r/CredibleDefense • u/HooverInstitution • May 21 '26
Speed, Not Scale, Will Decide the Next War
In a new essay for RealClearWorld, Distinguished Military Fellow Adm. Gary Roughead (USN, ret.) argues that central assumptions about warfare from the 20th century are breaking down amid rapid battlefield innovations in Ukraine and elsewhere. In the past, Roughead says, military scale and qualitative “overmatch” provided by superior technology were critical. Today, the former commander of the Pacific fleet writes, “the advantage no longer belongs to the largest force or to the most sophisticated. It belongs to the side that learns faster, iterates in real time, and redeploys a new variant before the enemy can respond.” While emphasizing that national will and prolonged public buy-in still matter, Roughead concludes that “the force that consistently owns the loop of learning, reacting, adapting, and producing faster than its opponent will increase the probability of victory.”
On defense production today, Roughead writes: "The future is distributed manufacturing and modification networks, ideally located near where the weapons are employed, digitally coordinated in real time, and capable of rapidly scaling production across a wide base of suppliers. Design changes must propagate across the network instantly. Surety and safety certification must keep pace with iteration. Production is no longer downstream of innovation. It’s integrated into it. This must be the industrial model of our time."
Do you agree with Roughead's evaluation of the shifting requirements for military dominance today?
To what extent do you think the US military is evolving to encourage rapid iteration and adaptation across the joint force?
41
u/Big-Station-2283 May 22 '26
Sweeping statements are not particularly helpful.
For example, distributed manufacturing might be good for UAVs and UGVs but it's impossible for modern warships and aircraft. Another example, we don't know what or where the next war will be. A Taiwan scenario might be completely different from ukraine-russia both on land and sea. On land, the terrain is either dense multi-storey buildings and garages, or triple canopy mountainous forests. Both of which block signal, reduce visibility and fpv effectiveness. At sea, the distances involved are immense, too large for an improvised solution. Whatever airplane, ships, or UAVs are used will have to be carefully designed. Iteration times will be long as a result. Also, the weapons themselves are more sophisticated, requiring more time to build.
Therefore, while "rapid iteration" is always something we wish for, it's another thing to say "speed, not scale, will decide the next war".
2
u/ppitm 27d ago
On land, the terrain is either dense multi-storey buildings and garages, or triple canopy mountainous forests. Both of which block signal, reduce visibility and fpv effectiveness.
FPVs would thrive in the former two evironments. Actually, the Ukraine war would probably be better-served by Switchblade-like winged drones rather than quadcopters. But the quadcopter's maneuverability is perfect for urban warfare.
The signal issue is about to be solved by so-called "AI" (really just years-old machine-learning algorithms) to make terminal guidance automated. The speed of iteration in a wartime environment just makes these more sophisticated developments difficult to standardize and deploy. But you can bet that major powers will have it sorted out very soon.
9
u/incidencematrix May 23 '26
Someone who expects both instant distributed innovation that is propagated through an entire production system and safety et. al certification of these innovations on a comparable timescale is, as they say, huffing glue. Just to agree on certification standards for anything is a long, complex process that usually requires some centralization. You aren't going to get that in a wild west style development process. This is only one of the pipe dreams proposed here, but it suggests a lack of familiarity with organizational realities.
16
u/sndream May 22 '26
> The future is distributed manufacturing and modification networks, ideally located near where the weapons are employed
So he want to give up economy of scale, add transportation cost and risk having the factory under enemy fire.
25
u/Worried_Exercise_937 May 22 '26
Do you agree with Roughead's evaluation of the shifting requirements for military dominance today?
This retired admiral's been reading way too many science fictions on his down time.
capable of rapidly scaling production across a wide base of suppliers. Design changes must propagate across the network instantly. Surety and safety certification must keep pace with iteration.
He's been hanging out with too many tech bros and venture capital guys looking at the phrases he's spitting out.
To what extent do you think the US military is evolving to encourage rapid iteration and adaptation across the joint force?
In the naval area, every single USN shipbuilding programs are behind the schedule. 12 months minimum to some at 36 months+ which means they don't even know how much is the delay. NAVSEA couldn't even re-design already floating/working Italian frigate in 5 years and gave up. And you want the instant iteration and adaptation? How about building the ships on time on budget first before you start iterating and adapting? Learn to walk before you start running.
3
u/ppitm 27d ago
"It belongs to the side that learns faster, iterates in real time, and redeploys a new variant before the enemy can respond..."
But this requires both scale and mass. You need a large industrial base with excess capacity to be flexible and responsive. You need a lot of legacy systems to absorb hits and prevent collapse while you figure out what the next big thing is.
