Some F-22 Links
If you’re interested in a more substantive take on why Mark Bowden’s F-22 advertorial in The Atlantic was silly, please read Robert Farley.
For a really serious look at the overall defense budget, procurement priorities, and national strategy please check out this report that Lawrence J. Korb, Peter Juul, Laura Conley, Major Myles B. Caggins III, and Sean Duggan did for CAP. To just quote their brief capsule item on the F-22, however:
The F-22 is a superb fighter aircraft, but it is unsuited for the irregular challenges of the near future. Ending F-22 production after 183 planes will still leave the Air Force with a strong silver-bullet force to meet any conventional contingency. Continuing F-22 production 20 aircraft a year for the next four years would cost $12 billion; that sum would be better spent on other priorities.
It’s important to have a realistic idea about how the defense budget relates to overall national strategy. At the end of the day, spending tens of billions of dollars on advanced fighter aircraft is not the best way to avoid a military confrontation with China. Indeed, in some ways doing so actually makes a military confrontation with China more likely. Either way, our relationship with other major powers is primarily a political problem, not a technical-military one and the scenario of an armed standoff should be avoidable through political means. By contrast, all indications are that any reasonable modification of U.S. foreign policy would still leave us wanting to use and credibly threaten to use air-to-ground attack capabilities.
The whole F-22 situation, one should note, relates to the broader institutional pathologies of the Air Force. Fighter pilots and former fighter pilots have a tight grip on the Air Force’s top ranks and institutional self-conception. But barring a bad deterioration in the geopolitical situation, the practical future of the Air Force will increasingly be the use of UAVs for surveillance and tactical strikes.
66 Responses to “Some F-22 Links”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
February 17th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
A repeat of what I said on the other thread, because it applies to Matt;s comment on the USAF’s “institutional self-conception” being at such odds with the “practical future” and actual current and likely “geopolitical situation[s]“:
February 17th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
But barring a bad deterioration in the geopolitical situation, the practical future of the Air Force will increasingly be the use of UAVs for surveillance and tactical strikes.
Very true, but is it a good idea to bar the possibility of a bad deterioration in the geopolitical situation? Certainly we should hope and expect that doesn’t happen, but I think we should definitely be prepared to the greatest practical extent in the face of considerable uncertainty. Besides, $12B in government debt-financed spending on American companies and workers over the next 4 years sounds like… stimulus.
Indeed, in some ways doing so actually makes a military confrontation with China more likely.
That’s just not very convincing. Probably there is an equilibrium of military spending that minimizes the risk of major conflict with China or other world powers. But just saying “less is better” is not a serious argument about where that equilibrium lies: certainly a military budget at 0% of GDP would not minimize that risk (neither would a defense budget at 50% of GDP!). I fail to see a clear and obvious reason why investing in 80 more extremely capable aircraft would raise, significantly or otherwise, the risk of war with China.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Yeah, $12 Billion on planes that will never do a thing but provide joyrides for guys out to prove how manly they are – that’s a good stimulus.
Again, sorry to bring in facts but the comment above about how we haven’t had a real battle for air superiority in 40 years is on point. $12 Billion to build schools that will still be there in two decades – that’s effective stimulus. $12 Billion on throwaway aircraft so that idiots can get their war on – that’s pretty much the definition of waste.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Very true, but is it a good idea to bar the possibility of a bad deterioration in the geopolitical situation? Certainly we should hope and expect that doesn’t happen, but I think we should definitely be prepared to the greatest practical extent in the face of considerable uncertainty
Well, you know, these geopolitical crises don’t happen overnight. 1930s Europe didn’t go from all calm and tranquil one day to OMG PANZERS ON THE LAWN the next – you generally get a bit of forewarning. And with acceptable lead times to produce more of the right sort of kit, the question is not “is there a significant chance of war with China (say) at any time in the future?” but “is there a significant chance of war with China before 2013?”
February 17th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Does global strategy or mission capability even matter in DoD procurement? Or just keeping the line open for the local economy and crapping out enough domestic and overseas sales so the units (plus upgrades, plus parts) are profitable in the secondary market?
