Such talk makes me nervous. Not only because of the possible abandonment of manned platforms, but what an unmanned military means for the future of war. What happens if future leaders become less concerned about the impact on public support when there are fewer casualties from overseas missions? Does that make them more likely to go on an adventure? Especially if they overestimate their defensive systems.
Congressional budget hawks and doves have long argued against various programs - some with good reason, some with not - including the F-35, LCS, CONSTELLATION-class Frigate, etc. In my view, limited as it is, it seems that the VIRGINIA-class SSNs depart from the the original "littoral" operation small SSN concept.
I believe that the post-Gulf War "Peace Dividend" thinking that captured a large bi-partisan following was a serious mistake. National interests remain despite changes in the operational theaters.
I never served in combat; what little I think I know about it comes from my readings and the recounts of Marines who served in 1st and 2nd Radio Battalions and sailors who landed Marines at Tarawa (my recruiter) and were crewmen aboard USS PUEBLO and USS LIBERTY.
I wonder if unmanned drones, directed by operators thousands of miles distant, can provide effective and adequate close ground support to troops and Marines in fire fights.
Musk is certainly a genius, but he does not have a military mind. I think maybe he looks so far fwd he skips over the present and near future. Like with the Mars colony idea. Let's just see if we can go to the moon again first. Or get spacecraft a bit more reliable.
I differ on one point: I am not grateful for Elon Musk's contributions. I am grateful for many things. Elon Musk's presence in the world is not one of them.
Perhaps you expressed your gratitude to Elon Musk with your tongue planted firmly in your cheek?
This reminds me of a Star Trek Original episode where 2 planets are at war using computers to determine hits, deaths, etc. The citizens of each planets are designated to walk into a disintegrator machine to account for the deaths. In essence, the planets sanitized war. But it’s Captain Kirk’s speech at the end which I remember. I am greatly paraphrasing, he said that war is deadly and messy business and must be fully experienced in order to know you must avoid it. Mr. Musk is making the point we are unnecessary exposing our troops to danger. While we certainly want to protect our troops, it’s war, as Kirk pointed out, we must avoid. Drones are a good tool to have in your arsenal, but as history has shown, it’s shouldn’t be your primary tool.
I really deeply appreciate the great introspection and good faith arguments made in this post using facts and logic. I too agree when challenged it is worth re-evaluating ones positions / assumptions - it makes us stronger or we learn something new and adjust.
But to be clear, the message will be lost on the elected government. I've been in science for ~30 years - BSc in Chemistry, Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry (MIT), brief hiatus as a software engineer for a few years then back into drug discovery as a computational biologist.
From the earliest years I witnessed people rejecting the theory of Evolution, and winning elections to ban its teaching, with the stated goal that if they win against Evolution they can start tackling Geology and Physics (Big Bang Theory). More recently it has been rejecting the science of climate change [note: it would be one thing if they accepted the science but chose different policies - but that's not what happened].
The arguments made here are of exactly the same type I've seen made of these last 3 decades over a wide range of science topics - thoughtful, based on logic, facts, data. None of it made a difference to the "other side". However it *might* have made a difference to the younger generation. I hope that applies here as well.
Excuse me, the Old Chief whose BA is in History, for intruding in this discussion but...
Although Musk's comment only mentions manned fighter jets , particularly the F-35, I think he meant all manned jet warplanes - including attack, bomber, and support/logistical aircraft.
More than that, Musk's premise is that the concept that humans must be in the seat to fight their aircraft is both outmoded and superfluous.
Certainly technically trained operators can direct unmanned combat aerial vehicles effectively, up to a point. What is that point? How does the concept fit, or not, with our strategic warfare planning in all possible theaters?
The breadth and scope of potential operations in the Indo-Pacific, including the Indian Ocean, and the Atlantic far exceed those in the Baltic, Mediterranean, and Black Seas. At least, my cryptologic direct support experiences in the Atlantic, Baltic, Mediterranean, and Black Sea and in NMIC-sponsored war gaming alert me to the possibilities.
Even genius has its limits. I think Musk has come up on one with his comment.
I'm just thinking about the respect for Elon Musk this pretty much kills it:
"The X owner has six children with his ex-wife Justine Wilson. Their first child, a boy named Nevada, died as an infant. He and his then-wife had five more children: twins and then a set of triplets. Musk later welcomed three children with musician Grimes, whose legal name is Claire Elise Boucher, and twins and another child with tech executive Shivon Zilis."
I think the REAL beauty in Mr. Musk's comments is it will FORCE air-power advocates to rationally respond with actual, sensible explanations as to why manned aircraft are still necessary, rather than just scream 'WE MUST HAVE THEM!' In addition, and, perhaps, even better, this may well force the defense contractors to become, shall we say, a bit more 'budget conscious', rather than asking themselves 'How High Can We Go?'
“Mr. Musk has contributed greatly to the world we live in, and I am grateful for his contributions. He is very good at a good many things, but I fear military force planning is not among them.“ And yet, he is about to have the strongest hand on the tiller.
Such talk makes me nervous. Not only because of the possible abandonment of manned platforms, but what an unmanned military means for the future of war. What happens if future leaders become less concerned about the impact on public support when there are fewer casualties from overseas missions? Does that make them more likely to go on an adventure? Especially if they overestimate their defensive systems.
Congressional budget hawks and doves have long argued against various programs - some with good reason, some with not - including the F-35, LCS, CONSTELLATION-class Frigate, etc. In my view, limited as it is, it seems that the VIRGINIA-class SSNs depart from the the original "littoral" operation small SSN concept.
