Bloodless Coup

Check out the comments, it got skewered. High points include the fact that the per unit cost skyrocketed because they decided to buy only a quarter of the original order, that military defense is validly viewed as a percentage of GDP, and that you don't really need more than several dozen because they're that good. In training, the so called ineffective raptors have taken out five F-15's before the F-15's can even get in range. How much cockpit time do you need (the one partially valid point) when you're enemy can't even get in range? I'm still confused about a mindset that we need to stop developing military weapons and technology because we're ahead.

The USAF has no heavy bombers that are less than 25 years old -- and NO plans to build new ones. Their close-support aircraft are falling apart. But wow, cool, we have wicked awesome fighter planes -- built for a mission that has been obsolete since what, the Korean War?

Morris, the fact that there were comments that disagreed with the post does not make those comments intelligent. The F-22 is a superb air-superiority fighter (maybe - see below); the question is whether we need one. There isn't an air force in the world today that can match what we are flying (with our organization, tactics, and logistics). And that's without the F-22. In other words, what does the F-22 protect us from? It doesn't really drop bombs (it can carry two smallish ones, but that's not really serious). The threats to American security are tied up in terrorism, nationalism, 4th Generation Warfare and insurgencies. None of that has anything to do with shooting enemy fighter planes out of the sky. The responses to the post neglect to discuss that issue, preferring to concentrate on discussion how awesome the F-22 is. The simple point is that the F-22 is the wrong weapon because it is effective against a threat that doesn't exist.

Additionally, the F-22 is designed for "over the horizon" combat; shooting down the other side's planes before you can visually see them. That's fine, if that's the way that air combat works. That, however, is debatable. There are political issues (what if the politicians in charge issue rules of engagement that require visual identification of targets? Then the F-22 loses it's advantage, because it has to close with the target), and there are tactical issues (what if the enemy planes don't behave like we want them, and hide down low, so we can't see them, and the F-22 has to close to get close enough). In other words, the F-22 will win air combat if the enemy behaves like we expect them to. If the enemy doesn't, then the F-22 is less effective. And enemies spend pretty much all their time (like we do) figuring out how to behave in a fashion the other side can't expect. So the F-22s combat superiority is theoretical at this point.

Finally, stop being an idiot. I never said we should stop developing weapons (one of the strongest arguments for abandoning the F-22 is that we should just buy more F-35s instead - it's the next generation plane). Since I didn't make that argument, you can hardly criticize me for that position.

or we could just buy a boatload of A-10s on the cheap because they're what works best in the only game in town, counterinsurgency. if china starts building up, we can do the same. until they do, there's simply no point.

how about we kill a few pointless programs like the F-22 for two years, give as much of the money we save as necessary to Detroit and factories in the south to retool our domestic auto plants to make carbon-fiber, electric-first, 100+ mpg hybrids (the technology for which is on the table and would be affordable with a big initial capital investment), allocate the balance of the savings to huge incentives to consumers to buy one of the aforesaid cars, and in so doing resurrect american manufacture both domestically and as exporters (as we'll have a nice head start on other countries that can't afford to subsidize similar transitions for their companies); reduce our dependency on foreign oil, and thus increase our security; put more money into the economy directly, and indirectly by the cost-savings we put into the pocket of american consumers. it can't cost any more than Apollo 11 did (and that was cheap by comparison to the F-22), and the social, political, ecoological, and economic dividends would be immeasurable.

Moon, I don't have any problem with that idea in general, though (in practice) it's impossible. You can't just "idle" factories - it's very expensive and just impracticable. What opponents of the F-22 are arguing is that we should skip the F-22 and just buy the F-35 (cheaper, less advanced, still better than anything out there).

In any event, the F-22 isn't really a great idea.

Moon, on another day, I'll tell you why your car proposal doesn't work. For one thing, carbon-fiber cars aren't going to be mass-market items anytime soon. To oversimplify, manufacturing ain't the problem, repair and insurance are.

