Today, America spends more on defense than at any time since the end of World War II, based on the Pentagon’s own official budget data. The previous high point in post-World War II defense spending was 1952 — during the Korean War — at $589 billion in today’s dollars. The Pentagon’s budget request for the current fiscal year totals $670 billion, or a substantial 14 percent above the previous high water mark.
U.S. defense spending is now also larger than the rest of the world — combined. The CIA’s 2007 Word Fact Book estimates all other nations to spend about $400 billion on defense. That amount is for not just our potential opponents, whoever they might be; that’s the entire rest of the world.
We are told we must worry about China and Russia and prepare against them; something we should really lose sleep over is how they can be such a major concern — to those who point them out as looming threats — with defense budgets of just $81 billion and $21 billion, respectively, according to the CIA.
A similar basis for worrying is why the Pentagon’s budget has trended up over the decades, while its forces have been shrinking. Today, we have the smallest defense inventory since 1946. For example, with a spending level considerably higher than in 1985 when the Cold War raged and after Ronald Reagan increased the Defense Department’s budget, we have now 10 active Army divisions, not the 17 we had in 1985; less than 300 naval combatants — compared to 542 in 1985, and we have just over 12 active Air Force tactical air wings, not 25.
A major reason is incompetence.
According to the “scorecard” of the Office of Management and Budget on how well U.S. agencies are run, the Pentagon has ranked among the worst since the ratings began. By bad management, don’t think of just “waste, fraud, and abuse” and incompetent book-keeping — the measures OMB uses. Add to those the incessant decisions in the Pentagon and Congress that favor bureaucratic and selfish interests, rather than the needs of war. Those latter factors provide most of the explanation for why the Pentagon budget delivers less for more.
Consider just one example; the Air Force’s F-22 fighter aircraft. It began in the early 1980s as the Air Force’s solution to maintaining air superiority over the Soviet Union during the Cold War. However, a lot of history unfolded between the “Raptor’s” conception back then and the Air Force’s announcement on December 12, 2007 that after more than two decades of development the F-22 had finally reached “full operational capability,” meaning that it was ready to go to war.
There is, however, no war for it to go to. While there are, of course, two very real ones in Iraq and Afghanistan, the F-22 is yet to fly a single sortie over the skies of either country. Nor has the Air Force announced any intention to send the F-22 to either theater.
The Air Force is quite right to keep the F-22 far away from those conflicts. The airplane is irrelevant to both, since its primary mission — to shoot down enemy aircraft — is useless against our opponents — al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other insurgents — who have no air force and don’t want one. Worse, if the F-22 were it to appear in those theaters, it would almost certainly harm our war efforts. It is not just that its huge logistics tail would strain our already overstretched support forces in both theaters.
But also, the F-22 has operating limitations. While it can carry two medium sized bombs to attack ground targets, it is a capability so modest our opponents in Iraq and Afghanistan might not even notice. It would also be ungracious to compare the F-22 to the ridiculously cheap, simple A-10 close air support aircraft that is built specifically for the ground support role and that has been indispensable for supporting soldiers in combat in both wars. It would be even more bad-mannered to point out that each A-10 can deliver per day eight times, or more, the payload that an F-22 can.
More to the point, the F-22 would be counter-productive. Data from Afghanistan indicate that U.S. and allied forces may have killed more innocent civilians than the enemy has in the past year, and from Iraq we read report after report of civilians killed as a result of US action. A major part of those “collateral” civilian casualties come from aircraft flying too fast and too high to positively identify exactly what they are guiding their munitions to. As such, the F-22 is too “thin-skinned” to endure ground fire, even from assault rifles, and it is too expensive to risk flying close enough to the ground to identify targets. In a form of conflict where winning over the civilian population is key to success, F-22 participation — along with that of other high flying, high speed aircraft — may help the enemy more than us.
By keeping the F-22 at its US bases, the Air Force is doing our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan a great favor.
Counter-productivity in 21st century warfare notwithstanding, the F-22’s advocates would leap to argue that in its intended role — shooting down enemy fighters — it is unsurpassed.
Let’s pretend for the moment that there exists, or will soon, an enemy air force for which the F-22 would be relevant. How, then, could the F-22 help?
We contend that as an individual performer in real world air-to-air combat, the F-22 is a huge disappointment. The Air Force vociferously disagrees — based on its hypothesis that air wars can be fought and won by long range, radar-controlled missiles fired at enemies you cannot see or visually — that is, reliably — identify. This “beyond-visual-range,” radar-missile hypothesis has been tested in real world combat, and it has failed repeatedly. If ever the F-22 finds itself in an air war against a serious opponent, all of us will find out who is right.
Here, we will focus on three issues about which there can be little argument and that explain how the F-22 contributes mightily to our shrinking, less ready-to-fight forces, while bringing vastly increased cost.
