Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiDeep-Sixing the F-22
I’ll believe it when it finally happens. But the news that Congress might actually stop production of a high-tech, job-generating and, most of all, high-profit weapons system because it fills no legitimate national security function is a considerable victory for President Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, as well as for logic.
You wouldn’t think it should require great courage to conclude that the 187 F-22s already authorized are enough when the plane has yet to fly a single combat mission in Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else. But if usefulness was the criterion for defense spending, it would not have ballooned since the 9/11 attack, accounting for more than half of the federal government’s discretionary budget. Trillions wasted—ostensibly to defeat a terrorist enemy armed with an arsenal that can be purchased for a couple of hundred bucks at any garden-variety hardware store. We would not be spending as much on the military as the rest of the world’s nations combined, friend and foe, if defense spending was anything more than an elaborate political slush fund.
Just check the spectacle of supposedly enlightened Democrats like California Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, joined by Connecticut’s Chris Dodd, treating yet another $1.75 billion F-22 allotment for war profiteers as a progressive jobs program. Los Angeles couldn’t find $50 million to keep its summer schools open, but a supposedly liberal senator like Boxer has voted for hundreds of billions over the years for exquisitely expensive military junk. Having lost the courage to make the swords-into-plowshares argument, they act like craven hustlers for the Daddy Warbucks types that support their re-elections. And once again, when it comes to being rational about military spending, John McCain, a Senate co-sponsor with Michigan Democrat Carl Levin of an amendment against funding the F-22, distinguished himself in the very moment when so many of his presumably less hawkish Democratic counterparts failed.
Gates failed to halt further production of the F-22 during his tenure in the Bush administration, but this time the bipartisan military-industrial complex clique was beaten back. The incredibly intricate and therefore expensive plane was designed to defeat an ultra-advanced Soviet air combat ability that was never realized. And it obviously has no purpose in fighting irregular wars against terrorists, as Obama has pointed out. But those who support the plane make the same “the Chinese are the new Soviets” argument that Sen. Joseph Lieberman uses to such great effect to get his $2 billion submarines built in Connecticut to combat an enemy holed up in caves. The absurdity of borrowing money from the Chinese at a furious rate to be able to afford to build weapons to counter weapons that the Chinese have no intention of building rises to the level of a Madoff scam.
The end of the Cold War, with its potential for human extinction, was greeted with a great sense of relief by most of the world’s citizenry. For the U.S., as the first President Bush pointed out years ago, it was an opportunity to “look homeward even more and move to set right what needs to be set right—for half a century now, the American people have shouldered the burden and paid taxes that were higher than they would have been to support a defense that was bigger than it would have been if imperial communism had never existed. … Two years ago, I began planning cuts in military spending that reflected the changes of the new era.”
He and his then-secretary of defense, Dick Cheney, did cut defense spending by 30 percent. President Bill Clinton, ever mindful of triangulating with the hawks, did less. Now we are reduced to being grateful that Obama halts an extremely wasteful F-22 program, even as he makes the claim that this will free up money for his disastrous war in Afghanistan.
That’s not good enough. We don’t need a more “rational” use of defense dollars to fight yet another irrational war. Combating terrorism should never have been thought of in military terms, but rather as a matter of international police work that has very little to do with most of the items on our bloated defense budget.
But terrorism is not the major threat to our security; that threat is rather to be found in the failure of public schools, the decay of our economic institutions and the corruption of our politicians. All of those failures combine to produce politicians like Boxer, Dodd and Feinstein, whose idea of looking homeward is not to create a vibrant peacetime economy, but rather to hype high-tech weapons systems as the only viable jobs program.
16 Comments so far
Show AllWorth listening to, to understand the procurement process that leads to inferior equipment that nobody wants:
http://images.military.com/Audio/FTED29.mp3
Hollow victory at best
even if, and this is still a big if, production is halted the damage has already been done. A bit like a high five when you finally close the barn door...after all the horses are gone. I believe the final cost of this "program" will easily top 100 billion dollars! How many public schools would this money have rebuilt?, how many school books? hell how many school lunchs for the hungry poor?
It is exactly like all the talk of shutting down the FED. Hell the fed has managed to steal between 10 and 20 TRILLION dollars, caused run away inflation, numerous recessions/depressions etc. Who gives a rats ass if they are closed down now? What we the people have to start doing is stopping these crooks BEFORE they ROB us blind again.
-----"Los Angeles couldn’t find $50 million to keep its summer schools open, but a supposedly liberal senator like Boxer has voted for hundreds of billions over the years for exquisitely expensive military junk"
Ok ... so when Boxer's term is up she will be challenged by Schwarzenegger or some other Repub from Southern Cal and this is her attempt at pretending she cares about California jobs. At the end of the day Liberal or Conservative politicians will always position themselves to get re-elected !!
