Money$ Too Tight (Not To Mention)
February 21st, 2006 - 9:39 am
Spook86 takes Max Boot to task for his recent critique of the Pentagon’s new budget:
But as he examines the Pentagon budget, Boot finds that projected funding fails to match QDR rhetoric. According to Boot, too much of the budget is devoted to conventional weapons programs from the Cold War, including the F-22 fighter, the F-25 Joint Strike Fighter, and the F/A-18 Super Hornet.
Unfortunately, there are major problems with Boot’s premise that (ultimately) undermine his argument.
Read the whole thing to find out exactly what Spook is talking about. Really, I should have headlined the link “Required Reading,” but couldn’t pass up the Simply Red joke.
Interesting counter-argument. I think Max has gotten to worried about keeping pure ideological consistancy. Spook’s comments seem well reasoned and appropriate – we cannot take our eyes off of what will no doubt be our next confrontation – China.
The thing about truly outstanding weapons systems is a) they make you think twice about even considering the idea of going to war and b) they make you invest a ton of money to try to catch up if you do.
You can argue about the F-22 being worth the money, but you cant argue that every single air force in the world doesnt have big sections of its staff dedicated to worrying about it,and from the reaction of most of the worlds airforces, theyve decided to fold rather than compete. And for that reason and for my money, the F-35/F-22 are the two greatest weapons systems ever devised.
But let us not overlook that this is in all likelyhood the last generation of manned fighters. All of the new money is going towards UCAV, even today while the F-14 is now being replaced by its generational cousin – the F-18, its because the money for the F-14 replacement is is not being spent on a newer better navalized version of the f-22, instead the money is being spent on the development of a navalized version of the new UCAV systems.
The purpose of the F-22 and the F-35 is to be so overwhelming in the interrim as to give out R&D team enough time to come up with workable UCAV versions. The good news is they are already succeeding at that effort. Airborne Autonomous Drones, once the stuff of scifi are a regular part of our armed forces and fighting doctrine.
Today!
Now Match them with carrier strike forces, and what do you got? Well if it was me, Id get the alka-seltzer concession in jerkmenistan because they are going to need the fizzy stuff to keep their nerves.
Its one thing to know that the US Navy is sitting off your coast, its another to know that their robot drones are filling your skies while their pilots sit in an shirt sleeves in airconditioned building in el segundo. 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
I know, weve all heard the old saw about the missile replacing the man in the aircraft, and that was a disasterous strategy in the past. But be aware, the U-2 is being replaced as we speak with the ‘global hawk’. If I can fly an automated U-2 over enemy territory, how much of a leap is it to fly an automated bomber? or cargo aircraft? or dare I say it , area defense fighters?
The times, they are a changing.
So lets hope we can modify our strategies and budgets to reflect those changes. Id rather spend 10 bucks and avoid fighting, than spend 2 bucks and give some tinhorn jackass the idea that they might get away with challenging us next time. I dont ever want to see a weapon system that is “just barely good enough”. I dont want air superiority, I want air dominance. and it looks to me, that we are getting it.
I saw a documentary on cold war aviation on the history channel the other night. It was kind of a sad tale. one of the themes was that we consistently overestimated the Soviet’s capabilities. We also fairly consistently, and for internal bureaucratic reasons, bought the wrong airplanes. Every attempt to build an air-superiority fighter was thwarted by the bomber pilots who ran the air-force. It was kind of disheartening.
I am sympathetic to Max Boots complaint about the proposed defense budget. Our first priority must be the boots on the ground.
I do not seriously believe that China has much incentive to attack their best customers and the sources of most of their FDI. more than airplanes, we could strike back at china by cutting off their exports and canceling their half-trillion dollars worth of treasury bonds.
However, I still believe that we need to invest in air superiority. Furthermore Aircraft carriers are indispensable in 21st century warfare. How else are we going to provide air support for ground troops in the third world. But some procurement programs are probably too much. Submarines maybe one such area.
It is true that the budget and the QDR look at different time frames, but it makes no sense to spend money on short term on projects you have no intention of using long term.
Personally I like some of the new military hardware they are developing in this bill:
http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=1580&p=2
China has no incentive now. But they will have one some time in the next decade as they start to deal with what will be an ever increasing friction between their communist politics and their capitalist economy. As the winners and losers become more pronounced the need for political freedoms to allow for a release valve will increase. This will not be popular with the Chinese ruling class. Added to this, the natural Chinese inclination to feel underloved and want to flex their muscles will coincide with their need to take the masses minds off their troubles to solve the problem noted above. Taiwan is the closest and the first. Then the fun begins. We need to be ready.