Force Size: Back in the 1980s, the U.S. Air Force planned to buy 750 F-22s to fight the Soviet air force. For development and procurement, Congress is generously providing $65.3 billion, a huge sum. However, because no stakeholder was interested in exercising discipline over the design, weight, and cost of each F-22, that $65.3 billion will only buy 184 aircraft, not enough to be a real threat to any major opposing air power.
Moreover, given the need to maintain a training base in the US and considering the demonstrated daily sortie rate of similarly complex aircraft already in our inventory, the Air Force will be lucky to be able to fly 60 F-22 sorties per day at the start of an overseas conflict against a major opponent. That number will shrink as inevitable combat attrition and maintenance down-time take their toll. The force size that the F-22 program generates is simply too puny to register against the major air threat the F-22 advocates hypothesize.
Pilot Skill: Unfortunately, we can expect that same tiny F-22 force to attrite all too rapidly in combat for the simple reason that the Air Force no longer adequately supports pilot training. F-22 pilots get only ten to twelve hours of flight training per month. When we provided 20 to 25 hours per month to train pilots for Vietnam, our pilots complained — rightly — it was inadequate. At the height of their prowess in the 1960s and ‘70s, the Israelis gave their fighter pilots 40 to 50 hours of flight training per month.
The history of air warfare shows all too clearly that the most important determinant of who wins and who dies in an aerial dogfight is pilot skill, not aircraft performance. Because they have raided pilot training accounts to feed increasingly voracious procurement programs (such as the F-22), Congress and the Air Force have virtually guaranteed high pilot losses for us in any hypothesized, large scale air war.
If the advocates of more air power for the U.S. were serious about winning and saving American pilots lives, they would double, then triple, the amount of money available for pilot flight training before spending a single penny on new aircraft. Revealing its real priorities, in help pay for the pork it added to the 2008 DOD appropriations act, Congress cut air force training by $400 million.
Unit Cost: The current plan to buy 184 F-22s for $65.3 billion calculates to $354.9 million per aircraft. The Air Force contends that such a calculation is unfair; it distributes the cost of all prior testing and development equally to every aircraft. The Air Force would rather use a calculation for prospective purchases — what it calls “flyaway” cost, which considers the development costs to have been sunk and that the only cost that should count now is the cost-to-go. Various estimates are circulating in the Pentagon to buy an additional 198 F-22s at a “flyaway” cost that varies from $176.8 million to $216.3 million per copy. (Even at the lower range, it would still make these new F-22s the most expensive fighter aircraft ever bought by any nation — except for, of course, earlier F-22s.)
The F-22’s cost history makes it painfully obvious that we should consider the higher end of the currently advertised cost band to be a cost floor for any new purchase. At every stage, the F-22 has cost more than promised. For example, when Lockheed and the Air Force were pushing a three year contract to buy 60 aircraft now being delivered, “fact sheets” and lobbying materials widely distributed on Capitol Hill were promising a “flyaway” price of $130 million per aircraft; instead, Congress was required to actually appropriate approximately $180 million per copy. (In 1986, the Air Force originally promised a “flyaway” cost of $35 million.)
Time has not been kind to the F-22; neither to its costs, nor to its relevance. Even in the wars the F-22 advocates postulate against a Chinese or Russian air force, the F-22 is deeply flawed, and its ultimate impact is to degrade our most important assets in the air, our pilots and their skill.
The most prominent mission that Lockheed and the Air Force are currently pushing to buy more F-22s is demonstrated in recent newspaper articles and advertisements. Nowhere do these talk about a dangerous new air threat that explains the need for more F-22s. Instead, they focus on the 44 states that will receive corporate spending and jobs. Put another way, it is Congress’ lust for pork and the perverted thinking that jobs and profits should drive defense spending, not the threat, that is driving the campaign to buy more F-22s.
The overall defense budget is stuffed to the gills with similar examples. Budget-inflating, war-irrelevant, dubious-performing, and pork-ridden examples in the other military services include the Navy’s DDG-1000 destroyer, the Army’s Future Combat System, and the Marines Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. In fact, such programs are now the norm; it is the war-relevant, cost-effective ones that are scarce to the point of extinction.
There should be no doubt how we got to where we are.
– Winslow Wheeler, Pierre Sprey, and James Stevenson
(Editor’s note: Pierre Sprey was one of three designers who conceived and shaped the F-16; he also led the technical side of the US Air Force’s A-10 design concept team. James Stevenson is former editor of the Navy Fighter Weapons School’s Topgun Journal and author of The Pentagon Paradox and The $5 Billion Misunderstanding about the Navy’s F-18 and A-12. Winslow Wheeler is the director of the Straus Military Reform Project of the Center for Defense Information in Washington. Previously, he worked for four U.S. senators from both political parties and the Government Accountability Office on national security issues.)
Unless thier Bio’s are BS ONE of the people who wrote this was instrumental in two of the better and more cost effective large weapons systems procured in the last few decades … the other one worked for the GAO among other things.
