Comments on: ‘Next-War-itis’ Rampant in US Military

By: stoka

stoka — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 09:10:32 +0000

It should be remembered that the US does not entirely have to go it alone with respect to potential future confrontations. Allies like Australia should also be equipped with the best possible aircraft (F22) to extend the sphere of influence of the US, as well as to protect the Pacific region. The USAF and RAAF can and should work co jointly to discourage regional adventurism. Australian’s have stood shoulder to shoulder with the US through various conflicts and our culture, values and democratic principles mirror your own. The US should deploy large numbers of the F22 and should also export it to close and trusted allies. Failure to do so is likely to result in future catastrophe.

By: Skred

Skred — Sun, 18 May 2008 03:54:51 +0000

Let’s see, F15’s falling out of the sky; F16’s being used up; F22’s and F35’s not ready for combat and we are involved in two ground wars where we need air-to-ground support.
Where are the new A-10’s?

By: pfcem

pfcem — Fri, 16 May 2008 21:44:23 +0000

Cole,
Yes defense spending is part of the GDP but defense spending as a % of the GDP is DOWN. Even if you INCLUDE the supplimentary spending on the “wars” in Iraq & Afghanistan. Defense spending as a % of the GDP was 4.9% in 1980. For the FY2009 budget a mear 3.43% excluding additional war funding & 4.73% including all war/homeland security funding. If we were spending the same % on defense as we did in 1980 the defense budget would be $736 billion instead of $515 billion (or $711 billion including all additional war/homeland security. funding). Just as another example, the 8.1% of 1970 would be $1216 billion!
No, knowing you are getting that better product DOES NOT mean you must acknowledge that you need far fewer to accomplish the same job. Not when the “job” is defense against a threat which itself has gotten & is getting better products…
True we don’t need 750 F-22s (we only NEED about half that many) BUT I love how you point out that our F-22s will be backed up by F-35s but conveniently neglect that our F-15s have been backed up by F-16s…OR that what people like you who bring up the F-35 when making some BS claim about how few F-22s we need that our F-35s will/would be plenty busy doing their own jobs so if you are going to use F-35s to do the F-22’s jobs you will need more F-35s (& more F-35s than F-22s).

By: pfcem

pfcem — Fri, 16 May 2008 20:59:08 +0000

sanity,
Get your facts correct.
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php#ref-1

By: Cole

Cole — Fri, 16 May 2008 14:09:57 +0000

pfcem:“Try reading your sources correctly. We did not produre 112 F-15 in 1980 for $2.676 billion.
As of Jan 1980, SALES of the F-15s TO OTHER NATIONS totaled 112 aircraft at a cost of $2.6758 billion (no indication as to if that total is constant dollars or just adding up the numbers). In 1980, the US procured 60 F-15.“
———————————–
I was getting hurried out the door and did not read the global security link correctly.
Nevertheless, do we not typically sell fighters to foreign nations for the same or more than what we pay for them? So were the 60 purchased in 1980 not running at about that price?
Unlike you, I’m not a comptroller/economist/engineer, but do have several successful semesters of calculus under my belt. Common sense math would tell you that GDP includes consumer spending for rent and investment spending includes monies spent on new housing…both of which have risen much much faster than inflation since 1980. The same is true for medical expenditures. Government spending is another part of GDP…so you are effectively giving credit to the economy when the government goes on a spending spree as it tends to do as of late.
The true measure is inflation related to consumer prices for typical…not atypical items. True, if we produced F-22s at the same rate that we did F-15s the prices would come down. Suspect it would only mean we are paying twice as much for a fighter in 2008 that we did in 1980 in constant dollars. Even the F-35 will cost more than a F-15 in constant dollars.
There is nothing wrong with these aircraft costing so much more if you are getting a much better product. But knowing you are getting that better product means you must acknowledge that you need far fewer to accomplish the same job.
750 F-15s were adequate for the Soviet threat. 250 or so F-22 would be adequate for the Soviet threat if it still existed given the aircraft’s superb capabilities. But we don’t face anything like a Soviet threat for the next 20 years during which time we will also produce huge numbers of F-35s to back up the F-22s.

