Is cutting-edge military tech really cheaper than manpower?
By Daniel Vardiman
Is cutting-edge military tech really cheaper than manpower?
The excitement over artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and automation in support of military capabilities is growing inside policy circles. Industry is eager to develop new tools, and the US Department of Defense (DoD) is keen to operationalize new concepts. The mood suggests that we are on the cusp of the next military revolution.
The faith in these developments stems from the confidence that they will make warfare faster and safer, put fewer people in harm’s way—and, crucially, make future capabilities cheaper than traditional military hardware. On the surface, that’s a fair assumption: Service members are the most expensive single item on the annual budget, and any new system that improves proficiency and lowers the number of required personnel should lead to a more effective force and lower costs.
The reality might be more complicated. Take the highly successful MQ-1 Predator drone, for instance: It helped usher in the age of remote piloting and shaped concepts of military automation. When it first came on the scene in 1996, it was heralded as a replacement for the SR-71 and U-2 manned espionage planes to limit the risk to pilots. But really, the Predator did more to fill a gap in requirements than it did to replace a capability. The requirements for U-2s, for example, didn’t go away: The spy planes were designed to fly at high altitudes to avoid most threats and look far into enemy territory from a safe distance. In contrast, the Predator operates at lower altitudes and provides greater flexibility for surveillance operations inside threat windows.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/automating-the-fight/is-cutting-edge-military-tech-really-cheaper-than-manpower/
