Probably. I am not a fan of Washington state's senior senator; in fact, I have long thought that Senator Patty "not-a-rocket-scientist" Murray is unqualified to serve in the Senate. But she may be right in her support of most Boeing defense programs, right to oppose cuts in, for instance, the F-22 Raptor. Right, perhaps, for the wrong reasons, but still right. Probably.
(I say probably because I have not done an analysis of the F-22, have not even read a good analysis. It is difficult, even in principle, to decide what the right level of military spending should be, because at the right level, nothing will happen — assuming your adversaries are rational. And for the same reason, it is difficult to decide how much to spend for particular systems. But I do know that, historically, democracies have tended to spend too little on defense, and that the United States is no exception to that generalization. And I do know that threats, and potential threats, to the United States have increased in recent years. So, were I setting national policy, I would be inclined to increase defense spending, though not by a large amount. And I would be inclined to increase spending on the F-22. Probably.)
And about one thing, Senator Murray is unquestionably right: Defense spending can be a good economic stimulus. Even FDR knew that, though he spent too little on defense before World War II. Obama's plans to cut spending on the F-22, and many other defense programs, will be a severe blow to our economy, in the short run, and perhaps in the long run. (These cuts are being ascribed to Secretary Gates, but there is no reason to think that he would have made all of them had he been working for a more realistic president. It is profoundly unrealistic, for instance, to cut back on missile defense programs just when missile threats, from nations like North Korea and Iran, are increasing.)
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
Posted by Jim Miller at April 07, 2009 11:46 AM | Email ThisAs one pundit once said, "they said if I voted for McCain, the world would see arrogance unleashed. And they were right." Only it is Obama and not McCain who is arrogant.
I am beginning to wonder about Gates. If he really is pro-military, then is he doing the cuts and making silly statements in order to see damage minimized than say, a Wesley Clark type?
Posted by: swatter on April 7, 2009 12:15 PMBig difference.
Many of these programs are expensive, and may be useful for wars we won't be fighting, as opposed to those we are.
2. Defense spending is required to allow the government to perform its only valid function, protecting its citizens rights. Do not ever think that it is a good economic stimulus however. It is not valid for two reasons. First it is government spending meaning it is taking from what the people truly want which is always bad for the economy, and second it is essentially spending on destruction. Unless you buy into the broken window fallacy it is not valid economic spending.
2. Defense spending is required to allow the government to perform its only valid function, protecting its citizens rights. Do not ever think that it is a good economic stimulus however. It is not valid for two reasons. First it is government spending meaning it is taking from what the people truly want which is always bad for the economy, and second it is essentially spending on destruction. Unless you buy into the broken window fallacy it is not valid economic spending.
2. Defense spending is required to allow the government to perform its only valid function, protecting its citizens rights. Do not ever think that it is a good economic stimulus however. It is not valid for two reasons. First it is government spending meaning it is taking from what the people truly want which is always bad for the economy, and second it is essentially spending on destruction. Unless you buy into the broken window fallacy it is not valid economic spending.
2. Defense spending is required to allow the government to perform its only valid function, protecting its citizens rights. Do not ever think that it is a good economic stimulus however. It is not valid for two reasons. First it is government spending meaning it is taking from what the people truly want which is always bad for the economy, and second it is essentially spending on destruction. Unless you buy into the broken window fallacy it is not valid economic spending.
ALL of our military plans hinge on either having air superiority, or winning it soon after the initiation of hostilities. Air superiority, along with information/communications superiority, and, when applicable, naval superiority, are how America does asymmetric warfare. (Asymmetric warfare does not necessarily mean 'unconventional' warfare - it simply means that one side is exploiting a decided advantage in some area or areas. US air supremacy is one example. Symmetric warfare would be the phalanxes of ancient Greece smashing into each other, or the Red Army vs the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front, or the trenches of WWI. Nobody has a decisive advantage, resulting in slow, extremely costly wars of attrition.)
Posted by: Heartless Libertarian on April 7, 2009 02:38 PMAlso, while the F-22 is 5 times as expensive as the F-15, they originally only planned on ordering about 1/5 as many as there are F-15's. This evens out the cost until you realize that 1/5 the planes equals 1/5 ground crew, parts, etc... meaning the plane is cheaper in the long.