February 17th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
And if you want to ignore whether F-22 is actually useful and justify it as an economic stimulus, that’s an entirely different argument, which brings in questions of the kind Evil Twin asks – like “will it employ more Americans to build, say, a giant animatronic model of Gene Hackman as Little Bill in the critically acclaimed 1992 Western ‘Unforgiven’ rather than a whole bunch of equally useless shiny new fighter aircraft?”
February 17th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
…please read the discussion thread for Matt’s initial post on Sunday.
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/02/mark_bowden_atlantic_shilling_for_the_f_22.php
February 17th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Is there some reason why the alleged link to Robert Farley’s critique of Bowden boomerrangs back to Matthew’s earlier post on the subject?
Is this some clever way of driving up traffic stats by suckering people into reading a post twice? Why not just put up Jessica Alba in a bikini?
February 17th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Evil Twin says: “Yeah, $12 Billion on planes that will never do a thing but provide joyrides for guys out to prove how manly they are – that’s a good stimulus.”
Dude, women fly fighters in U.S. armed forces. And have done so for years. Care to join the 21st century?
February 17th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
“the practical future of the Air Force will increasingly be the use of UAVs for surveillance and tactical strikes.” …provided there are no major advances in electronic warfare technology that would render UAVs worthless.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Dude, do you really think that makes a dimes worth of difference? Does the fact that women fly the planes change the jock culture that surrounds the use of high powered aircraft to create “air superiority?”
And dude, does that have fuck all to do with the fact that the planes are shinny toys for children (and, let’s be honest child, they are mostly boys)? When was the last time America was protected from invasion by a dogfight? By a bombing run?
And it’s pretty funny to be called “dude.” But that’s a different story for a different day.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
And if you want to ignore whether F-22 is actually useful and justify it as an economic stimulus, that’s an entirely different argument, which brings in questions of the kind Evil Twin asks – like “will it employ more Americans to build, say, a giant animatronic model of Gene Hackman as Little Bill in the critically acclaimed 1992 Western ‘Unforgiven’ rather than a whole bunch of equally useless shiny new fighter aircraft?”
Well, it’s a combination of usefulness and stimulus. I think there is a strong case that upgrading our planes is good as an end unto itself. But it’s even better when the means to that end includes providing lots of work for unionized laborers at Lockheed and Boeing. Maybe it’s not the absolute best stimulus possible, but I wager it’s better than a decent chunk of the just-passed stimulus package. Most folks here wanted a bigger stimulus with more spending; F-22s should dovetail with that desire.
Additionally, I think it’s fallacious to expect that if F-22 funding were cut, that money would automatically and necessarily be spent in other ways. Maybe I’m wrong, but if so please give an example of the government at any point in time cutting military spending and then explicitly transfering that spending into non-military channels. I do not think that spending is the zero-sum game that is being portrayed as.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Having one class of state-of-the-art fighters doesn’t seem like a waste to me. Part of the problem we’re facing now in the theater is that we didn’t have capability to fight in that type of conflict. If you think ramp up time is insignificant, remember how long it took to get armored humvees into the field. I realize that all sorts of crazy weapons systems are justifiable by this same rationale, but a fighter jet (like a bomber, or a tank, or a troop transport) seems like a bread-and-butter war implement.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Re alphie’s comment “provided there are no major advances in electronic warfare technology that would render UAVs worthless.”
——————
You mean like losing the comm uplink to the UAV controllers?
Recent message from Putin to Obama: Those are NICE comm satellites you have. Too bad if something was to happen to them:
http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=satellite-collision-debris-could-pe-2009-02-13
heh heh
February 17th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Part of the problem we’re facing now in the theater is that we didn’t have capability to fight in that type of conflict.
And the reality is, we don’t have the need. Too bad that gets lost among the sociopathic crowd pushing for fancy ways to kill people at great expense.
Here’s a fun test – how much money does it cost for each death by F-22?
If you can’t answer that, perhaps you shouldn’t be pushing for it.
Here’s another, given that there hasn’t been a single American on American soil protected by a fighter plane, or bomber produced in the past 50 years, what is the ratio of money spent to lives protected?
