F-22 Too Big to Fail
There’s always a reason not to kill the F-22 project:
Without further spending for the F-22, companies that supply critical components for it would begin shutting down soon. The chairmen and ranking Republicans on both the House and Senate defense appropriations subcommittees recently wrote to Mr. Gates to voice their support for the F-22, cautioning that “the last thing our nation needs is to terminate jobs in this time of such economic uncertainty.”
Like many big weapons systems, the plane, which relies on 1,000 parts suppliers in 44 states, has strong support in Congress, which recently provided up to $140 million in bridge financing for some of the suppliers.
Now it’s true that reducing expenditures on the F-22 purely for the sake of reducing expenditures would not be a good idea at a time when reductions in expenditures aren’t what the economy needs. But holding expenditures constant, it’s still the case that the F-22 is a poor use of resources. There are a lot of things within the Defense Department that would be a better use of that money. And there are things within the civilian side of national security that would be a better use of that money. And there are domestic things that would be a better use of that money.
The financial crisis really does throw worries about the deficit out the window, but it by no means should end worries about relative cost-effectiveness.
39 Responses to “F-22 Too Big to Fail”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
December 11th, 2008 at 11:19 am
We need to transform the military industrial complex into a sustainable energy industrial complex. Spread jobs related to alternative energy projects across the 44 states, and give the companies sweetheart, no-bid billion dollar contracts for infrastructure projects that are too big to fail. There’s no reason killing machines should get all the pork in this country.
Swords into windmills.
December 11th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Maybe we should re-invest the money in a new green fighter jet that runs on dung and sunshine.
Seriously, I have no informed opinion on the F-22. Can someone point to a backgrounder that contains an objective pro and con analysis?
December 11th, 2008 at 11:22 am
I guess we can count on Stevens’ support for the auto bailout. If he believes we should buy more useless F-22s because so many jobs rely on it, I’m sure he supports supporting the autos with even more jobs at stake.
December 11th, 2008 at 11:26 am
There are a lot of ways to use money that would be more efficient than spending it on an auto bailout. But people are employed by both of these things, so do you really think it would be more efficient to let them all lose their jobs, spend a bunch of time coming up with and implementing a jobs program, and then maybe they get a job in it that is maybe near where they live? Maybe just better to keep them employed where they are now.
December 11th, 2008 at 11:34 am
If you think the F-22 is a gold-bricked white elephant, get a load of what experts are now saying about the US Navy’s capacity to repel Somali pirates:
December 11th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Well, we could always take the money we spend on that program and increase troop numbers.
I’m sure the military brass could find some use for those mechanics, engineers, and hell, even warm bodies being wasted on the F-22.
December 11th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Fighter planes in general are an idea made obsolete by missile technology. Who gets in dogfights anymore?
December 11th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
One thousand suppliers. 44 states. No wonder the planes are so damn expensive and so far behind schedule. I certainly understand the political rationale for spreading the constituency among 88 Senators, but I don’t get the economic rationale.
The manufacturer is like a giant wedding planner on steroids, coordinating all the second and third order subcontractors. And what if one of the suppliers is late. What are they going to do, fire them? F-22 joysticks are not like flowers or cake; you can’t just browse the phone book for a new supplier.
December 11th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
F-22 is already IN production and despite it’s Cold War pedigree, it is the best Air platform in the world, we should think seriously before killing it. On the other hand, F-35 has yet to enter production, is a far more troubled program (trying to be a jack-of-all solution to three services) which can be largely subsumed by other platforms, including the F-22. The Super Hornet is already being subbed by our own Navy and the Aussies due to F-35’s troubles. The USMC and Royal Navy may just have to get over their affection for STOVL and settle for the Hornet or a EU product that fits the light attack role. The F-16 line is still producing for export, let’s look at revising that platform for the AF req as the Hornet has evolved for the Navy. We need to kill the LCS (good idea, shitty implementation) and Zumwaly/DDX/DDG100 and build more of the proven Burkes. Sorry for the rant, but I am fanatical about procurement issues!
December 11th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
We could always build pyramids, but they are so old-fashioned compared to airplanes that fly 1600 mph.
December 11th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
It would be easier to support curtailing F-22 production if the F-15 fleet wasn’t in serious difficulties with fatigue life. That said, the F-15 is, I believe, still in production for Korea, and possibly the AF should consider re-equipping some F-15 squadrons with newer, and cheaper, F-15s instead of F-22s. The F-15 is still a very good airplane.
The idea that “conventional war is dead” is too often heard and strikes me as a little simplistic. It’s not the jubilee yet.
December 11th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Yes, the F-22 is a great fighter if we’re locked in an apocalyptic struggle against an invading alien race. Wouldn’t Will Smith look great in one? However, for fighting an actual war against an actual enemy, it’s like using an electron collider to cut a steak. No one’s quite sure what it would do, but it’s definitely both cool and expensive.
In the meantime, our next nearest strategic competitors are developing quite effective, missile-based alternatives to maintain the threat of aerial bombardment without establishing air supremacy. Heck, the much less expensive un-manned aerial drones capable of remotely firing laser-guided munitions are perhaps a much bigger advancement in the art of warfare than the F-22.
In short, we don’t need the F-22 to win a war against any rival nation’s military. We don’t need it to fight terrorist organizations. We don’t need it to advance state-of-the-art research on military weapons. We don’t need it.
December 11th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
When I hear a phrase like “a thousand parts suppliers in 44 states” all I can think of is “fully metastasized cancer”. In this case the fighter plane is just a symptom that only hints at the severity of the affliction. And terms like “relative cost effectiveness” remind me more of a spinster wringing her hands in anguish over the murder of baby seals than they do of a sober economist thoughtfully cutting a budget back into reason.