To say they know nothing of the subject and go ranting about social programs shows exactly how many thick headed closed minded axe grinding troglodytes can fit on a forum (the 21st century version of Angels dancing on pinheads I guess)
The article is about the weapons systems development and procurement process and how its broken. A B2 Bomber… of dubious value costs about $2billion and took decades to develop and field… the Osprey costs more than $65 million per copy .. the canceled OICW.. an infantry weapon too heavy to carry impossible to fire prone and and costing $30,000 per copy (estimated mass production cost) and ‘not particularly air deployable’ Stryker are two more examples…
This isnt working… lets talk about some stuff that did and you’ll see the difference.
the M1911a1 pistol and the M2HB stayed in service for better than half a century and you still wouldnt feel too put out to bring EITHER of them to a modern battlefield… If you count the M1 and the M14 as continuous development of a single design that makes another weapon that more than half a century after its initial design that STILL isn’t out of place on a modern battlefield and which you could stand next to the best arms of today and have rational proponents who could argue that its still a better weapon. THE JEEP for crying out loud.. from idea to prototype in two weeks .. cheap , simple, effective and loved for half a century.. until replace by the Hummer..not cheap, not simple, and only MARGINALLY more effective* not to mention the OICW , the Sergeant York, the Bradley it goes on.…
We used to do better.
*I* think, on no evidence at all, that one problem is the last generation of American engineers to actually work with their hands on the materials.. who grew up around lathes and welders and soldering irons and breadboards just flat did better work… but the the bigger problem , the sickness that kills empires is when the organizational objective (profit, bureaucratic turf, congressional pork) trumps the nominal objective (engineering excellence in service of utility) AND when you REWARD adherence to the former SO HEAVILY with MORE money and promotions and protections and ignore or belittle those who autisticaly persevere in the latter then you will increasingly get what we are getting now and EVENTUALLY we are going to be BEATEN IN THE FIELD by a technologically superior enemy. And if you think its wrong to think or say that America COULD lose .. then you contribute to the blind pig headedness that will make it a future reality.
We need the best of our imaginations and talents working to field simple economical BRILLIANT designs that will stand the test of time…as we once did .. or America’s soldiers (and our principles and ideals) WILL have the most expensive and complicated battlefield debris in the history of the world as their grave markers.
* digression on the Hummer: unless you feel the need to turn it into a bad armored car.. in which case.. maybe buy an ACTUAL armored car (probably at a lower cost and higher survivability than a ‘kitted’ Hummer) instead? Really what IS the difference between say an old M8 scoutcar and a kitted hummer?
If we can buy F-22s for only $365 million per article, just think what we could buy at $1 billion per article. All we need to do is levy higher taxes on an already overtaxed population.
The F-22 is almost useless outside of a cpntrolled fight where the outcome has already been pre-arranged. Yes, it is the most capable fighter out there, but what real world value translate into? Should we maybe go pick a fight with China just to prove this point? China, BTW, is just fielding it’s new J-10, fighter. While probably not as capable as the F-22, they could literally afford to buy seven of them for the cost of one F-22.
This thing is going to wind up being a very expenseive air show jet, with a role relegated solely to deterrence. having an irrelevant ground attack capability, it will remain useless in the current conflicts. While anyone with a lick of sense knows that a war with China or Russia is unlikely at best, it is a virtual certainty we will be fighting in asymmetrical theaters for years to come. Shouldn’t we at least entertain the idea of developing platforms that can operate in this environment as well?
My personal opinion is that Merrill McPeak’s fighter-centric legacy lives on, even in a time where there is no real need for these types of aircraft. The real value added by the fighter community has been in their ability to strike ground targets, a role that I beleive has even been passed on to the F-15C dudes. It seems odd to me that the Air Force would even entertain the thought of buying something with such a small air to ground capability.
I fly bombers, and I know that in a real world situation I will need some sort of air cover. That being said, I have no doubt that the job could be done just as effectively by some other platform. I would prefer to see the money spent on the F-22s go to a more value-added cause. For this price the Navy could purchase and equip six new carriers, holding more than 480 aircraft. I’m pretty sure that wpould be far more beneficial than 180 new F-22s. I would feel safer anyway.
In reply to irtusk: |quote|F-22 opponents keep calling it ‘deeply flawed’ but never quite manage to identify what exactly this mysterious flaw is|unquote|
The flaw is the concept, not the aircraft itself. As with the F-4 back in the late 50’s it was intended to be a stand-off fighter focussing on missiles to the extent of ignoring close-in capabilities. As a result, it became a better bomber than it was a fighter. It could barely hold its own against the Mig 19 due to the fact that it honestly couldn’t defend itself against guns. Sure, it could try to run away, but then they made themselves vulnerable to the MiG’s missiles. It wasn’t until the F-4E that they actually put in the plane.
Don’t get me wrong, the F-4 did a great job as far as it went. It was far superior to the F-105 it was sent to support and protect. But as an air-to-air fighter, it took us from a 15:1 loss ratio against the VC to a 1:1 ratio… not very good considering Korea only 10 years before with a 30:1 win ratio against the MiG 15.