I realize that when talking about throwing money at the military there’s no use in asking for reason, but this argument is fundamentally stupid. There is simply no chance that this plane will materially better the lives of Americans outside of a tiny, non-essential, group.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
As I mentioned earlier, the F22 has a very short combat radius (about 410 nautical miles) compared to the F15 (1015 nm) it is replacing — because it loses stealth and fuel efficiency if tanks are hung off the wings.
Plus it doesn’t have STOL capability like the F35 , so it needs airfields near the enemy.
The most likely place where a F22 would be needed would be in a conflict with Russia and China over the Caspian Sea oil fields. Fortunately we have lots of air bases in those areas.
No, wait …
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_military_pieces_together_Afghan_supply_chain_999.html
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russia_gets_its_Abkhazian_Air_Base_back_999.html
February 17th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Evil Twin, I’m willing to give you a lot of latitude because I’m not passionate about defending the F-22, but you must be joking. Do you really think that air superiority has had no role in protecting Americans over the last 50 years? I’m unable to prove a negative, but your complete dismissal of the effect of deterrence seems naive. I suspect you’re going to tell me that it was America’s nuclear capability that provided sufficient deterrence. In which case I will label you a nuclear arms racer. There are plenty of reasons to think that Americans avoided hot conflicts because of air superiority when neither side would have seriously contemplated a nuclear strike.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Evil Twin:
BA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA! Dude, calm down. = )
By your rationale the entire U.S. military is unnecessary. I mean we haven’t fought an infantry engagement in Pennsylvania in almost 150 years. Does that mean we don’t need rifles and short range artillery?
Also, this whole “they haven’t died defending our soil” argument is a little trying.
While that may be debatable depending on how you define ’soil’, men and women in the U.S. armed forces have most certainly made that sacrifice while training for that possibility.
And that to me is close enough.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
In theory, we might someday need fighter jets to defend the continental US against Chinese or Russian nuclear bombers coming out of Cuba or Venezuela. I would think that smart ground to air missiles would work better.
If you think we need to fight overseas — a claim that can be disputed — then it seems to me that STOL F35s are far better than F22s. F22s need fixed air bases and we can’t defend fixed air bases.
We lost a stealth fighter in Kosovo in 1999, the debris has almost certainly been acquired/analysed by foreign powers and we will probably see stealth cruise missiles and UAVS suddenly appear in foreign hands at the start of any major conflict.
A STOL F35 can land/take off on a road and you can scatter them over the landscape –along with fuel bladders and support. IN contrast, a fixed F22 base is one big fat target — especially if you have to have air-conditioned hangers to reapply the stealthy stuff like with the F-117.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
You’re going to have to come up with a credible scenario that starts from the US not having any fighter aircraft and ends up with an aerial attack on the US. I mean, apart from the one that happened anyway.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
The other shortcoming with deploying large numbers of F22s in anything other than nuclear war is that billions have been spent developing them.
Yet one will inevitably crash and fall into enemy hands — a HUGE GIFT to the enemy — if you deploy them in any numbers. Again, look at how the stealth F-117 was lost in Bosnia in 1999.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
and
It’s important to consider that the suggestion here is not to cancel the F-22 entirely. The report that Matt links to, and the specific quote Matt pulled from that report, quite obviously describes the idea that F-22 production continue forward, but that the continuing procurement of an additional 20 aircraft a year is an expense we can skip.
To be entirely honest, I suspect that we have no need of even 183 F-22s. Which is not to say, and nobody is saying, that we don’t want to have a limited number of F-22s. As an extremely rich country with legitimate security concerns, spending a smallish sum to ensure that we can rapidly expand our ability to arm ourselves with cutting-edge air superiority technology is just good sense. But we do not need to actually fully arm ourselves, at staggering cost, in the total absence of a realistic need for that technology.
A failure to buy 300+ F-22s is not a complete abandonment of the pursuit and research of air superiority know-how. It’s just a sensible acknowledgment that we don’t need 300 F-22s five years from now.