The F-35 can't replace the F-15. It's simply not designed for that role. Yes, it can dog fight... but it's not an air superiority fighter. And I'm sorry, but in a dog fight between a flight of UAV's and a flight of Russian SU-27's, my money is on the SU-27's. Only a fool would really trust a remote controlled vehicle to replace a human in a dogfight.
Also, the F-35 is not speedier... it has a max speed of Mach 1.6. The F-22 has a cruising speed of 1.8, and a max speed of Mach 2.25. It's biggest advantage is it's stealth abilities. Once in a dogfight, then the stealth advantage goes away, and the F-35 is simply not a 1:1 match on paper as the newer Russian Su-27 variants and it's Chinese counterparts which are faster and every bit as agile, and serve in the superiority fighter role the F-15 serves in.
Posted by: Mike H on April 7, 2009 03:32 PMBut still, only a few of these are likely necessary in most circumstances and obviously none at all right now in the conflicts we're in right now.
Better to spend our scarce dollars on less expensive but still highly capable piloted and un-piloted aircraft.
Posted by: BA on April 7, 2009 03:38 PMBA, you bring on a good point and it was one I was trying to get at. Sure, today and at this instant, it appears the war or skirmish or overseas contingency plans (whatever) would dictate preparing for a different type of defense.
But, on the other hand, I just can't overlook the military buildups by the likes of China, Russia, etc. in the Americas and elsewhere. I also can't ignore Russia invading Georgia. When I was in boot camp back in '68 when Russia invaded the Czech Republic, I just assumed that we would be fighting Russia head to head. But, maybe that proves your point since we never went tank to tank (but again, maybe I am right because we had Reagan to stare them down).
This is a pretty complicated issue and one I don't think Obama is up to and one he hasn't addressed except to tell Gates what to say and damn the torpedos.
Posted by: swatter on April 7, 2009 04:17 PMInstead, we have senators and representatives milking pork from the military. We have military folks who realize that the only way to get a good military is to play the game by wheeling and dealing. And we have defense contractors who are selling their wares to congressmen and not the military.
The result is that the military spending is almost as bad as our social spending in this country: Short results for a big bill.
The only reason we get by with such low efficiency is because there are enough good-hearted military officers who can keep the defense contractors and congressmen at least pointed in roughly the right direction and because everyone else in the world is so much less efficient with their spending. That, and we spend vast fortunes on our military compared to any other country.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on April 7, 2009 04:47 PMOf course the devil is in the details, the services have their own turf to protect, and there's the political realities (such as senators protecting their constituents...aka Murray).
I don't see Obama any better or worse than past Presidents with this yet - we'll see if he can select smart people to focus on this, and if he has the political capacity to pull it off.
If past history is a guide - we might get part of the way there.
As far as Dogfights go....They are mostly a thing of the past. It is not the agility nor the speed of the aircraft that will rule the day. It is who is able to see the other first. It is who has the most advance sensors and who releases the first air to air missiles that will rule the day. So, put your money on the Russian Su-27 and have your ass and money blown out to the sky.
UAVs are increasingly taking more of a share of surveillance and ground attack from conventional manned planes with superior results. They are many times less expensive, smaller, remain on station much longer and fly at altitudes that would be suicide for a manned plane to fly with all the proliferation of the shoulder mounted surface to air missiles, let alone, engage in a dogfight of yesteryear.
Bottom Line....The F22 Raptor is way to expensive to meet the needs and the affordable numbers that are currently being developed with the F35 and others including advancing the UAVs for future demands for Americans and our Allies.
Plus if you don't think there isn't a way to scramble the info getting to the UAV pilot. Well then, you know that bridge.
By the way... Both Bush Sr & Clinton cut our armed forces way to low. We are paying for it.
Besides. When are we going to stop the war on poverty. Been around since LBJ and cost far more.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on April 7, 2009 05:32 PMSometimes it's worth holding one's knee down rather than automatically jerking it.