By: Charlie

Charlie — Fri, 16 May 2008 09:41:07 +0000

Open the bag and let the worms loose!
If long range planning and procurement is not done, there will be a repeat of past mistakes all over again. The past and current system is too slow to respond properly to “new/changed requirements” identified by actual war experience.
In addition, about a decade ago, the military, for various reasons, scrapped a lot of “obsolete” spares. These were needed to sustain older weapon systems through the planned and unplanned length of the remaining system life. Usage for planning & disposal was based upon peacetime usage rates. (Idiotic, don’t you think?) So, when the current debacles stretched out to multiple years, the spares are, naturally, inadequate. The military now faces the dual requirements for old system spares, and, at the same time, providing new systems and spares, since many of the old systems are past “end of life” by decades.
And, there is never enough funding to go around.

By: sanity

sanity — Fri, 16 May 2008 09:07:25 +0000

You want to spend MORE money? The US spends as much on defense as every other country combined, and we need to spend more? Guess what, right now your Chinese doppelganger is saying that China must spend more on defense because they are vastly outspent by the US. Same with Russia. Same with India. Same with Iran. If you and they both got your way, well then, you would now need to spend even more on the military to counter these new threats. That ends only with everyone spending every dollar they make on military items. How much are you willing to spend, when the US already spends so much? We spend as much of the GDP on defense as we did in the Cold War, and don’t tell me that we now face comparable threats now. The threats we face now are trivial in comparison. We don’t need F-22s. We don’t need FCS. We don’t need carriers. We didn’t need to invade Iraq, and yes that was obvious at the time even without the resources available to the federal government.

By: pfcem

pfcem — Fri, 16 May 2008 03:45:07 +0000

Cole,
Try reading your sources correctly. We did not produre 112 F-15 in 1980 for $2.676 billion.
As of Jan 1980, SALES of the F-15s TO OTHER NATIONS totaled 112 aircraft at a cost of $2.6758 billion (no indication as to if that total is constant dollars or just adding up the numbers). In 1980, the US procured 60 F-15.
http://www.afa.org/EdOp/National_Journal_Charts.pdf
You can’t build new F-15s for 2.607 inflation only adjustment from 1980 to 2008 today. And of course if we were procuring F-22s at the rate we procured F-15s, they would cost A LOT less than they do at the rate we have been procuring them at.
Somehow I knew you wouldn’t get what the data from the link I provided is saying. Those numbers are 2000 Constant Dollars adjusted. Take away the adjustment & you get…
$05,221.3 in 2000 dollars = $02,498.46 in 1980 dollars
$11,693.1 in 2000 dollars = $14,587.38 in 2008 dollars
So while inflation alone results in a difference between 1980 & 2008 of a factor of 2.607, GDP rose by a factor of 5.839 (2.24 MORE than inflation alone). As I said, income has increased & at a rate GREATER than inflation.

By: Cole

Cole — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:15:04 +0000

I see that in 1980 we bought 112 F-15s for 2.676 billion which is 23.8 million a piece.
I see from the GDP link that the Jan 2008 GDP was 11.7 Trillion and the Jan 1980 GDP was 5.2 trillion…a difference of a factor of 2.25. So 2.25 times $23.8 million equals $53.55 million per airplane.…not 160 million.…

By: Cole

Cole — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:00:41 +0000

“While we do currently have “all the stuff you need to win 4 gen war”, the majority of it is now more than 20 years old & WILL be (if not already) in need of replacement. And not having the stuff you need to win 4 gen war will be MANY TIMES more costly in a possible (or as history tells us LIKELY) future 4 gen war then not having the “right” stuff for the current conflict.”\
—————————
Sorry if I misinterpreted the above. I’m all for the F-22 and F-35…just not too many of them. If you own fewer, you can add more bells and whistles to them at less cost.…and still have money left over for other committments.