we continue to try to advance our technology to some point that we think exists in which we will ultimately gain the advantage. Even in the face of a massive war with Russia or China haven't the lessons of the last two wars shown that limited technology can severely handicap a modern military? I present this article about the OV-10 Bronco as evidence of a low-tech, cheap, reliable, platform that could have saved lives and money in the last two wars. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-amazing-ov-10-bronco-was-never-allowed-to-meet-its [login to see]

The Amazing OV-10 Bronco Was Never Allowed To Meet Its Full Potential

The OV-10 Bronco was a flying and fighting do-all sport utility vehicle. It could loiter for hours, direct fire onto the enemy, pack paratroopers and cargo, or attack with its own weapons. Many think it was retired right when it could have become most useful and that it would have been the perfect light air support aircraft for Afghanistan and Iraq. Boeing's Big Attack Chopper In A Tiny Package Is Heading To Saudi Arabia Boeing's Big Attack...

Response by SPC Angel Guma made Apr 8 at 2015 5:10 PM

2015-04-08T17:10:35-04:00

Not necessarily. Technology is only useful insofar as there are creative minds and flexible leadership that's willing to use it. Low-intensity conflicts do not make other technological powers like Russia and China go away, and they have technology to throw at us too. We need to keep our technology.

The issue though is, is that you can't order people to think outside of the box. I assure you, if the Taliban at all, ever, had access to our level of technology and funding, they would instantly be challenging the whole world and shocking people while at it. Islamic fighters think about getting the most bang for their buck. They think, "how do I spend $5 to kill 5 Americans. What's the most bang I can get out of an IED that takes down an MRAP. Meanwhile, our leaders here are busy trying to justify mass producing tanks that already have a proven track record of being hugely superior to Russian tanks, and how to make a boondoggle like the F-35 worth it, when the Russians are still at least a decade if not more behind fielding stealth fighters themselves.

Instead, better thinking: what is the best way to spend money in creative ways to outwit people who are already thinking in terms of low-cost solutions.

But I digress- I'm not a general and I'm just on my keyboard.

Response by SFC Charles S. made Apr 8 at 2015 5:39 PM

2015-04-08T17:39:22-04:00

We should be taking charge in the Information Technology war. We are not leading in this effort. Information is Knowledge and Knowledge is Power and POWER is the key to winning any conflict. Look at how the hacking issues have plagued us... even so far as the White house computers being hacked by russia. The USA used to dominate in this area. We now sit by and wait for the next Crypto Lock attack to cripple us. MORE Spending and Recruiting of 1337 hackers to work on our side and gain technology superiority once again. We could with enough resources and skilled hacking force cripple russia and China without costing a single life. Both of their economies are week enough to fall with a simple financial tweak to their operations.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Apr 8 at 2015 6:08 PM

2015-04-08T18:08:46-04:00

Great discussion!!

It's a yes & no question though.

In conventional warfare, we need "just enough" technology to be better (overwhelmingly preferred) than our opponent(s). This gives the "impression" of overspending. We don't need all the tech we have to defeat the opponents we currently have. It's a qualitative versus quantitative argument. Going against a Russia, or China (who are quantity based) require a quality > quantity approach. We just don't have the manpower to deal with a large country with citizen soldiers (conscripts).

However the VAST majority of our missions & operations are not conventional. When you look at things like Humanitarian Aid, as an example, more tech is better. Having the ability to move an Aircraft Carrier Group to a location and then use the full force of that tech just pays.

When we look at Training, Education, and even Doctrine development, the ability to communicate pays dividends. Being able to spread the word quickly is an amazing advantage.

Technology can never replace warfighting, but it can sure supplement it in great ways.

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Apr 8 at 2015 7:21 PM

2015-04-08T19:21:49-04:00

The technology, while useful to us, is sadly more useful in lining the pockets of politicians and their friends. This would be why our budget is so high.

We should be spending more of that money on intelligent and direct training of our soldiers and continuing to improve their ability to operate quickly, efficiently, and on the fly when necessary.

While ramping down the forces, I feel that it is better to reduce the spending on tanks, planes, new uniforms, etc and preserve the spending on the force itself. If we have an upswing in activity in a war zone we can always re-administer funds to those defense projects.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2015 9:42 PM

2015-04-08T21:42:49-04:00

I think on the whole we rely too heavily on technology to win wars. It's been a mainstay of our tactics since WWII. What's more problematic is the technology fielded is often flawed. The IOTV is prime example. You can't even shoulder a rifle while wearing it. What good is an Army that can't accurately engage the enemy? Furthermore, our acquisitions process is so slow that in most cases by the time it's fielded the technology is obsolete. My Cell Phone can do more, faster, and store more data than an FBCB2 that takes up a 1/4 of my HMMWV.

Personally I think there's a "happy medium" to be found. I personally would rather have motivated and well trained troops over a the newest "gee-whiz" optic or a crappy camelbak knock-off. Just like I would rather have an A-10 that is effective over a new shiny F-35. More money and resources for training and less spent on shiny new "cool guy" gear would be my preference in the future.

Response by SGT James Elphick made Apr 13 at 2015 5:10 PM

2015-04-13T17:10:06-04:00

Some more relevant reading from H.R. McMasters
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/04/01/general-says-army-must-stop-banking-on-leap-ahead-technology.html?ESRC=army.nl

General Says Army Must Stop Banking on 'Leap-Ahead' Technology

The Army's advanced technology czar said Tuesday that the service must focus on accelerating the innovation of attainable technologies instead of risking it all on "leap-ahead" capabilities that rarely make it to the battlefield.