So what’s the flaw? Not the plane itself, but the concept that this needs to be a “One-plane-does-it-all” instead of an air-to-air fighter. The result would be a lighter, even more fuel-efficient airframe with even higher maneuverability against any opposition. Ok, so in one exercise a single Raptor went up against a squadron of Eagles; no argument. You’re also looking at a modern plane against a near-obsolete plane. Has anyone actually taken it up in an even, unrestricted match against a MiG 35? What about newer MiGs and Yaks? Is it really comparable? I don’t know.
Honestly, expecting a mere 200 planes to protect US assets from potentially hundreds or even thousands of opponents is like expecting John Henry to beat the steam hammer 40 times in a row without rest. He might beat a few, but he can’t win them all. Sure, fewer numbers can be effective; the F-15 with its 750 or so airframes replaced something over 2500 F-4s. But the F-15 was supported in turn by the F-16 and the A-10. With modern projections being what they are, the F-35 is hardly going to be able to replace both the –16 and the –10.
For that matter, how many people remember the F-20? How many remember what happened to it?
RobS–
Your response is the typical conservative knee jerk reaction when confronted with something that does not fit your pre-conceived notion of what is “right”-
One of the major points of this insightful article is “What are we getting for all of this money that is being laid out?” Are we getting better technologies for countering IEDs which are killing our troops? Better equipment for counter insurgency/terrorist operations?
Instead of asking the hard, well thought out critical questions go ahead and rely on the standard conservative bullcrap…“its the media.…it’s the left wackos.….it’s unions.…blah, blah, blah.…“
It’s much harder to ask the tough questions and face reality.….good job
How many 5th generation fighters are out there? If I recall corectly only the F-22 and the F-35 are qualified as such. The Su-37 may be if they ever get into full production. Putting a couple squadron of the finest fighters ever made into the hands of the finest pilots ever trained would be more than a match for most nations outside NATO. If any country attempts an air-war, the risk of sending dozens of their own aircraft up against a dozen of F-22’s, they would take severe causualities.
Like most reasons we field and put to use for is because of deterence. To stop a war from happening. The F-22 is the pinnicle of modren aviation, that would be quite a deterent. I’ve definatly perfer paying the price to guantee the fact that the skies over the U.S. is guarded by aircraft that are unrivaled.
Now to add Future Combat Systems to the Army, and some new DD(X) stealth destoyers, then maybe we could hit a trillion dollars a year
> The F-22 is almost useless outside of a cpntrolled fight where the outcome has already been pre-arranged
sure
> Yes, it is the most capable fighter out there
slightly contradictory is an understatement
> The flaw is the concept, not the aircraft itself.
so you’re saying the F-22 isn’t flawed?
> As with the F-4 back in the late 50’s it was intended to be a stand-off fighter focussing on missiles to the extent of ignoring close-in capabilities.
pray tell how the F-22 ignores close-in capabilities
it is the most agile fighter in the world and has a cannon, i’m still not seeing the flaw
> So what’s the flaw? Not the plane itself, but the concept that this needs to be a “One-plane-does-it-all” instead of an air-to-air fighter. The result would be a lighter, even more fuel-efficient airframe with even higher maneuverability against any opposition.
so even though it’s the fastest, most manoueverable fighter with some of the longest range of any fighter, it’s still not fast enough, manoueverable enough or long-legged enough
ooooooookay
actually it was designed just how you suggest. The motto of the design team was ‘not one pound for air to ground’. The F-22 was designed soley as a no-compromise A2A weapon. Later, a (limited) A2G capability was tacked on to justify the program to congress, but make no mistake, it is a no-holds-barred dogfighter
> Honestly, expecting a mere 200 planes to protect US assets from potentially hundreds or even thousands of opponents is like expecting John Henry to beat the steam hammer 40 times in a row without rest.
the USAF had the exact same concern
fortunately, they put a plan in place to deal with it
you have heard of the F-35 yes? 1500+ of them should be plenty to satisfy any ‘quantity concern’
(PS the F-15s and F-16s aren’t going anywhere soon either)
> One of the major points of this insightful article is “What are we getting for all of this money that is being laid out?” Are we getting better technologies for countering IEDs which are killing our troops? Better equipment for counter insurgency/terrorist operations?
there is a danger in so totally focusing on COIN operations that we lose our ability to fight the ‘Big War’. Just because boomer subs are irrelevant to Iraq doesn’t mean they are irrelevant.
Not one of you mentioned the fact that There are three levels of international participation. The levels generally reflect the financial stake in the program, the amount of technology transfer and subcontracts open for bid by national companies, and the order in which countries can obtain production aircraft. The United Kingdom is the sole “Level 1″ partner, contributing US$2.5 billion, about 10% of the development costs[34] under the 1995 Memorandum of Understanding that brought the UK into the project.[35] Level 2 partners are Italy, which is contributing US$1 billion; and the Netherlands, US$800 million. Level 3 partners are Canada, US$440 million; Turkey, US$175 million; Australia, US$144 million; Norway, US$122 million; and Denmark, US$110 million. Israel and Singapore have joined as Security Cooperative Participants.