Moreover, great power wars are largely won and lost on the strengths of their economy and their ability to expand their war production at need. Building F-22s now does nothing to ensure that the US’ main warmaking tool, its economy, remains in peak condition. The money being spent on excess F-22s could be reinvested to better economic effect, and thus better long-run military effect.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Ajay, if the US didn’t have an air force, then Osama could have done significantly more damage to the U.S. with a few out of date Soviet bombers purchased with Saudi oil money. Of course air superiority won’t and can’t prevent every attack. But you and Evil Twin are in a fantasy world if you think that just because we haven’t been attacked by a foreign power, we never would have been attacked even if we didn’t have a military.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
So we spend $30 Billion on R&D to develop the F22 –then hand the technology over to the Russians and Chinese for analysis after losing the F22 in some shitty little limited conflict?
Anyone know how to say “Thank you, comrades” in Russian?
February 17th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
And the idiot strawmen version of my argument. I suggest that we dont’ need more and the militaristic clowns argue against a total elimination of the military. I can’t believe Matt’s commenters are this fucking stupid.
Oh, and “died in training is close enough for me.” Wow, so when you get a paper cut masturbating to the images of the F-22 that qualifies you for a purple heart?
Compare your self-promoting idiocy to the real world. In the real world the military assaulted the innocent people of Iraq. In the real world the military was used to arrest the head of the Panamanian state. In the real world more than 50,000 Americans died and slaughtered a million more in a fight that was obviously a waste of all the lives involved. But in none of those cases were the lives actually expended “defending” the United States.
The fact remains that we have a hugely bloated military, we don’t need to keep throwing money down that rathole because whiny children such as those infesting this board are wetting their diapers over improbable events.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Strawman? You said “given that there hasn’t been a single American on American soil protected by a fighter plane, or bomber produced in the past 50 years. . .” Are you arguing that the other parts of the military, not fighter jets, provided all of this deterrence? How are you able to make these impressive itemized determinations?
And the military is just an implement of war. Blame the policy maker – George W. Bush – not the effectiveness of the military at breaking stuff (it’s what it’s designed to do).
I can almost see you sputtering with spittle as you type. Relax, guy.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
This talk about a fight with China is silly. It amounts to borrowing money from China in order to prepare for war with China. If it comes down to a fight with China, all they have to do is stop lending us money.
Viewed that way, all this defense spending actually makes us less secure.
February 17th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
If it comes down to a fight with China, all they have to do is stop lending us money.
Yeah, but then we’d default on trillions and they’d be screwed. Which is why I think war with China is very, very unlikely – but China’s not the only other significant power and I think buying more F-22s is smart on the merits despite the good points that NBarnes makes; and I think it is definitely smart as stimulus because it’s a “machine-shop-ready” project and if cut, the spending would not automatically carry over to some worthy non-military project.
I think that in the long run we will need to diminish our military spending, perhaps dramatically, as budgets are brought back to earth; so why not upgrade our forces and give a small boost to the stimulus program while we’re in the Keynesian frame of mind?
February 17th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Don’t be more of a moron than you have to Andrew. I realize that when it comes to defending the expensive toys for the military that anyone who insists on facts is “sputtering with spittle,” but get a grip. Do you really think that the primary mission of the military has been “deterence?”
Not to mention the fact that defense and deterence are related, but not equivalent. My point about defense stands. You are left with merely stupid personal attacks.
What’s amazing is how blithely you assholes dismiss the death and suffering of real human beings (here’s a hint moron, policies that require massive death and destruction are somewhat hindered by a lack of such capabilities). Sputtering with spittle my ass you sociopath. (that’s how a personal attack works – by pointing to the total failure of your opponent to be a human being)
February 17th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Evil Twin. Sigh.
You act like I’m foaming at the mouth when I merely argued that updating our fighter jets doesn’t seem like an egregious waste of military spending, considering the deterrent effect of military superiority. I don’t think the only way, or best way or even a good way, to prevent military misadventures is to let the military become out-of-date. I salute your devotion to pre-condition, but I think the world would be better served if the US maintained it’s military superiority and used it for good. But this, I realize, is a disgusting apathetic, sociopathic stance on military spending.
Spittle on, guy.
