We won WW2 didn't we, despite being "unprepared". We regained the Falklands also, despite being "unprepared".
The problem with trying to think too far into the future is that when we get it wrong, we end up with massively expensive high-tech "solutions" to a non-existent problem with are impossible to cut - eg Typhoon.
When we have reacted at the last minute to a need, used lots of improvisation and creativity, and have ended up with an excellent cost-effective solution - WW2 was full of examples.
If we had been "prepared" the RAF might have relied on squadrons of Gloster Gladiators - and the Spitfire and Hurricane might never have been developed with the same precipitation. Who would have won B of B?
More recently, there have been examples of reaction to current need which have produced excellent results - eg Sentinel (rapidly adapted from a civilian airframe), the DA42s now in Iraq, the new army vehicles now being deployed in Afghanistan, and I'm sure the RN has some ruggedised iPods on the way.
Might be worth giving some thought to improving response times in quick reaction procurement. There might be an argument that being prepared for quick-reaction procurement is the way to win future conflicts.
Last edited by CirrusF; 26th Jun 2009 at 19:19.