Posted by: BA on April 7, 2009 05:44 PMThey said that when the F-4 and Sidewinder were introduced. The F-4 had better missiles and sensors, but flew like a brick and had no internal guns. But it didn't matter, the thinking went, because better sensors and heatseeking and/or radar tracking missiles made the dogfight a thing of the past... and our pilots paid for it in Vietnam.
You're right, whomever see's the other first and launches that first missile has the advantage. And because of that, the advantage goes to the F-35 over the SU-27. BUT... once that first missile is launched, or if the F-35 is carrying anything on it's external hardpoints, it loses it's stealth abilities and thus it's advantage, so you better hope that missile hits on the first shot. Because after that, it's a dogfight.
The problem with your thinking is that it doesn't take into account Murphy's Law. It assumes that everything will go according to design, that nothing will foul up and go wrong, the the target will get hit with the first shot flawlessly. It also assumes that the enemy doesn't come up with countermeasures, or is incapable of evading the missile. The newer sensor systems that the Russians are developing are every bit as good as ours. Sorry, stealth is a huge advantage that the F-35 has over every other aircraft except the F-22 (and to be honest, the stealth abilities of the F-35 are supposedly better than the F-22), but it's not foolproof, and I would rather have a well rounded aircraft that is capable of fulfilling the role of air superiority fighter like a traditional fighter should the advantage of surprise fail, than put all of my eggs in the stealth basket.
Posted by: Mike H on April 7, 2009 06:03 PMWe hear the Messiah in Chief calling 20 new cop recruits great proof the trillions he's committed to the so-called stimulus is working. But, he's willing to give away 90,000 high paying high tech jobs that are necessary for our national security... It's really not that difficult to make the call here. It's a BAD UNJUSTIFIABLE IDEA on many levels. But so is everything else Democrats do...
Posted by: scott on April 7, 2009 06:34 PMAnd you make a very valid point about UAV's. They do serve an important role in intelligence gathering and reconnaissance, as well as ground attack against light fixed or slow moving targets. If nothing else, they make great cannon fodder, due to the lack of a human pilot in the vehicle. But they simply can't replace that human pilot... especially in air to air.
Also, you pointed out the whole putting a satellite over a combat area. That works against adversaries like N Korea or Iraq. But if God forbid we ever get into conflict with a heavily industrialized nation like Russia or China, they can and will by then posses the capability of knocking out our satellites.
Posted by: Mike H on April 7, 2009 07:47 PMJust because we're now performing air superiority over essentially third world countries doesn't mean that's what we will need in the future. Always better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
I think we need both F-22s and F-35s. I'll leave the balance to the military experts.
Be careful though of looking at per copy cost without considering procurement. Research, development, test, and evaluation is a fixed cost no matter how many you buy. I was on the B-2 bomber program back in the 80s. There were originally supposed to be 132 bombers built. Congress decided that it would cost too much so it reduced the number first to 70 and then to 20. Per copy cost exploded. That lead many to decide that it was an even bigger waste of money. Try to imagine what an early GEO Metro automobile would cost if GM decided to build 50 cars and recoup the program expenses and a modest profit by pricing them accordingly.
If Congress wrote one big blank check for the military/executive to spend however they want then we might as well not even have a congress (and probably woulnd't after too long). Separation of powers is important and congress controlling the money is one of the most important.
Posted by: Lysander on April 7, 2009 11:39 PMI think that might be a big reason for the F-22's high cost. They did stuff with it that had never been done before. Some of that technology was then used for the F-35. Less necessary R&D in the F-35 makes for cheaper plane.
Posted by: Mike H on April 8, 2009 12:12 AMBarnett says buy, sell, trade with these countries; accept their students in our colleges. Then they become interdependent with us; China DEPENDS on US purchase of their goods. Then they won't want to go to war with us, even if they have the military capacity to. They might not like us, but they don't want to hurt themselves, which war with their best trading partners would do.
Posted by: Ron Hebron on April 8, 2009 06:53 AMSo guys, exactly how many of these particular aircraft are necessary? Since Gates has decided we'll soon have enough - shouldn't you be calling for his resignation?
Seems two presidents have made a bad decision according to your superior analytical knowledge in first selecting, and then retaining Gates as Secretary of Defense.
How about our ever shrinking navy, which dropped precipitously in size during the the last 8 years and will continue to do so as ships were retired and replacements not built?
