Future Warfare - the Economist
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Future Warfare - the Economist
Special look-ahead (well 20 years) of trends and options..... usual coverage of A2/AD, Russia & Chinese "grey warfare" etc, PLA fleet renewal, nuclear warfare etc etc
For me a couple of observations stood out - one is that most fighting will take place in cities - that's where everyone is - and it will be Stalingrad or Mosul type fighting - room to room stuff. Use drones, unmanned vehicles, precision munitions to try and cut casualties........
The other was that the Pentagon model of developing and testing weapons needs scrapping - it takes far too long, it's very expensive and is totally left behind by modern industries current "fail fast" model
For me a couple of observations stood out - one is that most fighting will take place in cities - that's where everyone is - and it will be Stalingrad or Mosul type fighting - room to room stuff. Use drones, unmanned vehicles, precision munitions to try and cut casualties........
The other was that the Pentagon model of developing and testing weapons needs scrapping - it takes far too long, it's very expensive and is totally left behind by modern industries current "fail fast" model
"Failing Fast" is the Acquisition community's biggest issue. Too often, reports and careers are made on "success"- not understanding that "failing" is sometimes "success". It's why we must also accelerate the maturation of low TRL technologies - and, for aviation at least, break the grip that QQ's "one size fits all" LTPA-sponsored monopoly has. There is a time and a place for rigour; trials in support of RTS submissions for front-line aircraft is very much what they should be focussing on. Where they are grotesquely inefficient is in "quick look" trials and technology demonstrators - stuff that 657 D&T used to do for Defence, but now torpedoed both by the demise of the Lynx and the ever-increasing regulatory burden. I can name half a dozen companies in the UK that could perform trials to support "failing fast" - MoD just needs to accept that failing is sometimes "good" and that the QQ LTPA approach is often the wrong way to find out. Now if only someone had written a paper on this about 4 years ago.......oh.....