The F-22 and 35 are dogfighters more less from
the article. Dogfighting has just exceeded 100
miles with a sidewinder derivative.
Most dogfighters are approximately 100 miles
from “the coast were I live in a very populated
area”. Intercept over this area could result in
significant casualties.
I question drones surveillance capabilty more so
than target recognition and guidance of the drone and payload. I feel surveillance over a large area
needs to be considered before going 100% drone as
so many say is happening.
I also question further budgeting for 35’s when 22 projections and goals have not yet been met,
though there’s probably not much difference.
From:
navblk4@military.com
To:
Christian.lowe@military-inc.com
Subject:
Fwd: Sloppy format
Date:
Fri, Feb 8 2008 3:16:30 PM –0800
—- Begin Included Message —-
From: navblk4@military.com
Sent: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 15:11:43 –0800
To: noahmax@inch.com
Subject: Sloppy format
I just posted here.
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003992.html
That is not how the text appeared in the
text area. Please delete the post or align
it.
—- End Included Message —-
Tech Email:noahmax@inch.com
Name Server:NS1.MILITARY.COM
Name Server:NS2.MILITARY.COM
hop rtt rtt rtt ip address
1 0 2 0 70.84.211.97
2 0 0 0 70.84.160.162
3 0 0 0 70.85.127.109
4 0 0 0 70.87.253.21
5 0 0 0 216.200.6.233
6 5 6 5 64.125.26.134
7 37 37 37 64.125.25.18
8 37 45 45 64.125.26.26
9 48 47 47 64.124.73.34
10 212 47 47 64.124.73.34
11 75 215 228 64.127.96.30
12 47 47 47 64.147.183.61
FTP — 21 220 blogs.military.com NcFTPd Server (licensed copy) ready.
SMTP — 25 Error: TimedOut
HTTP — 80 HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 23:06:05 GMT
Server: Apache/2.0.52 (CentOS)
Last-Modified: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 23:03:18 GMT
ETag: “88a27-10572-445ad988ed980“
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 66930
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
POP3 — 110 Error: TimedOut
IMAP — 143 Error: TimedOut
I guess the debate also rages in the Pentagon, with the high tech wonder weapons for mythical superpowers crowd vs the low tech/brains of the here and now and most likely future, COIN.
Any current and future budgets that are not weighted 70 percent toward COIN/Post-conflict is a waste of money…or worse.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/washington/08strategy.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=&oref=slogin
There obviously is a lot of opinion about these topics. But I think we all can agree on many things.
1. We need a superior A2A fighter.
2. We need enough of them to handle any foreseeable conflicts.
3. We need superior A2A missiles.
4. We need to engage enemies from a safe distance as possible.
5. We need to be able to win the dogfight if it comes to that though that should be our last resort.
6. We need a good balance of quality vs. quantity to maximize our spending.
7. We need a superior Air to Ground platform just like our A2A platform.
8. National defense is job one for the national government.
9. We should spend enough money to get this job done properly.
10. We should not spend more than we need to get the job done properly.
11. We need to plan for the Big War and for smaller conflicts.
12. Our current COIN responsibilities are important and need all the right tools for the job.
13. Our A2A superior fighter is not the right tool for this job.
14. The A-10, F-16, and F15E are good but minor tools for this job.
15. Our past short comings in Iraq and Afghanistan have had little to do with equipment.
16. Tactics are just as important than equipment.
17. In our current conflicts, we have adjusted our tactics and are having better success.
18. Throughout the history of our country, we have made big mistakes in the past on equipment and tactics. We eventually learn better and correct our mistakes.
19. Some of these mistakes have been with jets and missiles.
20. We don’t want to repeat these mistakes.
21. Honest debate is always healthy.
22. Missile technology is getting better.
23. Dogfighting is not as important as it used to be.
24. Dogfighting should still be taught and practiced.
25. How good our missiles and tactics are should be kept secret.
26. Most of us debating here do not have the latest data on missiles and tactics.
27. Thus none of us can resolve this debate here.
28. Even if we could, things will change tomorrow and new conclusions will be different.
29. The biggest issue today is not jets, missiles, or tactics — it is government spending.
30. Our government spending is more of a threat to national security then any military foe.
31. We need good solutions to this problem.
I think we can all agree on these points. Ultimately, most of us are trying to solve the wrong end of the equation. We debate how many F-22s we should have rather than how to get the costs down.
I want to know why the F22 costs so much? Why is it like $300 million a copy rather than $50 million? There has to be creative ways to get the cost down. I’d love to see a breakdown of the plane by areas of cost. I bet that would be very interesting. I also bet most of us don’t have a clue about this. Very few people do.
