Impressive!
I have an unusually keen interest in military aircraft. Combat Aircraft and Air Forces Monthly are two of my favorite monthly reads The USA has long had the technological edge in airframes, armaments, and radar systems, and the F-22 Raptor (official site here) is the culmination of years of superb fighter aircraft development by this country. It will gradually replace the venerable F-15 Eagle, which has an unparalleled combat effectiveness, but this fleet is made up of aging airframes in need of significant rebuilds. The F-22 takes the air dominance role of the F-15 to the next level, with a healthy dose of stealth technology.
The time is upon us to make decisions as to how many Raptors to purchase. The initially programmed fleet of over 600 has been reduced significantly to 183 at this time, with thoughts to reduce it even further. However, in this time of domestic economic distress and increasing outsourcing, even of military hardware, it makes perfect sense to keep this production in place. Our world is not getting any safer, and the increasing sophistication of potential enemies makes our retention of air dominance essential to our future national security. The Raptor is a phenomenal plane that can truly dominate airspace. This would be invaluable and absolutely essential against a likely foe such as China, which can throw up massive numbers of older, yet increasingly more modern aircraft. Sure, they’re phenomenally expensive, but we’ve already spent billions on project development and the per plane cost now is a relative bargain. This plane will serve us well for decades and keep Americans employed in these tough times. It is a great investment for the future of our national security.
![[Post to Twitter]](http://www.tooconservative.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-twitter.png){kind=icon}
Mar 21st by Loudoun Insider
Great position paper on the need for the F-22 here:
http://lexingtoninstitute.org/docs/839.pdf
I like the F-22. Although I’d prefer more naval vessels. But that’s just personal preference.
“This plane will serve us well for decades and keep Americans employed in these tough times.”
Whether you know it or not, you just made a case for Keynesian economics. Government spending during a recession to produce employment.
I also agree on the naval front, but naval vessels are becoming more and more vulnerable as anti-ship missles proliferate. If anything I would prefer more spending on the submarine force over surface vessels. Again, especially if China emerges as a future threat. Warships is another great monthly magazine – British as with the airpower mags. The poor Brits in their defense forces – they’re getting cut past the bone.
RD, I look at this as a bit different than the other pork barrell, grow government initiatives. This is a fundamental purpose of our federal government – providing for the common defense against external enemies.
LI:
Quick, put up a link to this poll on wether or not to keep JFRAUD
http://www.crystalclearconservative.com/2009/03/21/poll-do-you-think-rpv-chairman-jeff-frederick-should-step-aside/
Whether you know it or not, you just made a case for Keynesian economics. Government spending during a recession to produce employment.
- RichmondDem
Talk about apples and oranges. Your pulling our legs right ?
I would rather spend $1 billion on a defense system than $1 million on a road to nowhere.
Well then enlighten me, Stoner. How is building missiles and planes any less stimulative to the economy than building schools and roads?
The Raptor is essential. It will become as effective in the new modern era as say the Tomcat was in early 80’s, which of course has aged quite a bit for the Navy as well. I believe that aircrat as well as missile systems should be the priorities but the Obama folks seem bent on cutting them. Not closing the book per say, but cutting them, especially missile systems. There is the view if you want to stimulate the economy without this bailout mehtod you could authorize procurement for these defense systems as a way to stimulate job growth in the sector and god forbid provide for the common defense. I would much rather have our government spend a trillion more dollars on defense spending if meant it would put people to work and give our military the most advanced modern weapon systems over bailing out stress tested banks and AIG.
Peace.
Through superior firepower.
Exactly right, ed – that is the theme of the paper I referenced in comment 1. Conventional Deterrence as opposed to Nuclear Deterrence. Any potential enemy needs to know that we have the means to prosecute them militarily if they choose to threaten our interests. And hopefully in a purely conventional way, rather than having to reach for the ultimate option in WMDs.
Alter, the US Navy retired its last F-14 Tomcats in the last year. Bizarrely, the last air force left flying the F-14 is the Iranian Air Force, who procured a number during the last years of the Shah’s rule. They apparently have made strides in reverse engineering and indigenous parts manufacturing to keep them going. of course with a healthy dose of espionage and illegal procurement here as well. Some folks went to prison a few years ago for shipping Tomcat parts to Iran through intermediaries.
Why not build many more F-35’s?