Did we have a defeatist President in the Whitehouse that was intent on surrendering the seas?
I think so and I'm sure you will agree based on your comments above.
That's what happens when all of Europe, Japan, Australia, Canada, and pretty much the entire rest of the world freeloads on our military strength to provide stability.
It's an unfortunate necessity, because they are too selfish and stupid to do it for themselves. Yes, we are essentially providing them welfare, but unfortunately the price of not doing so is international chaos, which isn't best for anybody. This may have been avoidable if the Soviet Union had never existed, but it did, and now people are too use to it and can't get along without it.
Anyhow, Murray is right. McCain is right to oppose a lot of wasteful spending, but the F-22 is by far the best fighter in the sky. We own the sky with it, period. Without it, it's actually a battle. We don't want battles. We want to be strong enough to avoid them.
Posted by: cliff on April 8, 2009 07:56 AM
What you proposed was the Clinton method of engagement. Clinton figured that the Chinese would change their form of government if we traded like crazy with them. And yet, they are still planning (albeit a decades long plan) on taking over the world with their form of government.
If what you say would happen, there would be no worry about all the subs and planes the Chinese are pumping out of their military industrial complex. If you say the US is the inventor, then the Chinese are the copiers and will have volumes of military equipment over the US.
On another related topic, I am also tossing out the idea that Ron Paul advocated. He, I think, asks why does the US have to be the world's policeman. The USA should police its own borders. Period.
Posted by: swatter on April 8, 2009 09:16 AMCanceling an enormously expensive aircraft that has important but limited utility, in favor of purchasing more less expensive aircraft that have broader application in the wars we are fighting and will likely fight, seems like a reasonable decision.
Good to see that your reasoned argument is to call Gates a "tool". I trust you're not in any decision making role...
Posted by: BA on April 8, 2009 10:04 AMAh yes, the typical liberal fantasy that Ike would agree with their assault on the military because of one speech he gave about the "military industrial complex."
Well, here's the deal: the amount we spend on defense, as a percentage of GDP, is roughly HALF of what it was when Ike gave that speech, even assuming he meant what you say he meant.
So basically: You're an idiot.
Posted by: cliff on April 8, 2009 10:42 AMYou're confusing selecting appropriate weapon systems to fund against overall military capacity that is defined and sized based on thoughtful recognition of likely current and future threats.
Gates has made that call, and it's worth challenging the assumptions he's based it on against the capabilities and costs of the systems he's selecting and those he's not.
I trust you're dismayed too that he's cancelled the 11 billion dollar, 28 helicopter Marine One program as well. Perhaps 400 million dollars per aircraft to transport the president is just fine for your pocket book.
Eisenhower was speaking about that, not percentages of GDP.
But then, your name calling is a rather potent, intelligent argument. Clearly you're much smarter than the rest of us.
Posted by: BA on April 8, 2009 11:18 AMNo, I'm not. Nothing I've said suggests that. You're making it up.
I trust you're dismayed too that he's cancelled the 11 billion dollar, 28 helicopter Marine One program as well. Perhaps 400 million dollars per aircraft to transport the president is just fine for your pocket book.
No, he's right on that one. He's just wrong about the F-22.
Eisenhower was speaking about that, not percentages of GDP.
Umm, no, he wasn't. He was talking about the potential for the "Military Industrial Complex" to get so strong as to drive us to war inadvertently.
Your point isn't even remotely coherent or even close to what he was saying. You're just making stuff up again.
But then, your name calling is a rather potent, intelligent argument. Clearly you're much smarter than the rest of us.
No, I'm just smarter then you, apparently. And this will be the last time I will bother to respond to your drivel.
Posted by: cliff on April 8, 2009 11:28 AMI did not ask to compare our spending to our allies. I agree, they are riding on our coattails and that should end (by reducing our spending). What I asked was to compare it to the rest of the world. Our 'enemies' spending is signifigantly less than ours as well.
Posted by: Lysander on April 8, 2009 12:12 PMI did not ask to compare our spending to our allies. I agree, they are riding on our coattails and that should end (by reducing our spending). What I asked was to compare it to the rest of the world. Our 'enemies' spending is signifigantly less than ours as well.
