The Russians have modernized both their delivery systems and warheads. In contrast, not only have we not done so, we have downgraded (e.g., scrapping Peacekeaper and keeping Minuteman).
We have de-MIRVed and reduced yields, while the Russians brag about doing the opposite.
Meanwhile China is building an arsenal that would make Curtis Le May envious. They are taking an “all of the above” approach to delivery systems, including many we never developed. They have road mobile ICBMs, rail-mobile (outdoors plus the "underground great wall), and they have built several “densepacks”.
It is probably also worth noting that Russia is rumored to have greatly improved its anti-missile systems – which (if true? Who knows?) would seriously undermine the whole concept of Mutual Assured Destruction.
Then there are new Russian weapon types, like the claimed Poseidon giant nuclear torpedo. Set one of those off in the Thames estuary and London would be swept away in a Biblical flood; but nuclear fallout would not be much of a problem, since the huge thermonuclear explosion would take place underwater.
If Biden* and Truss continue looking for Red Lines to cross in the Ukraine, we may unfortunately learn whether any of the stories about US, Russian, and Chinese nuclear weapons are correct. As to why any serious Western leader would consider that to be a game worth playing – who can say?
I concur in the assessment of this book. A worthy read. It will also make you want to tear your hair out.
Rich’s mention of Kelly’s 14th law – “never work with the Navy, they have no idea what they want” – echoes your title. Which I am totally borrowing, by the way. With appropriate citation.
It seems like we have failed to incentivize the right motivators in military manufacturing, and the current state of affairs will be our downfall unless it is reversed.
Looking back on the history of US air power, there is a disturbing trend wherein it seems like almost every one of the exceptional models were inexplicably canceled long before they were truly obsolete. [B-58 (_The B-58 Blunder_, George Holt Jr.), A-12, SR-71, A-6, trying to get rid of the A-10, to just mention a few.]
Some of this is simply stupidity, some narrow vision, some denial of mission. It’s no secret the “modern” Air Force, unlike its origin the Army Flying Corps, lost sight of what its purpose was - support of the ground mission. They fell into the same trap the Luftwaffe did - that fighters were THE superior form of A/C. Recollect in the Battle Over Britain, the Luftwaffe would launch fighter sweeps, thinking the RAF would come up to fight them. But the Air Defense leaders of Britain were too savvy for that. They simply neglected them, pulling assets back so they couldn’t be destroyed by strafing on the ground.
The AF has a similar attitude. They are totally uninterested in any air-to-mud concepts. When Dessert Storm came, the Buffs didn’t know how to attack ground targets short of nuclear deployment. That’s why you saw B-52 strikes in the empty dessert in classic WWII “carpet bombing” patterns. It’s also one of the reasons TAC & MAC survived Dessert Storm, but SAC didn’t.
So the A-10 is much disparaged because it’s so BIG, it can be seen a long way off, and it’s not nimble like an F-16. But then the F-15 suffers from similar though less disparagement - because it’s supposedly not as nimble as an F-16, although truth be told, it’s because it’s a two-seat fighter - as the F-4 was, and AF pilots have long looked down upon the RIO.
I am convinced the SR is no longer in service because they have something better. Remember the SR was secret for a long, long time. The general public is still probably unaware the SR could overfly the Soviet Union and take pics that one could read license plates (or today do facial recognition). There was a poster I now dearly wish I had purchased at Beale AFB that said, “1200 shots, no hits”. Butt I say this because Aviation Week & Space Technology long ago posted pics of some kind of pulse jet contrails very high in the sky, musing on it being a “replacement for fhe SR” - and they were uncannily right most of the time.
That is an interesting speculation. However, it relies on the assumption that somewhere in the US Government, there is someone with an ounce of sense. Thus the probablity has to be assessed as asymptotically approaching zero.
No, wait. Look at the evidence. The “official reason” the SR was scrapped was because “it was too expensive to maintain”. ?When was the last time you saw the military find a program that was “too expensive to maintain” - especially one so productive! You could have pics of whatever area you wanted on your own schedule. NO need to remap a satellite whose passage pretty much everyone knows, including al Qaida. Then there’s no one who seems to know what happened to those special tankers that refueled the SR’s - they just kind of disappeared into the night.
Meanwhile we have Aviation Week & Space Technology, a HIGHLY RELIABLE SOURSE, speculating the contrails seen were a new high-altitude engine, and that they were in a replacement for the SR. And, among other things, AW&SP correctly reported Russia’s lead in powering space weaponry. They had actual photos of Russian fighters with American rounders flying, most likely assessment flights to find the edges of their envelope.
I understand. your skepticism, but the government is vast. Somewhere out there there just may be someone with an ounce of brains. Probably not a seriously high rank, but at least someone who has some experience, some common sense, and still believes in America.
Good point about the high-and-mighty view the A/F has of themselves. And that attitude is I’m sure a major portion of the disdain for the A10, which has no equal on earth. (One of my senators is so hot to trot to get rid of the A10 and replace it with the F16; thanks for explaining to me why he has that POV.)
I’m a bit jaded about today’s A/F. I’m not sure that we do have something better than the SR-71. The Air Force couldn’t wait to get rid of it and “free up the budget” for something else. The A/F worked at getting rid of the SR71 for a number of years. When they finally got rid of it they ordered Lockheed to destroy all the tooling and spare parts. That’s just salting the ground. They really wanted it to go away and never come back.
If you read Ben Rich’s book, he has some thoughts about it. Stealth and speed eliminate the need for large numbers of officers and men who report to them. Career advancement is all about how many you command, not efficiency.
Carter canceled the B1 because Lockheed had discovered the secret of stealth, and the F117 was in the works to make the B1 obsolete. However, the B1 lives on despite its obsolescence because it create(d)s lots of jobs in lots of politicians back yards. The others?