Flying Pig

[westwall]

Take a look at history. When technological advanced weapons systems were outnumbered by a substantial margin bu less advanced systems they lost. The Germans outclassed the Soviets in WWII yet the sheer numbers of the Soviets overcame that technological superiority. The same held true on the western front to a degree, especially in the area of tank warfare. In Korea the low tech Chinese smashed the technologically superior allied forces and forced a retreat to the stalemate that exists today. The Zero was the class of the Pacific campaign initially but the US used the strategy of attrition to defeat Japanese aircraft.

The percentages of a costly small technological advanced force being defeated are higher than a large less costly and less advanced force. Its the reverse of force multipliers.

The Soviet tanks like the T-34 and KV-1 far outclassed the German tanks. A SINGLE T-34 halted Army Group Center (over 300,000 men) for over 6 hours. The reasons why the Germans won early was they had a much better command and control system which the Soviets were never able to fully copy. Furthermore, now with technology being so important and so dominant on the battlefield, a low tech force has a very hard time inflicting ANY damage on a superior tech force. It hasn't quite reached the level of magic but it is getting close.

 

[Navy1960]

On a side note on the low tech thing in case we forget a F117 was brought down by a pretty cheap and very old SA2 which more than likely was launched in the blind. While it's a very good point that superior numbers generally trump technology and history has born this out. One need only look at the airwar over Europe to understand that. The first nation to field an operational combat jet as well as an air to air missile was Germany, however due to the sheer numbers of Allied aircraft this advantage meant nothing. Just look at the V-1 and V-2 which it can be argued were the first cruise missiles as well ICBMs. Again, I am not one to take the position that Germany was so vastly superior in technology that we were not even close, however there is a point that over spending in technology when history has shown that the advantage always goes to the one with the most numbers .

Here is a scenario in which the the USAF and USN has put the F35 through in a war game. Given a factor of 4 to 1 advantage in technolgy vs. Chinese J20's, and SU-30's, and Mig 29's, the F35 would eventually expend its missiles on the sheer number of contenders it would face. Once done, the opposing force would then take out USAF E3 AWACS and Tanker Aircraft as well as Navy Command and Control assests leaving US assets blind. So given that scenario if a LARGE number of F35's are not produced then the stealth advantage in producing them was not worth the cost. Further, if that is the reasoning which seems to be the case by the JSF Group, then it can be argued that a better performing and much cheaper alternative that gives you an even greater advantage in numbers such as the FA 18 E/F or the F16 IN is a better choice because for every F35 you purchase you could have gotten between 3 to 5 Super Hornets. So lets suppose you purcahse 2000 F35's which is about the number they intend to buy then given that we could have bought 6 to 10,000 Super Hornets or perhaps bought 4000 and saved the taxpayers billions?