The F-15 has NEVER been shot down in combat. NEVER. Not once since 1976. IDF F-15s ate Syrian Mig 29s for breakfast in the Lebanon War of the early '80's.
No other country has anything else even in planning stages that can contend with the F-15.
The fact that the ridiculously expensive F-22 project was even allowed to continued after the fall of the Soviet Union is a giant "FUCK YOU!" to every single American who has ever been denied adequate health care due to insurance issues, lost their job and struggled to feed their families on inadequate EI/Welfare, went to a public school with decrepit facilities, or is still paying student loans 10 years after graduating because their college tuition was astronomically expensive.
"No other country has anything else even in planning stages that can contend with the F-15. "
That is a pretty tall, and unsubstantiated statement. Given that Russia is now reopening its weapons factories and starting to rearm itself, it should not come as a surprise that they probably do have plans to update their air fleet, especially as how the Bush Administration initiated NATO buildup along Russia's borders. Even with complete idiots like Bush in power, I do not think there will ever again be the animosity and distrust that were hallmarks of the Cold War, but both US and Russia recognize that weapons exports are vital for their economies, and so are not adverse to a little "friendly" (but deadly) competition.
Finally, in OTH standoffs, F18s regularly eat F15s for breakfast. I believe the term is "slam-dunk".
WTF:
Fair enough... we don't really know exactly what weapons other nations are developing. What are the chances whatever new planes are coming will be superior to the F-22, and how many years will it take for them to be built and tested? We can be almost certain that if any Russian or Chinese program was getting close to fruition ie. testing phase, US intelligence would be made aware of it. If the Soviet's couldn't keep their programs uncompromised, the Russians won't be able to either.
My point is there's absolutely no fucking need for more F-22s other than feeding money into the MIC or eventually selling them to Israel.
And if F-18s regularly eat F-15s for breakfast, well then that supports my point even more. Why do we need the F-22 when we have F-15s AND F-18s?
rfloh provided an informed commentary far better than I.
To answer your question of why we need F15s if we have F18s, that is because both aircraft were developed for different operations. The F18 is an excellent air superiority platform, whereas the F15 excels in ground support, but in a completely different way to say the A10. Despite Hollywood's best efforts, neither are particularly effective close-in dog-fighters. Ditto the F22. The F22 is effectively a replacement for the now very old F18 and like the F18, has no role to play anywhere in the world.
I might be speaking out of my rear, but I sense that American military strategic thinking is based solely on ensuring air superiority. Without air superiority, US ground forces are either extremely vulnerable or ineffective, or both. The US has not fought a conventional war against an air-supported military since the Korean police action, and will be in for a very nasty shock should something like that ever happen again. Despite the best minds trying to anticipate future combat scenarios, the US military has had to reinvent itself every time it is called in to protect "American interests".
To expand on what you said, the US has never really focused on developing pure air superiority dog fighters. The US has generally preferred to focus on multi role fighters. While the F/A 18 is an excellent air superiority platform, its primary strength, the reason it is so popular among many air forces all over the world, is its versatility, its ability to perform many roles, in all weather.
The USSR / Russia has been a bit more mixed. The MiG 29 is very much a pure air superiority dog fighter, whereas the SU 27, and it's descendants / variants, Su 30, Su 35, tend to be more along the lines of the F/A 18.
The F22 would be superior to all the current 4th, 4.5 generation of fighters. It's capabilities easily exceed the capabilities of 4.5 generation fighters. The problem is that that kind of technological superiority never lasts. It always sparks an arms race. And with fighter planes being ever more high tech, being made of ever more expensive high tech materials, being equipped with ever more high tech avionics and computing packages, they cost humongous amounts of money. 5-10 years down the road, it is certain that the USAF is going to say that the F22 MUST be upgraded.
Actually, people do have some idea what planes other countries are developing.
Your argument that other countries do not have anything to match the F15 is grossly incorrect. The Russians have multiple planes, 4th, and 4.5 generation fighters, that exceed the performance of the F15, and can match that of the F18; the Sukhoi Su 27 and its variants, such as the Su 30, Su 35. The French Dassault Rafale also belongs in a similar class, as does the Eurofighter Typhoon.
Furthermore, various countries ARE developing 5th generation fighter planes as counters to the F22. The development, and possession of the F22 by the US, is pushing, forcing other countries to come up with counters. Russia is developing the Sukhoi PAK-FA. The first prototype is expected to be flying in late 2009. Russia is also working on a derivative of the PAF-FA, a 2 seater variant, with India. Russia has not hidden the fact that it is working on, and has come up with, a counter to the F22. Mitsubishi of Japan is also working on a 5th generation fighter, because the US won't sell the F22 to Japan. The maiden flight is projected to be in 2011. China and South Korea are also working on 5th generation planes, though plans for those are either not as concrete, or not as publicly known.
