Airpower analysts are outlining new options to help counter near-peer adversaries. While that debate is outside the scope of this study, those options include unmanned systems, prioritizing effective munitions over expensive aircraft, and returning to a quantitatively driven approach to airpower featuring large numbers of comparatively inexpensive platforms. While these are some options, Congress and DOD should begin a dialogue and study the full range and timetables, costs, and benefits of potential alternatives to the program.
A few questions regarding the above:
1. Who are these nameless and faceless "airpower analysts".
2. How does one "prioritize effective munitions over expensive aircraft"? Are they talking about using cruise missiles to deliver a warhead instead of an airplane?
3. When was the last time USAF/USN/USMC relied on "a quantitatively driven approach to airpower featuring large numbers of comparatively inexpensive platforms"? Even if we go all the way back to WW2, the US relied heavily on expensive aircraft, and relied heavily on them for every war thereafter. So how do we "return" to the use of cheap airplanes if we've never relied on them in the first place?
On a related note, we used cheap tanks in WW2 to great effect. Indeed, one could argue that our massive numbers of cheap tanks ultimately beat the much better German tanks. But that came at a huge cost in American (not to mention Brit) lives. Such losses are no longer acceptable.