The effects of this are plain to see- a foreign policy that makes us progressively less secure, a national budget now adding a trillion in debt each year, and widespread ineffectual handwringing about our inability to finance, education, healthcare, or even, for many, basic food and shelter.
If there is a cure for this cancer of the body politic, it certainly doesn’t involve trimming one program at a time. There is no rational way to make little snips and prune back the basic desire to spend more than the rest of the world combined on war.
It will be interesting to see how long we attempt to pay these bills and if, in fact, it is even possible to do so. I’m guessing, maybe not.
December 11th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
MY’s (eminently reasonable) point can be expressed most clearly in terms of the concept of two-stage budgeting.
December 11th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Our previous air-war strategies have been dependent on use of the AWACs aircraft. The SU-27 and later series of aircraft were designed with the mission of penetrating through cover sufficiently to destroy the AWACs craft with stand-off weapons. There are about 1000 of these around the world. The F-22 is much less reliant on AWACS, and even replaces the AWACs’ functions in some situations.
That being said, I think we already have 180 F-22s (possibly 120 and funding for 60 more already spent). How many more can be justified even by ardent hawks?
December 11th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Here is what you need to know about the F22. It has flown Zero combat missions in Iraq or Afghanistan, as in not even one, nada, zippo.
It is solely an air superiority fighter that has no mission after the fall of the USSR which is why literally no one, not even Israel wants one,…and we would give Israel the money to buy them from us, but nope, they don’t want one.
The Air Force has already spent $65B on 187 planes ($350M EACH!)which should be more than enough to manage it’s non-existent mission.
Fred Kaplan has written extensively on this boondoggle.
The Air Force doesn’t need any more F-22s. – By Fred Kaplan – Slate Magazine
December 11th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
You underestimate those hawks. Depending upon how one might define “justified,” I would reckon 100 to 350. And if there were even more, I would not be unduly surprised.
December 11th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
The F22 is useless for an Iraq/Afghanistan style war therefore we should do away with it. Because the next war is going to be exactly like the last one?
The F22 is heads and shoulders the best fighter jet in the world. In fact, the second best fighter jet in the world, the Joint Strike Fighter, is, in my understanding, basically a nerfed version of the F22, because giving even our allies the technology in the F22 would dilute our enormous airpower advantage.
History has taught us that you can’t predict where conflicts will arise even 5 years down the line. So, given that we have the money, which sort of war should we prepare for? Should we devote our resources for counterinsurgency, prepping militarized peacekeepers with lots of language skills? That sure would’ve helped in Afghanistan and Iraq! However, Afghanistan and Iraq are not wars that threaten the existence of our nation or our allies. In a war like that–whatever it would be– the F22 would be very useful.
Or we could just devote our resources to preparing our army to invade Iraq again.
December 11th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Now it’s true that reducing expenditures on the F-22 purely for the sake of reducing expenditures would not be a good idea at a time when reductions in expenditures aren’t what the economy needs.
Sure it woul be a good idea, if the F-22 doe not have any practical use. Wasting resources to create jobs that produce things we don’t actually need is not actually helpful to the economy (see “broken window fallacy”). Continuing to spend on the F-22 unless we need F-22s is a waste. It’s as stupid as the suggestion that we create jobs by hiring some people to dig ditches and hiring others to fill them back in. You’re operating under the delusion that moving resources around (i.e. circulating money) causes economic growth, when it doesn’t.
But holding expenditures constant, it’s still the case that the F-22 is a poor use of resources.
If it is a poor use of resources, then it should be scrapped. Whether the money is spent on a “better” stimulus, or whether it is used to pay down debt or to cut taxes, not spending the money on something useles (or near useless) is always the better option.
December 11th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
The F-22 is what evades a robust ground radar based air defence to deliver precision-guided munitions and then either eludes or destroys enemy fighters on the way out. It’s a small-scale bomber that provides its own fighter/air superiority cover. They haven’t flown missions in Afghanistan/Iraq because it hasn’t been necessary. You don’t unleash the combat capabilities of something like the -22 until it’s absolutely necessary.
December 11th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
I’m curious to know if, during the Vietnam War, there was some analogue of Michael T. Sweeny and others above explaining about how foolish it would be to cut off funding for building anti-cavalry defenses, because that’s literally about as far removed in time from the last use of cavalry forces against American troops as today is removed from the last time American military forces were subjected to an organized attack by coventional military aircraft (the Korean War).
December 11th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
The problem is the F22 is fucking cool. Not as cool as the F35 that will hopefully one day lead to Military Mecha (the epitome of cool), but cool none-the-less. As I’ve said elsewhere we need to balance usefulness against cool factors.
December 13th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Prescription pills http://MyRxPill.com
December 14th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Rich Miranda announced this morning that he has resigned effective immediately as the head coach of the Navy men’s soccer team, after concluding the season last Friday against Army.
December 15th, 2008 at 5:05 am
http://www.trtllc.com – Tissue Regeneration Technologies, LLC (TRT) is proud to announce the receipt of a $2 million grant from the Defense Acquisition Challenge (DAC) for fiscal year 2009. TRT’s proposal
January 19th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
laptop battery
laptop batteries
March 1st, 2009 at 5:39 pm
cialis
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 14th, 2009 at 4:57 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:18 am
Great site. Good info
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:55 am
tramadol
Great site. Good info
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:18 am
buy viagra online
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:20 am
viagra
I want to say – thank you for this!
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:53 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
buy cheap viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
If you ever want to hear a reader’s feedback
, I rate this article for 4/5. Decent info, but I just have to go to that damn google to find the missed pieces. Thanks, anyway!