Posted by: Lysander on April 8, 2009 12:13 PMI did not ask to compare our spending to our allies. I agree, they are riding on our coattails and that should end (by reducing our spending). What I asked was to compare it to the rest of the world. Our 'enemies' spending is signifigantly less than ours as well.
Posted by: Lysander on April 8, 2009 12:14 PMGoogle "asymmetrical threats".
Posted by: cliff on April 8, 2009 12:16 PMDone. Get a new brain. Or stop lying to make your point. One or the other.
Anyhow, this actually is the last time I'll respond.
Posted by: cliff on April 8, 2009 12:18 PMYou may wish to look at the lost rate of UAV's.. It's high compared to flight hours. Plus UAV's as I said last time have never gone head to head with a human. You seem to forget that.
PS... I haven't seen anything on a shoot down of our UAV in Iraq or PAK from an another aircraft.
Your info is wishful at best.
Don, it's not possible for 1-vs-30, because the plane can't carry that many missiles internally (it loses stealth when it mounts weapons to it's external hardpoints). 1-vs-6, however, is possible and has been done in tests. History Channel has done some wonderful stuff on the plane, including interviewing the F-15 pilots that are making the transition to the F-22.
Basically, the Air Force would send up an F-22 against five or six F-15's, and rotate the pilots through so everyone in the group got a shot in the F-22. Almost every time, the F-15 pilots were "killed" before they even knew the F-22 was out there, and didn't know where the F-22 was until it buzzed them. Those few times that the F-22 didn't kill them right off the bat and got into a legitimate dogfight, it simply ran circles around them. The pilots were all saying they were simply getting bored with it because they never had a chance.
They also were pointing out that it was equally effective as a "forward observer" of sorts, relaying targeting information to aircraft out of radar range (but not missile range), allowing them to safely launch their missiles and bug out before large squadrons knew they were there, with the F-22's mopping up the leftovers. So in a way, 1-vs-30 is sort of possible.
Posted by: Mike H on April 9, 2009 02:08 PMThe reason your mad at me is because, I called you on a comment on another forum. If someone corrects me hopefully, I will be aware and grateful enough to thank them. I don't want to be any dumber than I can help.
"As one pundit once said, "they said if I voted for McCain, the world would see arrogance unleashed. And they were right." Only it is Obama and not McCain who is arrogant."
You're probably a bit younger than me but this quote sounds very much like one from the 1964 presidential election.
"They told me that if I voted for Goldwater, we'd soon be involved a war. I voted for Goldwater and sure enough in a year or two we were heavily involved in a war.
No, the reason I get irritated (not mad) at reading your posts, is you think you prove a point, but never do, and state opinions as if they are obvious facts, taking a condescending attitude when people disagree with you. It truly is like reading something from that smarmy little 17y/o who thinks he's smarter than everyone else, even though he's wrong.
And I'm not patronizing Don. He made a factually wrong statement, that did sound kind of foolish... but he may not have known that. He may not be well versed in military stuff, or the F-22 specifically. As such, I was explaining to him why he was wrong. Which, frankly, is a helluva lot better than you, who just resorts to calling him and idiot and a liberal, as you've done to others (see smarmy, condescending, know-it-all 17y/o statement above).
BTW, you never called me out on that other thread about the PI. All you did was state your opinions as facts, and called me and the many others telling you you had no idea what you were talking about idiots and liberals. That is not "calling me out".
Posted by: Mike H on April 10, 2009 04:34 PMYour defense of Don is ridiculous. Yes, he did make a factually wrong statement but, more than that, he deliberately LIED! For you to excuse some Phony, Blabbing LIAR as simply making a factually wrong statement...What a Crock! Perhaps, you should shine a Light on yourself and look in the mirror.
There are many good people who happen to be Liberals. The difference between a Liberal and a Conservative is...one is Wise and one is not. One questions and questions and the other is an Easy Believer. One stands with some GOD given Light to see Truth and the other stands in darkness. Name one known Liberal that is known not, for his intelligence but, for his Wisdom. I have yet, to have anybody come up with a proved Name.
Bottom Line....None of us are Perfect!