But even then, the bigger issue is our government spending on non-military issues. Our government spends only 25% of its budget on our military. About 73% of it is spent on social security, welfare, and Medicare/Medicaid. That is the real problem.
Thank you for the comments, however I don’t
necessarily agree with these.
8. National defense is job one for the national government. (I can’t tell why it’s not here.)
14. The A-10, F-16, and F15E are good but minor tools for this job. (We maintain these areas of
science and engineering are never bad and never
good. They are only characterized as such.)
19. Some of these mistakes have been with jets and missiles. (This I question. Accidents or
deliberate usage should not always characterize them as bad nor condemn the entire models nor classify them as mistakes.)
21. Honest debate is always healthy.(Depends, you
basicly already answered within these statements
that it may not be.)
22. Missile technology is getting better. (Possibly “improving” may be more proper.)
Of course I agree with much you say, though I’ll
edit this, all has been stricken.
DoD is not a large entity and the military components themselves have not grown in comparison
to other government entities.
I was a memebr of IEEE and invited to a job dinner
with Thales. They were hiring 50 engineers. These
jobs are short term. A young woman with the IEEE I
spoke to at this dinner. She works at a large aeronautic company, and admittedly is not an engineer. Most jobs for engineers are aquired by
those in their 50’s nowdays. I just saw this at
Boeing with less than a dozen jobs.
In 2005 I attended the 2 day mathworks aerospace and defense conference. Approximately 500 per day in attendance. Approximately 50% from the US and 50% foreign. In attendance were the scientist and engineers from Boeing, Grumman, Martin, NASA, Los
Alamos and very few private as myself.
Are there too many paper pushers on payrolls?
Some of us WISH we spent about 25% on defense. It is actually less than 20% (a little more or a little less depending on which numbers you believe). And where the hell did they come up with $670 billion — according to every reliable source I can find it is “only” $585.4 billion ($515.4 discretionary defense spending + $70 to fund the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan). Also note that we spend more Social Security than defense & the projectd growth in Social Security is SIGNIFICNLTY faster than defense…
Grant, the reason none of us mentioned that there are three levels of international participation is because it’s not true. There is one level of participation in the F-22. That level is: the US and the US alone.
There are 3 levels of international participation in the F-35 program. That is a different aircraft. Note the numbers difference: 22 vs 35.
why would any nation try and fight us in the arenas in which we are strongest? The Maginot line of superior technology in which we trust will aid us very little in future conflicts.
A real bonus to our armed forces would be the sacrifice of a dozen F-22’s — instead spending that money on broadening language and cultural training throughout the services.
Good comments Vertingetorex et all.
“my only concern as far as IFF is that our allies don’t always comply. During OIF, Patriot missile batteries shot down at least one Brit fighter. From a guy in my old unit — I’m not going to the trouble of verifying the incident beside his word but he was at the airbase — after that incident, another battery locked on another Tornado, so the Brit pilot bombed the battery.“
—————————————
A Patriot PAC-2 downed a Brit Tornado 4 days into OIF, killing both pilots. The next day, an Air Force F-16 fired a HARM at a Patriot radar that locked onto him, but nobody was hurt. Finally, a pair of Patriot PAC-3s were launched at a F/A-18 mistaken for a missile(?), and killed the pilot even though he ejected.
Keep in mind that 40 Patriot batteries were in Iraq primarily to protect against the TBM threat, and 8 or 9 missiles were downed. Little time is available to engage a missile and the TTP then was to launch two Patriots against a missile…hence the two that killed the F/A-18. Obviously, there was a software problem and may have been an automated launch problem. The results and fixes were classified and never released, but a statement was released to the effect that fixes were made. We will see.
It was tragic to note no communication existed between whatever ground element was in charge of ground air defenses and AWACS which may or may not have solved some of the problem. A future Single Integrated Air Picture is planned and must be automatically kept current, or you are correct, there may be future incidents.
But two F-15s shot down two Blackhawks killing 26 friendlies in 1994 with “visual ID.” Later in OIF, MLRS Batteries were engaged from the air, thought visually to be Iraqi air defenses. There have been many more such incidents on both air and ground.
Visual ID is often mistaken. We can’t afford to discontinue use of AMD or air-to-air/air-to-ground assets because fratricide occurs. We MUST fix the fratricide problem, so our best missiles and TTP can be used as they were intended to maximize the benefits of stealth aircraft and long-distance acquisition of air and ground targets.
The tragic loss of friendly aircraft to Patriot missiles should, however, be a warning to the authors of this article and the “more-is-better” crowd who would prefer continued flight of many agile non-stealthy aircraft in the EARLY fight.
More non-stealthy aircraft in the air, no matter how agile, simply means more non-stealthy aircraft splashed by enemy air and ground missiles.
Likewise, more aircraft flying air interdiction missions, complicates the work of AWACS and ground/sea air defense systems to differentiate between returning friendlies and inbound threats.