Anyone telling you otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about, plain and simple. If it could be done, believe me, GM would be doing it NOW to get out in front of Toyota.

baltar -- who needs to idle factories? for hundreds of billions, you can build parallel factories (jobs!) in areas of urban blight and bring them up as you wind the others down. i'm not talking welfare reform, here -- i'm talking apollo!

jacflash -- right, just like GM's doing other things it could do to get out in front of toyota -- like making decent cars, for starters. GM can't do it without help because it's barely solvent and so can't build up a second set of manufacturies. and like baltar says, they simply can't idle their own factories to retool on the scale we're talking about. which is why it would take apollo money. or (sadly) F-22 money. (i don't claim much acquaintance with how different the F-35 is than the 22, although it seems to me that for as long as no one is able to exceed (at scale) the abilities of our old stalwarts, it's really questionable why we can't keep manufacturing new and improved versions of those for a tenth of the pricetag. am i wrong to say that in the hands of a superior pilot an F-4 with modern avionics and weaponry would be able to put up a fight with anything out there?)

back to my original digression:

jacflash, i'm certainly happy to hear you talk about carbon fiber, because i don't pretend to know with any sort of authority, but if mass production can bring costs down to levels comparable to steel -- which is precisely what a long-form Atlantic article ten or more years ago claimed, and that means at least someone with some kind of credentials, indeed ostensibly two sources, backed up that claim (and on ten-year-old technological premises) -- then i fail to see how repair and insurance are problems.

as for repair, no one sucks out and bondo's panels anymore anyway; except for the most trivial of damage (and i mean really trivial), the parts are just replaced. so if carbon is as cheap to manufacture as steel, repair's a wash. and since insurance is mostly concerned with the costs of repairs, i have trouble imagining what you're talking about there, again, assuming values are the same or similar.

and in any event, whatever problems you've got in mind, i'd really like to know what, in this context, you think we couldn't accomplish and scale up to international levels with five or ten years, a half-trillion dollars, and a serious commitment to partner with business via hand-outs and subsidies to make it a reality. seriously, tell me why that's not enough time and money to make this happen. and as for whatever your cryptic "insurance" response means, if we had the political will, we could make whatever legislative changes are necessary to keep the insurance companies rolling in it.

Moon,
I'm a big fan of an apollo (human genome, really) style program to find ways to get energy from earth, sun, wind, and water all the way to the gas tank, including infrastructure. But it's not as politically viable as sending the money to Iowa so they can grow more corn.

Baltar,
As far as the F-22 goes, I think you're reaching with your rules of engagement argument. The whole reason we have satellites, advanced radar, etc., is so that our soldiers and airmen won't die fighting battles they don't have to fight, and that's the strength of the F-22.

If you're familiar with Chinese history, you wouldn't underestimate them. They have so much espionage going on (because Bush hasn't directly given them the technology, like Clinton) that we can't guarantee staying more than a few years ahead of them. They're literally turning their country black because they're bringing enough coal plants online to be meet the needs of a GNP that's grown at rates close to 10% for the last couple decades. The Rand corporation expects their demand for energy may match ours by 2020. It is our manufacturing base that allowed us to win the Second World War. And if they come to match that, we are less secure.

Specifically, they have about a dozen Kilo class subs and five new nuclear subs, some ballistic. They have 300 fourth generation flankers, 50 Jian-10 fighters based on stolen F-16 technology, and the intention to build 250 more. They blasted with lasers one of our satellites just to show us they could do it, and they've knocked out one of their own satellites with a kinetic kill vehicle developed with the aid of loosened restrictions on technology exports to China. And if prices on Chinese products in America are any estimator, four and a half percent (a 17% increase over last year) buys a lot more weapons in China than it would in America. But why should we worry? We've got hope, we'll have change.

Moon: well, sure, if you're going to nationalize the auto industry, you can do anything -- just ask the British.

More later, when I have more time and patience.

Yes Morris, the Chinese have both an economy and a military. Who knew! But I'm missing where the fact that they have those things is connected to the US needing both the F-22 and the F-35. A considering that a fairly strong argument can be made that we'll be safer by spending the giant mountains of money on other programs than 2 fighter programs ... well I guess the pertinent thing here would be to discuss what it is about the Chinese "threat" that necessitates both fighter programs.

Bro,
When we joined the Allies' effort in WWII, the Japanese were ahead of us in technology and armaments. It was because of our manufacturing base that we were able to overcome the Axis powers. Let's not let the Chinese do the same thing, to us. Of course, the Japanese attacked us based on reports of running out of petroleum, energy. It's hardly a stretch of the imagination that wars in the next century will be fought over energy as well. They are building up for an assymetrical fight (missiles, subs) only because they can't beat us outright, and it would be a mistake to give them the idea that they can beat us in a direct conflict. We have the technology with R+D costs spent, so why would we take the chance?

Ummmm - b/c nice shiny jet fighters aren't going to help us fight China's expanding submarine program?

My point is that if you think China is some great threat, you might want to build the most effective force to counter that & of course the other threats that the US faces in the world too. And I think a fair argument can be made the money from canceling one of the fighter programs could be spent more effectively on other military needs (presuming one wants to keep it in military spending). Of course if you want to build both and prepare for other threats you can raise taxes to pay for it - but I don't expect you'll be arguing for that.

". . . if you're going to nationalize the auto industry . . ."

that's a false assessment of what i'm proposing. if subsidizing the auto industry (and the airlines, and misbehaving banks, and reckless financiers, and a goodish proportion of big pharma r & d, and all broadcast media, and everyone else who doesn't pay their by-law-determined marginal tax rate) is equivalent to nationalizing it, we're already there. the only question is, do we want to use our billions to prop them up after they've fallen down due to catastrophic failure in the free market so they can keep limping alongas second-class corporate citizens, or would we rather be proactive and use those dollars to elevate their competitiveness and secure their future success.

the subsidies and incentives = nationalization premise is positively morrisian of you, a strawman response.

but insofar as our long term national security is at stake -- something that really wasn't the case in the apollo era, even if that was part of the bill of goods sold to the american public -- perhaps a worthier comparison is to that great socialist enterprise, the manhattan project.

or, like morris said, we can (continue to) "nationalize" agribusiness by encouraging it to scrape the already tortured plains with yet more corn, so that we can divert some of the greenhouse gases currently from american tailpipes into american smokestacks. that's good, capitalist policy, isn't it.

I'm not getting involved in a fight about the auto industry, so I'm ignoring that.

Morris, there is a very long history of politicians putting limits on what the military can do; in fact, the "unconditional war" option is a rare one (in a modern sense). Thus the F-22s (purported) ability to shoot down everything larger than a seagull from "over the horizon" is likely to be significantly limited by politicians (who will demand actual human eyeballs on targets before they can be shot down). Yes, we have satellites, but they won't do any good if the rules don't allow them to be used (as it were).

However, you are fundamentally wrong in your interpretation of the ratio of technology and weapons between the Japanese and the Americans in World War II. At no point were the Japanese better than us technologically; any success they had was because of better organizations, a political/military leadership more willing to take risks, and better training. All of which were rectified (on the American side) very quickly.

In any event, to argue that there are historical parallels between the Japanese 60 years ago and China today misses lots and lots of differences.

I'm really not sure what you are arguing; you say the Chinese will fight us asymmetrically (so, presumably, we should prepare for that), but then say that we shouldn't let them think they can fight us conventionally (meaning we should build all these very expensive planes which you just said we're not going to need, since the Chinese will fight us asymmetrically). That makes no sense.

Baltar,
You've been misinformed. The Japanese kept fighting with us for tech supremacy in fighters:
"World War II was often a battle of technological advances. Throughout the war, the Allied and Axis forces constantly worked to improve the abilities and features of their equipment. No type of technology showcased this battle for supremacy better than the fighter planes. Every few months saw the introduction of a new or improved fighter plane to combat the latest version developed by the opposing side."

There's a rifle with a sight that allows our soldiers to shoot around corners. What you're saying about requiring visual confirmation, does that mean naked eye confirmation? And how many soldiers would have to die before politicians changed that rule? How many F-22s would we have to lose before we let them engage enemies as they're meant to? I'm sorry, but if we're in an air war with China, and they decide to put passenger planes into the air at the same time as their fighters, that would say a whole lot more about them (which I would believe, by the way) than it says about our fighters who shoot them down.