February 17th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
if the US didn’t have an air force, then Osama could have done significantly more damage to the U.S. with a few out of date Soviet bombers purchased with Saudi oil money.
Look, the USAF couldn’t even stop airliners. Why do you think they’d have done any better against actual bombers? Admittedly, they’d probably not have managed to get through the second time, but the first time they’d have breezed past the handful of ground-bound unarmed weekend pilots which was all the effort the USAF felt like putting into the air defence of the United States that day.
February 17th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Two points:
– It strikes me that having air superiority makes deployment of UAVs possible; without it, I don’t know what the max age is of “planes that can shoot down Predator drones at will” is, but I suspect it is amazingly old
– It also strikes me that having an armed force focused on dealing with insurgents = an armed force focused on getting into shit in countries we have no business getting into shit with. If the US armed forces are going to be the recipients of ludicrous amounts of money I think I am happier having them use the enormous amounts of money defending against imaginary Khrushchev than I would be if they used it to chew up real brown people here there and everywhere.
February 17th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Look, the USAF couldn’t even stop airliners. Why do you think they’d have done any better against actual bombers?
Are you really this dumb?
February 17th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
The problem isn’t that you are “foaming at the mouth” the problem is that you don’t recognize the sickness inherent in your position. You are a crazy person, with a massive support group of crazy people. That you sound reasonable doesn’t make you reasonable.
This basic acceptance of the notion of “American Exceptionalism” drives the idea that a massive American military is a positive good. The evidence is in. It is not. It is a dangerous thing that can be used for good, but at the whim of what was euphemistically call above “policy.” This means that the election of someone dangerous makes the American military a danger to world peace. As happened just a few years ago…unless you count the fact that the troops are still there.
What safeguards are you willing to put in place to ensure that another monster like Bush will not inhabit the office of President? The man started a war of choice. Using the military you seem to think is a good thing. And instead of acting in accordance with international law and common decency, they went along with it. The result is obvious to the world. What you are demanding in reasonable tones is unreasonable. You want more power and no responsibility. Indeed, calling you and those who support you crazy is the kindest way to put it.
It is long past time to earn the dividends of the end of the Cold War. Right now, rather than spending money on expensive ways to kill people, let’s spend money on improving the lives of people.
February 17th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
I’m all for a strong defense. But our “air superiority” has amounted to having an air force when the country we’re pounding doesn’t. I just don’t buy it that with the F-22 we could all of a sudden beat a country with an Air Force as if the score keeping would then be based on air performance alone. I realize that 4th generation warfare is “different”, but it’s not that different.
Our entire military is in terrible shape and in need of reform. In the case of an actual war with an actual military, our aversion to risk would likely not work in our favor.
February 17th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
I have a better idea brandon, let’s not give them enormous amounts of money. Oddly, it has the benefit of freeing up money for things that don’t involve “chew[ing] up real brown people” and cutting our deficit (in fact, do it long enough and we might be able to cut our debt).
February 17th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Evil Twin, I take your point. Now, let’s run with. First, I’m an unapologetic socialist, so let’s not waste any time convincing me that we should spend money on poor people – we agree. Your position seems to be that America would not have gone to war in Iraq if we didn’t have a kick ass military (or at least we wouldn’t have if our military was in such a state that the risks would be too high). I don’t think that’s right. Do you think Bush would have acted differently if our military was less effective? The administration assumed that the creation of a functioning democracy in Iraq would be easy. So what happened? They made a fundamental miscalculation about the utility of force. If our military was less able, do you think people would no longer make miscalculations about the utility of force? I don’t.
February 17th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Unless your position is that the effectiveness level of the US military should be set at the lowest common denominator, we’re always going to have the capacity to kick around third world countries. In which case, the risks you fear are always present, regardless. But the benefits to force superiority will no longer exist.
February 17th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
How’s that been working for us?
February 17th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
But the plane is so beautiful.
February 17th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
It has intangible value! Like the Golden Gate Bridge!