Fewer stealth aircraft flying such missions will be flying known routes, and should hopefully have small enough signatures that accidental engagement would be difficult, because guidance and fuzing would be more difficult by mistaken friendly or deliberate threat engagements.
That does raise the interesting question of how AWACS tracks friendly stealth aircraft…but don’t tell me because I don’t want to be shot.;)
————————————-
“Patriots might be quirky. But a few incidents like that could lead us to shorter detection ranges, especially if we are fighting on the side of an erstwhile ally, like say, Vietnam against a Chinese invasion (however that might happen), long distance IFF would ID both ally and enemy as potential threats.“
————————————–
You raise the specter of fighting alongside allies who have aircraft and ground systems similar to what the threat has. Examples: India air and ground systems, South Korea ground systems, Pakistan?
Something must be done in the combat ID and TTP arena to fix fratricide. For instance, FCS has a highly capable combat ID systems built into its vehicles. Maybe its time to upgrade air IFF, as well.
Hi vertingentorex,
Here is a patriot mis-hap.
http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/disasters/
I did have a simplified diagram and code example
showing this, however it appears some persons
did not like it public and removed it from a
site even though I designed the diagram and I wrote the code.
I question AWAC feasibility comparing to per_se
Maritelar Radar or compatible systems, though I assume coverage is greater than current Drone ability.
There is really nothing further to say here or
debate with you, however being shot for knowing
how? AWAC probably uses the same algorithms or
parts of as does CJudy, Dane, PaveP and maybe
others. Perhaps to they add L or other band
sensors for a tracking signal which is not an
illuminating signal. Many away from AWAC’s know
these things, so I don’t know why others should
be shot.
Navblk04,
Appreciate the attempted clarification, but your link refers to a Feb 25, 1991 incident where a Patriot did not kill a SCUD and 28 died and 100 were wounded. That and the threat to Israel explains why the missile threat was taken so seriously 12 years later when the F/A-18 fratricide occured in OIF, near Karbala.
I’m sure you’ve heard the old joke, “I would tell you but then I would have to shoot you.” That was my reference, and obviously, as Morpheous points out, there are many things we don’t know in this discussion and SHOULDN’T know…or speculate about.
That is also part of the problem with the fighter mafia article. The historically poor performance of Viet Nam era Sparrow radar-guided missiles does not mirror the classified potential of AMRAAM and current/future threat radar missiles. Past capability of our non-stealthy aircraft using ECM against threat air defenses does not guarantee future success against newer systems.
Been a good conversation so far:
“why would any nation try and fight us in the arenas in which we are strongest? The Maginot line of superior technology in which we trust will aid us very little in future conflicts.“
That assumes that we are directly attacked and drawn into conflict. Historically, that is far and away the exception, not the rule to our wars.
It is far more common that we are drawn into an already raging war, such as WWI and II (Pearl Harbor of course was a direct attack, BUT the Japanese were already conquering Asia, so it holds), Korea, Vietnam, etc.
So, yes, few nations will attack us directly, just as few nations will directly attack Russia, India or China, just as it is unlikely that Russia will hit India or China or Europe or any combination thereof.
But Saudi Arabia might not hesitate to strike Ethiopia, or Ethiopia Eritrea, or Colombia against Venezuela, or even Brazil against Argentina, or Pakistan vs Iran, or wherever. Remember Desert Storm? Iraq didn’t hit the US, it hit Kuwait, and we responded with half-million troops.
So the antes up to a major conflict are there. And, of course, small wars will continue to pop up and so we will fight more in the future.
@Vercingetorix
What country ever atacked the US, besides Japan at Pearl Harbor?
Well, I hope the dinasaurs known as the Fighter Mafia read these responses and figure out that they are relics of wars gone by. They seem to think we are still fighting in Vietnam. I appreciate Boyd for much of his fighting theory, it is very useful, and I appreciate Sprey as he help found the F-16, although he does not see the uses of the more modern versions which are excellent. But, they are really more of a nusiance lately.
If the F-22 costs approximately $140 million per copy, the figure I believe is most honest, especially if you factor out sunk research costs which were well spent as they do factor into the F-35 also. It stands to prove that each fighter is no more than $0.50 per person here in the US. That is a bargain for the incredible safety it brings to the table. A squadron of 20 then cost the average American a whopping $10. We certainly can afford to buy a squadron a year until we have at least 400 planes (although I would prefer more like 600).
The plane is the best there is. In close combat, it is reported that even our best fighters find it nearly impossible to even lock missiles onto the plane, including IR missiles. It will soon be launching as many as 8 Small Diameter Bombs (SDBs) as far as 65 or more miles from there target. Remember that the F-15C/D does not even have the ability to drop bombs, it is strickly air vs air. With its high Mach (Mach 1.7 has been reported) cruising speed, and high altitude (over 65,000 feet) the SDBs may reach ranges much farther than even that stated above. The F-22s can fire AMRAAMs from greater distance than the F-15 as it can be fired at Mach 1.7.
