I’m not an expert either, and I won’t try to end the F-35 debate in a few sentences. I maintain my position that the original argument was sloppy. “F-35 isn’t the best for specific wars X, Y and Z, therefore it wasn’t a competent military decision” is non sequitur. “Experts X, Y and Z believe that the F-35 wasn’t a competent decision” would be better in this case, because that seems to be the real reason why you believe what you believe.
“F-35 isn’t the best for specific wars X, Y and Z, therefore it wasn’t a competent military decision” is non sequitur. “Experts X, Y and Z believe that the F-35 wasn’t a competent decision” would be better in this case, because that seems to be the real reason why you believe what you believe.
Generally, in security threat modelling is important. There’s the saying “Generals always fight the last war” which is about a common mistake in militaries that they are not sufficiently doing threat modeling and investing in technology that would actually help with the important threats.
There are forces where established military units aren’t looking for new ways of acting. Pilots wants planes that are flown by pilots. Defense contractors want to produce weapons that match their competencies.
I do see the question of whether a military is able to think well about future threats and then invest money into building technology to counter those threats as an important aspect of competency.
This is not that I just copied the position from someone else but I have a model feed by what I read and which I apply.
Earlier this month, the US Navy’s top officer, Admiral Michael Gilday, lit into defence contractors at a major industry conference for lobbying Congress to “build the ships that you want to build” and “buy aircraft we don’t need” rather than adapt to systems needed to counter China. “It’s not the ’90s any more,”
Aircraft we don’t need is what the F-35 program is about. The main threat related to countering China is defending Taiwan (and hopefully in a way where there’s deterrence that prevents the war from happening in the first place).
EDIT:
If you would make some argument about the Navy already having the correct position here because Michael Gilday is advocating the correct position, if there would be a hypercompetent faction in the military, that group should have no problems with exerting their power in a way to get defense contractors to produce the weapons that high military leaders consider desirable to develop.
I’m not an expert either, and I won’t try to end the F-35 debate in a few sentences. I maintain my position that the original argument was sloppy. “F-35 isn’t the best for specific wars X, Y and Z, therefore it wasn’t a competent military decision” is non sequitur. “Experts X, Y and Z believe that the F-35 wasn’t a competent decision” would be better in this case, because that seems to be the real reason why you believe what you believe.
Generally, in security threat modelling is important. There’s the saying “Generals always fight the last war” which is about a common mistake in militaries that they are not sufficiently doing threat modeling and investing in technology that would actually help with the important threats.
There are forces where established military units aren’t looking for new ways of acting. Pilots wants planes that are flown by pilots. Defense contractors want to produce weapons that match their competencies.
I do see the question of whether a military is able to think well about future threats and then invest money into building technology to counter those threats as an important aspect of competency.
This is not that I just copied the position from someone else but I have a model feed by what I read and which I apply.
The argument I made seems also be made by military generals:
Aircraft we don’t need is what the F-35 program is about. The main threat related to countering China is defending Taiwan (and hopefully in a way where there’s deterrence that prevents the war from happening in the first place).
EDIT:
If you would make some argument about the Navy already having the correct position here because Michael Gilday is advocating the correct position, if there would be a hypercompetent faction in the military, that group should have no problems with exerting their power in a way to get defense contractors to produce the weapons that high military leaders consider desirable to develop.