February 17th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
An A-10 sent to “attack” my unit in field exercises is one of the most beautiful things I’ve ever seen, and I’ve studied fine arts. I’ve long suspected that military aircraft are intentionally designed to be seductive. As opposed as I am to war for reasons other than defense, I can’t help it—I think jets are sexy. I suspect that high ranking military people who make procurement decisions can be just as mesmerized by the wrapping. All that engineering goes into making a machine that appeals to our primal side.
February 17th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Take a look at what Pierre Sprey, who designed several successful fighters, has to say about the F-22.
February 17th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
If the plane sucks, I’m against it. That should be said.
February 17th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
1) Rule: Never trust Korb on anything. He was hired by Reagan to do OSD Personnel and fired for being a lazy dimwit.
2) Fact: There are over 30 classified reports saying we must have at least 240 F-22 to deal with future conventional threats that are REAL–stretching from the current SA-20/SA-21 and 500+ Su-27/30/35 delivered/on order by China so they can attack Taiwan to the 5th Gen XXJ and Russian T-50.
3) History Lesson: Last Air Battle for Air Superiority was in 1991 over Kuwait/Iraq against an Iraqi AF of 750 a/c. Only reason we beat the shit out of them in the air is their stupid “hole-up” piecemeal tactics and we had 2.1 Fighter Wing Equivalents (FWE) of deployed F-15C Eagles. I was there DUDE, when we shot down 41 (Eagle kills=37) and the rest ran into Iran. More ran out of gas and crashed.
4) Fact: 183 F-22 only give us 1.2 deployable FWE and we must have 2.0 FWE deployable F-22s if you want to go take out nukes in Iran or defend a couple of democracies like Taiwan/Japan against China. Chinese mil officers have urged their pol leadership to attack Taiwan NOW for the last several years according to a former SecDef who visited China. Read it–Learn it–Live it.
5) Predictions: Pacifism and weakness in the face of THIS ONGOING Chinese runaway military buildup only encourages them to kill our Pacific allies. A Strong US military scares the shit out of the Chinese, and OBTW the Russians, who plan to energy blackmail their way into controlling Europe next time Oil tops $150. Want to die weak, scared and running?.. then move to the Republic of Georgia.
6) Fact: 1.2% of the US Stimulus buys 60 more F-22. Want to attack runaway spending? US Treasury just overpaid $78 Billion last month for bank assets–ten times what the USAF needs for F-22s.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
So, bluedog, implied in your argument is that nuclear forces aren’t a deterrent. You want to take the money out of nuclear forces to pay for the F-22?
February 17th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Yeah, classified reports written by people who listen to rush limbaugh a lot. Not really buying those. I work in the air force, and I’ve heard what gets cited as fact by the people I work with. Strangely, I have access to the same info and have seen nothing that makes me agree with them. Huh.
3) Yeah, 1991 we won handily. And we could do so again. Part of the whole shebang with the 22’s is that we’re supposed to need less of them to have the same effect as the 15’s. Significantly less. Also, we need to re-evaluate the whole ‘two wars’ doctrine, because it doesn’t apply like it used to and it costs a lot of money. According to lockheed, the 22’s are supposed to be able to kill 8 opposing aircraft a sortie, which is, IIRC, more than double what northrup? claimed for the 15. So..we should need less, right?
4. You’re into bogus claims for 2020 warware again, not likely claims for 2013. We can build them. We can ramp up production if we need to. what we should do is pay a little money to ensure we can ramp up production at need, rather than spend a lot of money to actually put the production in place. Improving our acquisitions process so that we separate design and build money woudl be a REALLY good idea here. We pay people to design, the US government owns the design and can give it to the lowest bidder (who hasn’t failed) to build it, regardless of who designs it. Let’s introduce competition into the build process. Also, you mean rumsfeld? Yeah, I trust his opinion.
5. See here. http://www.newsweek.com/id/184815 You’re a hedgehog, clearly.
6. I work for defense contracting. spending on defense contracting you waste AT LEAST 50% of your dollar spent. On my contract, you waste 60%. And IT is probably better bang for your buck than proprietary kill-ware like the 22.
February 17th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Qslvrwolf, could you elaborate on the proprietary part, that sounds interesting.