The AESA radar is expected to make all other air to air radars nearly obsolete. It is likely that the AESA will even be able to disable enemy air-to-air missiles with high power electronic attacks. It is able to find, track and attack enemy aircraft at ranges that will finally allow modern BVR missiles to excel.
The F-22s make every F-15 and F-35 even more deadly in air to air combat, by first disrupting the enemy, while providing intel to friendly fighters. (Note — unfortunately a critical datalink was not initially planned, but will be available to assist in this in future upgrades).
We certainly need to continue to produce this excellent aircraft as we can modify it for special purpose missions in the future, something we have not done mcuh in the past few years. The F-4 was modified into an excellent Wild Weasel, the F-111 was turned into the EF-111 Raven. Who knows what great adaptations we can give to the F-22. It would be excellent in a two seat version for controlling UCAVs for example.
While everyone was dumping on the B-2 bomber, they failed to see what it is today, a highly effective bomber that can target 80 separate targets today, and possible hundreds in the future. That is revolutionary, and keeps our enemies at bay, as they know how dangerous it really is. It is a travesty that we are no longer building updated B-2s today, but we at least seen the need and we will will spend billions building a new bomber for 2018.
Forget the Fighter Mafia, and lets get on with the work of building the best weapons in the world.
so we have fewer aircraft with no current use. The F-15 fleet is slowly falling apart, and even a lot of the –16’s are getting old now. This makes no sense.
Airlift capabities are becoming ever more limited and a 30 year old workhorse, the A-10 is one of the most useful platforms in the field.
It would seem our leaders and our planners are deeply out of touch with the nation’s requiremenst for the next 5–10 years. Further, the infrastructure that brought us those cost effective platforms has been allowed to erode to the point that we are now reliant for many key technologies on overseas suppliers, of whom some are of questionable reliability.
Our defense procurement process has become a travesty.
Insaint:
”@Vercingetorix
What country ever atacked the US, besides Japan at Pearl Harbor?“
* England in the war of 1812 — they burned Washington.
* Mexico. 1840s.
* The Confederate State of America 1861.
* Germany (sabateurs during WWII forming the basis for the leading pre-GWB precedent on domestic enemy combatants).
Of course, U.S. forces have been fired upon far more often.
According to JDW, the Defense Secretary, Mr. Gates, has stated that the F-22 is useless at the moment. It is operational in Iraq and Afghanistan, but, he said to JDW, not one sortie has been flown.
And he continued by saying that a peer-to-near-peer conflict is far away.
So methinks that, when India, Russia and China are up to snuff, then the Raptor might dive down on its smaller kin.
But when wil there be a war with any of these three?
Cole,
The reason I posted that, along with lower level
processing mentioned posted in the past was to
make engineers think about 24 bits? al,ah are
8 bit registers. ax is 16 bits and eax is 32
bits, and I don’t know of a 24 bit register? I take these occurences and mistakes highly serious myself.
Yes iv’e heard the old joke, and from law it
appears it’s not an old joke in the past. Those
being ordered at times to kill have been done so not following due process, and they themselves end
up damaged sometimes monetarily with prison or the same outcome to them. Falcon and the Snowman was due process, and of course i’m neither of those 2, and would have been pleased to prosecute them myself. I agree fully with you there.
AMRAAM I did not mention exact mileage though mileage is avaliable over the public internet.
I’m sure any classified aspects are not public
over the internet. This article appears to show
alleged spending problems, however no solutions.
X-Version: militarycom 7.5.2333.0
X-SenderIP: 71.128.65.59
X-SenderID: 27082853
From: navblk4@military.com
Message-Id:
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:22:16 –0800
X-Priority: 3
Priority: Normal
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859–1
To: noahmax@inch.com,Christian.Lowe@military-inc.com
Subject: http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003992.html
X-Mailer: Web Based Pronto
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003992.html
Can you provide me a login to my post to either
delete them or edit them. Again I just posted to the subject and the post appears to be written to at the same I submitted it causing bad output to the appearance.
navblk4
But Gates is concerned that each F-22 costs $140 million, while the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter “will be about half that, about $77 million a copy.“
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-35.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II
Seems to be some very large discreprencies?
Cole,
shorter range dog fighting here?
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-22.htm
See per unit costs.
This seems very pricey for capability?
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/aim-120.htm
Price seems to be improved with capability?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM
AIM-120D: >180km (112 mi)
This article discusses the defense budget in
somewhat a negative fashion.
Appears time and money has been saved here.
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123038314
In house seems to be one solution for effective
budgeting.
Now I cherish the memory of my better friend who once help me and give me much more Silk road gold.
Characters have a variety of Tibia coins skills that will raise through training.
pogspogspogspogspogspogspogspogspgosgpgosgpsospsgosgspgosgspgosgspogsgposgsgposgspgosgposop