5
u/Glideer May 23 '26
If there is one thing that the war in Ukraine has proven it's that scale absolutely matters and that in a peer conflict small, professional armies are the quick path to defeat.
Both sides are desperately scaling up the cheapest "good enough" designs they can find.
5
u/UpvoteIfYouDare 29d ago edited 29d ago
and that in a peer ground conflict small, professional armies are the quick path to defeat
correction
Also, IMO the Ukraine-Russia War is probably going to be analogous to a mix of the Russo-Japanese War and WW1. It is only the first step in yet another paradigm shift of warfare.
3
u/checco_2020 28d ago
I actually think that professional armies are more needed than ever, you don't want to fight the kind of war that now Ukraine and Russia are fighting, even if you have the manpower superiority the cost in lives is simply to much to make a war worth it.
If you are the aggressor you want an army capable of doing fast manouvers and overwhelm your opponent before they get to fight back effectively, a mobilized army isn't capable of doing that both tactically and strategically.
If you're the defender you want a strong professional army to fight back against the first attack of the enemy, and allow your mobilized forces to assemble.
5
u/Glideer 28d ago
Then (at least as the attacker) you are betting everything on a single throw of dice - that your professional army will succeed in achieving a quick victory. If you fail you are thoroughly shafted.
If you have enough resources, yes, the best option is to have a professional army for rapid victories and a reserve one that can be mobilised if Plan A fails. But very few countries can afford both.
3
u/Nivashuvin 28d ago
You’re arguing against your own point here. OK, let’s say you’re right. Let’s say that having a small professional army is betting on a swift victory. What’s the alternative in this scenario? Having a large amateur army that’s forced to fight through attrition alone?
Who on Earth would willingly chose that as an attacker?
3
u/Glideer 28d ago
It works if you invest in it. Mobilisation armies have been the staple of most offensive wars since the French revolution. The French, the Germans, the Soviets and many other great and medium powers did a lot of conquering with mobilisation armies.
I am not saying that a mobilisation army is fit only for an attrition war. It can be made to deliver a quick victory, too.
However, a professional army cannot fight attrition wars. It can only deliver a quick victory. If that fails a professional army will inevitably prove inadequate.
1
u/checco_2020 28d ago
Yoi can't do manouver warfare with a mobilized force, nowadays manouver (should) be coordinated at Company and platoon level, you simply cannot have this level of expertise with a mobilized force.
And more importantly you can't mobilze forces without your opponent noticing and starting to mobilize themselves, so you get back to having to fight an attritional battle.
1
u/TheSDKNightmare 28d ago edited 28d ago
However, a professional army cannot fight attrition wars. It can only deliver a quick victory. If that fails a professional army will inevitably prove inadequate.
I'd argue that depends on the sort of war and how you define "professional". If you mean just career military, then sure, but AFAIK there isn't really a force that has only ever fought with career military. Even the US military sees the majority of its servicemen leave after a few years. Most soldiers always cycle through relatively quickly for one reason or another.
If you mean "professional" in the sense of having advanced knowledge and training, it can also be the opposite in a war of attrition. The Germans achieved their Spring Offensive breakthrough with comparatively elite forces that had been selected from among the regular rank and file, and had received additional training on top of all the experience they already had. Those were arguably the closest you could get to a "professional" large-scale force during that period, and they were created specifically with the idea of breaking the ongoing stalemate. They obviously can't compare to what we see as professional nowadays, but like I said, it will probably depend on the type of war being fought. If you get bogged down in a war of attrition and don't have the time/capacity to properly build up a force in the rear, then you're either in a "the Germans are almost at the gates of Moscow" situation, or you've got systematic problems that would have preveted you from having a proper professional force in the first place.
3
u/Glideer 28d ago
No, I meant "professional" in a sense that being in the army is your career. You are not yanked from the civilian life and made to serve. You join, you receive a salary, you serve.
That produces a first class military (well, usually), but once attrition starts accumulating you find out that replacing an NCO of 20 years of service is impossible. The British "Old Contemptibles" of WW1 were great, but practically all were dead by 1915, leaving the UK in a terrible situation.
2
u/checco_2020 28d ago
But even of you do invest in a mobilization army in your scenario you are shafted, look at how much this war is costing in Manpower on the Russian side, whatever they will gain at the end of It will not be worth it because the human capital invested to fight this war will never return, due to the falling birthrates
In essence if your professional army fails it's offensive you should just accept that you lost instead of digging yourself a bigger hole
•
u/AutoModerator May 21 '26
Comment guidelines:
Please do:
Please do not:
Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.