February 17th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
To be fair, Andrew, I think that Evil Twin’s point was that the people who actually send the planes out to bomb the crap out of other countries who are not a threat to the USA are the ones who can be said to be foaming at the mouth. And he has a point.
February 17th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
If the US didn’t have an air force, then Osama could have done significantly more damage to the U.S. with a few out of date Soviet bombers purchased with Saudi oil money.
True. Fortunately, the US has thousands of fighter planes currently in service.
February 17th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
> We pay people to design, the US government
> owns the design and can give it to the
> lowest bidder (who hasn’t failed) to
> build it, regardless of who designs it.
Not to disagree (or agree) with your post, but this sentence just isn’t how complex industrial production works. Manufacturing complex things, and building the support structures to enable the manufacturing of complex things, is a “learning by doing” process. Once you shut down a production line, break down the tools (even if you don’t destroy them as DoD procurement contracts often require), destroy the shop instructions (which belong to the mfgr not the gov’t, and which would be useless outside their original context anyway), and disperse the workforce it is usually impossible to restart production. Certainly not at short notice.
Cranky
February 17th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
If we didn’t have an Air Force, anyone could do considerable damage with attack air craft.
February 17th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
> True. Fortunately, the US has thousands of
> fighter planes currently in service.
The only problem there it that the F-15s are starting to wear out. Personally I think that it would be wiser to produce another batch of F-15s (say to the Korea spec) to back up the F-22s, but the Air Force claims they are totally obsolete. Which is odd because in the last year Korea ordered a second batch and Singapore selected it for its next purchase – you wouldn’t think either of those parties would select an obsolete airplane they expected to use for 20-30 years.
Cranky
February 18th, 2009 at 8:04 am
I’m not terribly impressed by the arguments made here for the F22.
I doubt Iran’s over there saying, “They’ve got F22s now, scrap the nuke program, quick!” Nuclear weapons are a deterrent, fancy fighter jets aren’t.
I like MY’s initial suggestion: hold with what we’ve got, and not order any more. If we get into some giant war, we can ramp up production. But I’m not buying the crap people have been selling here that it’s necessary.
And $46 BlueDog is the epitome of this alarmist BS. It’s not to say we don’t need to maintain some sort of planes, but considering we don’t know the nature of the next conflict, to think we’re going to require the F22 is wishful thinking.
February 18th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Bluedog-
Despite what the PLA or the USAF wants to think – the Russians, otoh, have never had such illusions – any war between the US, China or the CIS is going nuclear within three days.
If the F-22 was such a hot job, the Israelis would want it, and we would give it to them.
They don’t. They think the F-15, upgraded by RAFAEL, is a much, much better choice. Considering that their likely opposition is our likely opposition, we should be taking a page out of their book.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:12 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 12th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 17th, 2009 at 2:18 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
tramadol
March 20th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
The Isrealis can`t recieve the F-22, F-15`s are NOT obsolete just wearing out and all this debate is pointless because whatever will happen, will be out of our control…
After the Massive Bail-out to Companies who should have been bankrupt, it`s moot and the sum of $45,000.000.000/year is paltry…I say build th Fighter becasue NO ONE can predict the future…Friends can be foes and like the Chinese/Russians who ner rrally were. NO ONE likes the U.S….Just remember Pre Pearl Harbor years when Stingy spending on Defence cost America plenty a little later…Ostrich with head in sand mentality from so-called “Experts” here is nauseating…
March 20th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
And $46 BlueDog is the epitome of this alarmist BS. It’s not to say we don’t need to maintain some sort of planes, but considering we don’t know the nature of the next conflict, to think we’re going to require the F22 is wishful thinking
Someday, you will remember and you will weep for your short sided menatlity…
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:51 am
tramadol
Great site. Good info
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:18 am
viagra
I want to say – thank you for this!
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:51 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:59 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 4:36 am
Thanks for the review! viagra
April 19th, 2009 at 8:56 am
j63NiM izbfjiknadur, [url=http://wqbpgujwghah.com/]wqbpgujwghah[/url], [link=http://lbaxrarwxzcl.com/]lbaxrarwxzcl[/link], http://etstmvhtqebt.com/