I believe that the post-Gulf War "Peace Dividend" thinking that captured a large bi-partisan following was a serious mistake. National interests remain despite changes in the operational theaters.
I never served in combat; what little I think I know about it comes from my readings and the recounts of Marines who served in 1st and 2nd Radio Battalions and sailors who landed Marines at Tarawa (my recruiter) and were crewmen aboard USS PUEBLO and USS LIBERTY.
I wonder if unmanned drones, directed by operators thousands of miles distant, can provide effective and adequate close ground support to troops and Marines in fire fights.
Don White
CTIC(SS) 1972 - 1993
"Ответственный за моих товарищей"
Musk is certainly a genius, but he does not have a military mind. I think maybe he looks so far fwd he skips over the present and near future. Like with the Mars colony idea. Let's just see if we can go to the moon again first. Or get spacecraft a bit more reliable.
Or clean up the space junk in low earth orbit so that we can shoot things up - and through - there without the risk of setting off a Kessler Syndrome (see https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Engineering_Technology/The_Kessler_Effect_and_how_to_stop_it)
Excellent post!
I differ on one point: I am not grateful for Elon Musk's contributions. I am grateful for many things. Elon Musk's presence in the world is not one of them.
Perhaps you expressed your gratitude to Elon Musk with your tongue planted firmly in your cheek?
Hmm...perhaps.
This reminds me of a Star Trek Original episode where 2 planets are at war using computers to determine hits, deaths, etc. The citizens of each planets are designated to walk into a disintegrator machine to account for the deaths. In essence, the planets sanitized war. But it’s Captain Kirk’s speech at the end which I remember. I am greatly paraphrasing, he said that war is deadly and messy business and must be fully experienced in order to know you must avoid it. Mr. Musk is making the point we are unnecessary exposing our troops to danger. While we certainly want to protect our troops, it’s war, as Kirk pointed out, we must avoid. Drones are a good tool to have in your arsenal, but as history has shown, it’s shouldn’t be your primary tool.
Concur with your post. As an undersea guy, listening to people harp on the “uselessness” of submarines because if AUVs is also frustrating.
Well articulated.
I really deeply appreciate the great introspection and good faith arguments made in this post using facts and logic. I too agree when challenged it is worth re-evaluating ones positions / assumptions - it makes us stronger or we learn something new and adjust.
But to be clear, the message will be lost on the elected government. I've been in science for ~30 years - BSc in Chemistry, Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry (MIT), brief hiatus as a software engineer for a few years then back into drug discovery as a computational biologist.
From the earliest years I witnessed people rejecting the theory of Evolution, and winning elections to ban its teaching, with the stated goal that if they win against Evolution they can start tackling Geology and Physics (Big Bang Theory). More recently it has been rejecting the science of climate change [note: it would be one thing if they accepted the science but chose different policies - but that's not what happened].
The arguments made here are of exactly the same type I've seen made of these last 3 decades over a wide range of science topics - thoughtful, based on logic, facts, data. None of it made a difference to the "other side". However it *might* have made a difference to the younger generation. I hope that applies here as well.
Thanks for speaking Truth.
Excuse me, the Old Chief whose BA is in History, for intruding in this discussion but...
Although Musk's comment only mentions manned fighter jets , particularly the F-35, I think he meant all manned jet warplanes - including attack, bomber, and support/logistical aircraft.
More than that, Musk's premise is that the concept that humans must be in the seat to fight their aircraft is both outmoded and superfluous.
Certainly technically trained operators can direct unmanned combat aerial vehicles effectively, up to a point. What is that point? How does the concept fit, or not, with our strategic warfare planning in all possible theaters?
The breadth and scope of potential operations in the Indo-Pacific, including the Indian Ocean, and the Atlantic far exceed those in the Baltic, Mediterranean, and Black Seas. At least, my cryptologic direct support experiences in the Atlantic, Baltic, Mediterranean, and Black Sea and in NMIC-sponsored war gaming alert me to the possibilities.
Even genius has its limits. I think Musk has come up on one with his comment.
Spot on.
I'm just thinking about the respect for Elon Musk this pretty much kills it:
"The X owner has six children with his ex-wife Justine Wilson. Their first child, a boy named Nevada, died as an infant. He and his then-wife had five more children: twins and then a set of triplets. Musk later welcomed three children with musician Grimes, whose legal name is Claire Elise Boucher, and twins and another child with tech executive Shivon Zilis."
I think the REAL beauty in Mr. Musk's comments is it will FORCE air-power advocates to rationally respond with actual, sensible explanations as to why manned aircraft are still necessary, rather than just scream 'WE MUST HAVE THEM!' In addition, and, perhaps, even better, this may well force the defense contractors to become, shall we say, a bit more 'budget conscious', rather than asking themselves 'How High Can We Go?'
Dudley 'Gunner' Garidel
Semper Fidelis!
CWO4 USMCR [Ret]
17 Feb 1969 - 1 Aug 2004
I think some of Admiral Paparo's recent statements are a good response to his quote.
“Mr. Musk has contributed greatly to the world we live in, and I am grateful for his contributions. He is very good at a good many things, but I fear military force planning is not among them.“ And yet, he is about to have the strongest hand on the tiller.
If we'd just man and woman up, and Make Nuclear Tipped Interceptors Great Again, we don't need to worry about drone swarms so much.