Not net-centric enough

Our military projections are still too centered on older visions of warfare

NOTE: I mis-typed this one as I am between glasses, so consider this an advance version of my tomorrow post.

The just-announced award of the Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD, dubbed the F47 in ode to Trump 2.0) is being heralded as this great advance from platform-centric warfare to network-centric warfare, but, to me, it feels like a baby step when a Great Leap Forward is required.

Frankly, I was a bit stunned to see the DOGE-driven Trump Administration even go ahead with the award. I was certain it would be delayed amidst all the project-cutting, but nooooo!

After all, we’re still talking about a platform likely to ring in at $300m/unit — not THE most expensive aircraft but up there, especially when you consider that it’s envisioned as a “family of systems” and “drone quarterback,” meaning a platform in constant need of interface upgrades as those other systems/drones evolve at a stunningly faster rate than this years-in-the-making aircraft — promised by 2029 but I’ll believe it when I spot it flying in numbers.

A good bet? Half as many aircraft as planned at double the cost per unit.

Is the F47 probably the coolest aircraft yet? Yup. Firing supersonic missiles, QB-ing drones, embedded AI, etc., it checks a lot of boxes, particularly those surrounding speed and stealth, but I can’t help suspecting we’re locking ourselves into a platform that will never live up to the hype — not because it doesn’t have the goods but because the goods it has will be overtaken by events in the world of drones and swarming technologies/tactics driven by AI.

I feel the same way about Trump 2.0’s Golden Dome missile defense system. I just don’t see any superpowers risking a nuclear WWIII shooting off missiles at one another, nor any rogue powers thinking they could get away with something on that level without triggering a regime-toppling military response from the targeted superpower.

And no, I don’t largely care about conflict dyads formed below the superpower/nuclear level because those missile strike scenarios just don’t achieve all that much, as we see when Israel and Iran engage in their largely performative unmanned exchanges.

Instead of risking such outcomes, I, being an increasingly smart superpower, am more than happy to employ drones in swarms to do my business — whatever it is (spying, targeted strike, regime strike, etc.). So many war planners want to keep the drone stuff largely locked up in the pre-war shenanigans box, or — at best — extend it through the initial “drone hellscape” part of a war that segues into serious platform-centric warfare of the conventional sort. This approach reminds me of how cyberwarfare continues to be treated — very front-loaded before giving way to the “real war.”

In both instances, cyber and drone swarming, I see the beginning, middle, and the end of wars of the future — not a subset but the whole enchilada.

What have we seen with Russia-v-Ukraine on conventional weapons and tactics? Great way to achieve a stalemate.

What have we seen with drones and the associated electromagnetic/cyber warfare realms? The now vast-majority of killing and damage and defense. And even all those seemingly transformative advances — in the end — force almost nothing to change the underlying conventional stalemate.

So, do I look at that conflict and say to myself, the speed of my missiles and aircraft are going to be decisive?

No, I do not.

I can get more bang for my buck with cyber and swarming drones.

Sure, if I plan on territorial conquest, I feel the need for speed and stealth and platforms that “do the real business of warfare.” But I’m just not seeing a future military landscape where that ambition isn’t effectively countered with a truly net-centric package of cyber and drones/robots to the extent of being able to transform any captured territory into a no-man’s land — as in, You want it so bad? Well, this is how bad you’re going to get it!

Will our Golden Dome and F47 drone quarterback be the magic bullets that detect and deter swarming drones penetrating our airspace? I will believe it when I see it. Until the hoped-for reclaimed manned-platform supremacy is reached (if ever), I expect lots of fear-factoring on the subject of drones and cyber augmented with AI.

---

60 MINUTES OVERTIME: Drone swarms inside the U.S. could be spying — and the ability to detect, track them is lagging

THE HILL: Pentagon ‘still mystified’ as drone drama deepens

---

Instead of pivoting to the security world of tomorrow, we seem intent on upgrading last century’s platforms and tactics. In other words, if I am zero-basing my force structure per what I’m now seeing emerge in this world of ever-more autonomous decision-making, I probably don’t buy F47s and I sure as hell do not pursue some Golden Dome (which just stinks with the smell of being the Maginot Line of the 21st century because we ain’t the same tiny size as Israel).

---

WAPO: Trump turbulence leads allies to rethink reliance on U.S. weapons

---

On the NGAD/F47 program, given how we’re decoupling with our NATO allies (to include Canada), we won’t likely enjoy cost-sharing participation on their part like we did with the F35. I mean, with the US now openly threatening or displaying the capacity to turn systems on and off, depending on whether or not you, our ally, have “paid your bills” or said thank-you enough recently, or apologized profusely for this or that slight against our POTUS (in effect, making us just another Putin they have to deal with), would you buy into any “drone quarterback” package that America is selling? Why would you ever place that level of trust again on the US in this dog-eat-dog world we keep proclaiming — even celebrating?

Me? I’d just go full-speed ahead on robots and drones and cyber and treat everything else as legacy to be preserved but not the centerpiece of the future force or its deployment — not with Ukraine’s military choosing to focus on producing 4-5 million drones over the next 12 months — something I find telling about the future of warfare.

---

NATIONAL REVIEW: Start Spreading the Nukes

---

Instead, we’re getting a lot of backward glances in our planning, like assuming that everybody getting nukes is going to be the answer, when it won’t. Nukes are only good at stopping the other guy from using nukes on you — that’s it.

Big conventional, high-end manned platforms are increasingly falling into the same basic category: you have them to prevent your opponents from employing the same on you, but neither you nor they are going to win on that basis alone — not with the Military Singularity fast approaching.