The argument against the F22 isn't that other countries cannot counter it. The argument is that other countries CAN, or WILL counter it. The result being a circular, and pointless, arms race, that is a sinkhole for humongous amounts of money that is better spent elsewhere.
Since the end of WW2, what has usually happened is that the US developes a fighter plane, that is the best for the period. The USSR then developes a counter that is better. Which leads to the US developing a new counter that is better. Which leads to the USSR developing another better counter. And so on. Just as the USSR developed the MiG29, Su 27, Su 30, 35 as counters to the F14, 15, 16, 18. And why were the F15s, F16s, developed? As counters to an earlier generation of MiGs, the MiG 25.
I don't think we need any more of any the Fs. There are other ways to solve problems beside bombing.
Joe
Obama halts an extremely wasteful F-22 program, even as he makes the claim that this will free up money for his disastrous war in Afghanistan.
If Obimbo didn't need the cash for the redevelopment of Afghanistan into an American designed shallow grave, similar to other redevelopment projects in Vietnam and Iraq, he would have gladly let the F-22 Flying Bathtub proceed. As long as the chiselers (defense contractors) paid the Democrats handsomely for the privilege.
..."supposedly enlightened Democrats like California Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, joined by Connecticut’s Chris Dodd"...Yeah, right! When challenged by the Republicans on how they will pay for the health care reform bill, it's people like these - especially Dodd - who cannot go beyond mumbling something about cutting costs here and there that don't add up - according to the CBO. Nobody had the guts or the independence of mind to challenge the defense expenses by citing the costs or the debt - which routinely get talked about in connection with health care. And no one seems to have the guts to talk about increasing taxes on the rich either. So, the show will go on. Kudos to John McCain for taking the stand on this. I hope closing down the F-22's is just a start.
Senators Dodd and Lieberman are in need of retirement from thier entrenched positions.Connecticuts' Campaign finance laws are being challenged by the ACLU, Greens ,and Libertarians because they are regressive against minor parties.It would be nice to get another independant candidate like Ned Lamott who we could support but anyone interested in running needs 20% of the electorate in petition signatures to get funded under the new law.
Nationally there is no issue more important then Campaign finance reform,electoral reform in general. Uniform ballot acess and party enrolment privledges,with "single payer elections" and strict spending limits.How can anyone govern when they have to spend a few days a week "dialing for dollars" to fund thier next multi-million dollar campaign?Every issue is tied to this one, recovery funds,war and peace,health care.I guess the President was for it ,before he was against it. $747,000,000.00 in election funding changed his mind.We also need to undo 8 years of Republican "jerry mandering" and redistricting shenanigans.
Thanks Mr Scheer for your take on this! This vote will help show voters ,who works for who!" We would not be spending as much on the military as the worlds' nations combined,friend and foe,if defense spending was anything more than an elaborate political slush fund." peace
As a public High school teacher in NY City I find the conditions of most Public schools to be deplorable not to mention the lack of support that most teachers face on a daily basis. We have outdated text books, computers and poor excuse for technology devices that most of the kid’s cell phones far exceed what the school can supply. The poor quality of the food and the facilities that are supplied to these students on an everyday basis is insulting. Yet when I worked for a cargo airline as an aircraft mechanic (flight Mechanic) as we call it in the aviation industry I flew to many different military basis to deliver military goods to different parts of the world, the facilities enjoyed by the military personal dwarfed that of the public school in comparison. When I see what our students are fed and the facilities in which they have to endure has the resemblance of an emergency homeless shelter yet our elected politicians, yes not elected officials but politicians argue over a multibillion dollar aircraft and cannot find money for summer school that in itself proves what most of us already know that our governments rather fund wars then Education. Therefore, as the kids would say “lets stop fronten” come to terms with who we are as a nation and organize and mobilize to make all of these politicians accountable for their actions.
Great comment from someone who is in the trenches that count.
Joe
Pablo, don't you get it? There's no problem with education in America. The upper class kids who go to private school have excellent and up to date facilities, textbooks, computers, etc. That's all that matters. Why waste public money on educating the downtrodden masses, who would never amount to anything anyway, when you can spend that money on ultra high tech weapons that make the USA ultra badass?
We need those weapons (even if they're never used in combat) so our military can intimidate nations to let us exploit their natural and human resources to continue expansion of our empire and make that upper class I mentioned even richer.