LI, there is true. I was sad to see it go and that Congress did not authorize a newer model following the Tomcat-D. While in the military during the first Gulf War there certainly was a reliance on the F-15 Eagle by operations due to its advanced weaponary, we knew then it was but a matter of time for the Tomcat at that point.
I was sad to see the Tomcats go as well. You’d like to think they could have been retrofitted for further service.
Read the paper referenced above, Brian. The F-35 was designed as a single engine mass production airframe that would primarily be in the attack role. The F-22 was designed to be used in conjunction with the F-35 to provide air supremacy in front of and above the F-35s. The F-22 is analgous to the F-15C Eagle while the F-35 is analagous to the F-16. We need both. The F-22 is already in production and a part of the force. We need to build enough to take us through the next 20 years at least before a replacement makes its way into the force.
Loudoun Insider,
I concur with your assessment of China as a potential future foe and that this aircraft might be very handy in that event. Until China acquires a formidable blue water navy though, I think it is premature to worry too much about their ability to pose a serious military threat to us.
Just as throwing money at social problems does not automatically solve them, throwing money at our many ravenous defense contractors does not automatically gain for America the best value for our defense dollars. They spend millions on TV ads to convince us of the need for their latest and most whiz bang stuff. That doesn’t mean we are wise to always bite.
Most have forgotten that during the 2000 presidential campaign Gov. Bush proposed spending about $50 billion less than Gore did for defense. And Bush was right. The nature of the threats we face today are very different from those we faced from the Soviet Union. And Bush had proposed saving money by canceling or scaling back large expensive weapons systems that were designed with the Soviet Union in mind.
Before we consider building 600 very expensive Raptors we might want to consider allocating those resources toward rebuilding our human intelligence gathering capabilities which have been allowed to deteriorate to the point of pathetic. If we can ween those in power from their fetish for satellite and electronic intelligence we might begin this vital rebuilding process. It may take a generation to recover what has been lost. Best we start right away. Good intelligence can allow us to achieve and advance our national interests without wasteful and expensive wars.
If creating jobs is your goal we have a whale of a lot of equipment to replace for Guard and Reserve units that was expended in Iraq. That hasn’t even been budgeted for yet. Just one element of the vastly understated cost of the Iraq War. When all the bills are honestly and fully tallied the total is certainly going to be between two and three trillion for that adventure.
Ike’s warning about the military industrial complex is far more valid and true today than it was a half century ago when he stated it. And those TV ads make the point in spades.
The answer to the question “How much should we spend to secure the defense of the United States?” is, of course, as much as it takes. But just spending tons of dough on shiny goo gaws that make defense contractors wealthy doesn’t insure anything. And there are huge bureaucracies that are predisposed to chew up those dollars without regard to the long range security (or economic solvency) of America.
As an old infantryman I would also suggest that we spend a bit more to take better care of the individual fighting man. Every one of these fancy and expensive weapons will be obsolete in a very short time. Ten thousand years from now I guarantee that that the individual infantryman will not be obsolete.
Don’t get me wrong. I understand the importance of air power. It is vital. But as a student of history, I am also aware that air power has been consistently oversold almost since its inception.
The difference is surely in the intended role with varying strike capacity as well as varyinhg degrees of stealth as well given the are of different generations of technology. I also believe that the F-22 would be able to reach targets with its targeting system at greater distances and with higher firepower than say the F-35 capabilities.
Loudoun Insider — Military spending to create jobs? Good grief! And you all call this website “Too Conservative”? Laughable!
When the government spends money, it takes that money out of the private economy. Only military R&D has the potential to add anything to the economy. Otherwise the military diverts lots of smart and healthy people and valuable materials from the private economy — as does virtually every other government program.
When we are talking about military spending, all that matters is the threat. The requirement to meet the threat justifies the spending. Our military defends our freedom; it gives us the ability to own ourselves, but it does so at our expense. So we have to carefully match our spending against our war plans for dealing with threats and potential threats.
So whether the Raptor makes any sense depends strictly on how much it costs relative to its military capabilities. There are two primary problem with jet fighters: cost and basing. Unfortunately, the Raptor is highly expensive. We pay a lot for all its special features. Basing an issue because everything that goes up must eventually come down. The US military has world-wide defense obligations. Without a base in the theater of operations, the Raptor is useless. That is why the USA is largely a naval power. Because naval ships are mobile bases of operations, they are more flexible.
