I would disagree that the operations over the last 20 years have not been hi-tec. Wouldnt you class the 2 Gulf Wars, The Balkans and Afghanistan as Hi -tec? There is the myth that Afghanistan is a cheap low tec conflict. Just look at the cost of buying and deploying UCAVs, satellites for comms etc.
Of course Hi-Tec systems were used in all three wars you quote, but to what degree some of the more expensive systems, particularly aircraft, were needed to minimise our casualties is questionable. The real loses have come from poor decisions made and their impact on the post invasion security effort.
You cannot deploy a cheap and cheerful platform such as a Hawk anymore, those days of butchering 20 civilians and just writing it off as one of those things have gone. The pilot needs to see what he is targetting, hence cheap and cheerfull wont work, you need top class sensors, targetting pods, recon and intelligence assets, and that costs,, to the point that upgrading a platform such as Hawk or a Tucano wont be as cost effective as we could imagine.
I don’t think the Hawk 200 is particularly lacking, in systems for the task, it has a version of the Northrop Grumman APG-66 used in upgraded F16? It’s a poor argument that only an F35/Typhoon can be trusted to bomb safely? The Harrier seemed to be more than capable and is really a fairly cheap light attack aircraft; attack helicopters/UAV are lighter than a Hawk?
There is a budget, it isnt going to grow. At present we will have 23 top class surface escorts from that budget. If you want to add a cheaper, lesser tech vessel to the fleet then the numbers of first rate ships will drop. I just cant see the value of doing that. An F2000 or alternative, will inevitably lack the comprehensive sensor and weapons fit of a larger ship , otherwise the costs of the two types will narrow getting rid of any supposed numbers gain. Sending such a ship into harms way "in an emergency" is a sure fire way of getting a lot of dead sailors, that is why I have a problem with it.
If you want cheap and cheerful policing vessels then fine, but they are just that, you cant seriously then expect our fellow citizens to become canon fodder. In a shooting war , quality counts and that quality costs, if we get less numbers to give our personel the best chance of survival then so be it. Sending an under armed low tech vessel into a hot zone is the Naval equivalent of the snatch land rover disgrace. Once the Navy accepts a low cost patrol vessel at the cost of first rate ships then a steep decline will occur IMO.
Yes we might do two conflicts, one major one, one policing, anymore than that and it is pushing it.
:
