Can the United States stop a Chinese invasion of Taiwan by turning the island’s approaches into an “unmanned hellscape”? Can the “attritable” unmanned capabilities being acquired through the Pentagon’s Replicator initiative close an emerging gap in combat power with the People’s Liberation Army? Can the U.S. Air Force compensate for its shrinking force structure, maximize the effectiveness of its manned airframes, and achieve “affordable mass” with collaborative combat aircraft?
Each of these efforts represents a wager that smaller, less expensive, and more numerous systems are critical to deterring or defeating Chinese aggression. They also reflect one side of a long-standing defense policy debate over the utility of expensive and advanced capabilities versus cheaper and less sophisticated alternatives. Advocates of the two approaches have sparred throughout history, and, today, the dueling approaches comprise a high-stakes debate in American defense strategy — with future fighting concepts and billion-dollar contracts hanging in the balance.
Right now, the affordable-but-plentiful school seems to be gaining ground. Although this approach helps to address constraints on the U.S. military’s size and posture, policymakers should not let enthusiasm for cheaper weapons mutate into prejudice against costlier ones, which has happened in the past. Sophisticated yet scarce capabilities offer unique advantages, particularly when it comes to degrading an opponent’s military effectiveness by inflicting virtual attrition.