Nonetheless, naval ships are highly expensive, and we have potential theaters of operations (such as our own nation), where we can base the Raptor. Since we have already made a huge investment in the Raptor, and something is needed to replace our aging fighters, I expect we will buy it — if Democrats can be persuaded that defense is necessary at all.
Dan – Because infantry need air cover, Air Force and Army operations often go together. While I agree the Raptor probably is too well gold plated, I doubt that the Army would be well serve if no such aircraft were built. I would also note that even commercial aircraft are quite costly.
Good points, all. Dan, I don’t think anyone is arguing for 600 Raptors at this point. While 300 seemed to be around the magic number in recent years, it looks like most anlalysts believe that 250 is an ideal number.
I’m not talking about creating jobs, Tom, I’m talking about preserving existing jobs before we shut down the production lines on an expensive yet very capable asset that is essential to preserving our current air power supremacy for the next 20-30 years. The Russians are working on very capable fifth generation fighter designs that will probably get transferred to the Chinese as well.
I agree basing is a problem in some scenarios, but Raptor’s range and supercruise ability give it a long reach. And of course aerial refueling (which is another problem in procurement) extends that range almost indefinitely. Regardless of overseas needs, Raptor is essential to protecting US airspace. Of course we don’t see reasonable threats to US airspace at this time but who knows where we’ll be in 20 years. Being caught with our proverbial pants down in 20 years against a potentially hostile Russia and/or China with fifth generation fighter capability could prove disastrous. Building Raptor now preserves our airspace security for a long time, even with limited numbers.
Good post, LI. Let’s hope that in a few years we are not on our knees begging God to forgive us for terrible mistakes. God Bless America, and our leaders. Pray that those who speak wisdom will overcome.
Very true. We need to keep an watchful eye on the procurements and the defense authorizations by this Congress. We cannot suffer the embarassment of having to deal with the conflict like the post-9/11 world after having our military gutted during the mid to late 90’s in order to bring about a more balanced budget. I fear that the defense portion of the budget will suffer again at the hands of this Congress moving forward. We were ill prepared for the urban type warfare we faced in Iraq in large part due to the fact that those related training elements were cut as the the DOD’ budgets were tightened. We need to be able to plan for the unknown and prepare our military for a capability to repond. We should have learned the value of urban warfare training and should have seen the signs of how a conflict like that would play out after Somalia. Insteed our leaders ignored the signs. We need our fixed wing and other aircraft to maintain our dominance in the air given our aging assets and at night. I would also like to see us move forward with advanced helicopter versions for the Army and Marines as well for better close ground support. Again I think this is the kind of stimulus to the economy every reasonable and rational American can get behind has jobs are not only ssaved but expanded. Maybe we should retrofit some of the auto industry plants in some of those distressed areas the auto industry doesn’t make it- just a thought.
Alter, the Army is well stocked now with newer model helos – Apaches, Blackhawks and the new Lakotas have them pretty well set. The Marines actually prefer the older Huey models, especially the Cobra attack choppers. They are much more available than the Apaches, which are maintenance hungry machines. The old Chinooks also remain in service and seem to never quit. Helos are much less high tech in general and don’t have the long lead-in times as the fixed wing aircraft.
The unmanned UAVs are definitely the wave of the future for many applications, but we’ll still need manned fighters for the forseeable future, and especially helos for troop transport.
LI, respectfully the mission over the last nine years has taken its toll on the Army helos especially in country. They were not configured in design for that mission for long period of time, especially the impact of sand. Much of the budget regarding M&R has skyrocketed for the air elements. While helo do come on line intially faster, they also seem to be having shorter life spans than their fixed wing conterparts say in the USAF or NAVY. There is nothing like an Apache to have your back though. We do need something I think in the middle; between the attack nature of the Apache and the Blackhawk, which as proven time and time again is very vulnerable in urban conflicts. Not sure but maybe there is a next generation hawk coming with increased firepower capabalities.
Very true Alter. I had a friend who was a Marine Cobra mechanic in the first Gulf War and he said they were always up and going when the Apaches were grounded all too often. Sand was often the culprit, but the Apaches were just too fickle overall. I think they’ve improved greatly in reliability and toughness since then, but I’m sure they’re taking a beating.