If I'm hearing you right, you're saying we shouldn't expect that the Chinese might change their strategies on us if we change ours, that just because we stop building what prevents them from fighting us straight up, we couldn't be in that same process leaving an opening that they could exploit. That's just silly. Or maybe you think our soldiers in Iraq fight the same way that the British tried to fight us, or the same way the Greeks fought the Trojans, or the same way the Spartans fought the Persians. When Japan came to believe in their own destiny, they left the door open for the black ships to come. Let us not make the same mistake.

Wow Morris - as the war went on, technologies changed and people learned things, advances were made. Who knew? This is not a subject on which I have any expertise, but a more appropriate response to Baltar would show that the Japanese advancements exceeded US ones - not simply that both sides made advancements.

Your 2 last paragraphs are either putting words in Baltar's mouth, or allusions to history (the point of which escapes me).

Here's a thought though. This thread is about the F-22. Obviously you like funding them. Apparently you think the US might fight a hot war with the PRC (that's incredibly unlikely any time soon, but we'll go with that possibility). Is there any point at which you think we should stop building them if they are so vital? What if it eats into the budget for, say, the Marines? Or submarines? Or transport aircraft? Should we actually pay for them - or should we keep borrowing money from China to pay for them? My point is that your argument is basically we need to arm ourself to the teeth, for every possible eventuality - so I'm curious if there's a point at which that stops for you. And do you want to fund every imaginable weapons program to the nth degree? Or is there something special about the F-22?

Morris, citing "HowStuffWorks.com" as evidence of anything is shaky, and they are just wrong on this. The Japanese Zero (which they started the war against us with) was more agile than the planes we started the war with (the F4F "Wildcat"), but the Wildcat had higher top speed and was technologically more advanced (self-sealing fuel tanks, armor for the pilot, etc.). The key difference at the beginning of the war was pilot training (Japanese pilots had more of it than American ones), which changed quickly as the war went on. Additionally, the "better" planes for the US (the F6F Hellcat and F4U Corsair) were already under development or in production by Pearl Harbor; in short, the US was far in advance of the Japanese technologically (though not in human terms; we needed to catch up with their organization and training). The Japanese had additional planes produced during the war (the "Oscar"; I forget the designation), but they were not more advanced than the American planes (and were only produced in limited numbers because of the failure of the Japanese economy).

In short, I'm not misinformed. You are just wrong.

As for rules of engagement (i.e., "How many F-22s would we have to lose before we let them engage enemies as they're meant to?"), I'll only note that most major conflicts (post-War2) have involved highly restrictive rules (in Korea, we couldn't bomb China; in Vietnam, we couldn't invade North Vietnam, or bomb Soviet ships carrying war materials to North Vietnam; there are other examples). Hell, we have nuclear weapons, and haven't used those since War2 (their restriction is a political, not a military, decision). Political restraints on the use of military force are common, not unusual. We should expect them in the future, and the ability of the F22 to shoot down things "over the horizon" (which, by the way, isn't new; most fighters flying today can do that) isn't likely to be used.

No enemy is likely to fight us conventionally. I have never argued that we should just give up on conventional conflict, just that the F22 is too expensive for a less likely conflict (conventional), and not very useful in unconventional conflict. Thus, we shouldn't buy it. Nothing you have said offers evidence to the contrary (i.e., that future conflicts WILL be conventional or that the F22 is USEFUL in unconventional conflicts).

Also known as "power is dynamic, relative and situational." Among others.

"In short, I'm not misinformed. You are just wrong."

Or not, according to the Naval Historical Center:

"...the stubby little F4F could not equal the speed and maneuverability of its Japanese counterpart, the 'Zero'..."

What you're trying to do is cover your argument by diluting it, but it doesn't work. If the Zero has better maneuverability and speed, then the Japanese have better maneuverability and speed technology. Now the F4F may have better armor, and yes there is a cost benefit as to how much weight you allocate to things like armor versus fuel tanks and engines. But, as Wiki says, "At the time it was introduced, the Mitsubishi A6M was the best carrier-based fighter plane in the world and was greatly feared by Allied pilots."(according to 3 citations)

And not having actual better planes makes as much difference to better technology as being able to build Raptors but not doing so. Weaponized technology is the kind of tech that changes things "in human terms."

And you're referring to the possible conflicts of the future as a static situation, like saying most criminals don't attack arresting officers (who have guns) anyway, so why not take away the chance of those officers accidentally shooting people and take away their guns? It's not that complicated, so I'm beginning to think you're being deliberately evasive. By being unprepared for a head to head conflict, we leave the possiblity for such a conflict open.

Further, the Raptor is useful at preventing air to sea or air to air missile attacks:
"If the Raptor is protecting a strike force, the adversary fighters will be engaged and downed farther away from the strikers and long before an enemy missile can be launched against the friendlies."
Even if they launched, amraams, the kind of missiles carried by the F-22, are capable of shooting down cruise missiles.

The supercruise feature means that since its missiles fly out already at high speed, time to target is cut in half. As well, time in front of enemy radars (ground and air) is cut down, and the stealth increases the difficulty of hitting a raptor.

It was never designed to be a warthog, never designed for close air support, or to be a B-52 and drop bombs from high places. There is the acrid air of hopelessness from the left with regard to the military, anything military. The surge can't work. Missile defense can't work. And when our brilliant engineers and soldiers make them work, there's no admission of mistake, of misperception, only more hopelessness. This is the fighter we need to build so that we'll never need it.

Bro,
Clinton eased technology export restrictions, and what they didn't get from that China stole from Los Alamos and other places we'll never hear about. As long as people are chasing you, you don't stop running unless you want to fight. Isn't there a difference between being unprepared for unforseen wars and being unprepared for forseeable wars?

Uh - you didn't even attempt to answer my question? If you want me to engage you on this thread's topic, it's something I need to know.

And I'll let you and Baltar fight it out over WWII, but the following seems slightly relevant to this tangent you've chosen to go off on - Am I mistaken in thinking that the US drowned most of Japan's best pilots during the 1st half of the war (or even earlier)? B/c if I'm not, just how fancy Japan's planes were compared to the American ones seems rather less important. Without trained, skilled pilots, well maneuverablity's impact becomes smaller.

Morris, the fact that something is better at some characteristic does not mean it has better technology, especially when dealing with fighter planes. The Zero had better turning and maneuverability since it had NO armor, no self-sealing fuel tanks, and little other technology. And, for the record, the Wildcat could out-dive the Zero. The Wildcat was (likely) a worse plane, but American technology wasn't behind Japanese technology (as evidenced by the fact that the planes we either already had developed - the Corsair - or were in the process of developing - the Hellcat - were better. We had better technology than they did. The Zero was a damn good plane, but not magic. And it was outclassed by technology already in the pipeline by the end of 1941.

In any event, this is irrelevant. The Japanese lost (as Armand notes) many, many pilots in the first months of the war (they lost six aircraft carriers at Coral Sea and Midway combined, and while they could replace the ships and planes, the were utterly unable to replace the trained pilots). The Japanese shot us down (at the beginning of the war) because our PILOTS were worse than theirs (the Zero and the Wildcat were about a match; they had different strengths and weaknesses). We shot them out of the sky in droves later on because our PILOTS were better than theirs. It's that simple.

And I'm not arguing that we stop building fighter planes, I'm arguing that the F-22 (A) doesn't fulfill the mission at a good cost/benefit ratio and (B) fighter planes aren't really important these days, and we should emphasize other missions. Those are separate arguments. None of them says we shouldn't have fighter planes. Don't put words in my mouth.

And I'll say this again, since you don't seem to have heard me: yes, the F-22 will shoot things down over the horizon; no, that doesn't matter. Because (A) we already have planes that can do that and (B) that skill has not been needed in modern combat since Vietnam, and (C) political realities of "rules of engagement" make the likelihood of that skill very iffy. And your line about all the things it wasn't designed to do is very apropos: that's my point - we need planes to do all those things, we don't need a plane that does what the F-22 does.

And I don't know what the hell this "acrid air of hopelessness" crap is. The "surge" worked because of a change in tactics (Petraeus used actual counter-insurgency strategies developed decades ago for the first time in Iraq), not because of the additional troops (though they didn't hurt). And missile defense STILL hasn't worked.

I'll use small words: I'm not against military spending, I'm against stupid military spending.

Is that clear enough?

Buying every single piece of military technology the Pentagon wants isn't smart. Have you ever heard the term "imperial overstretch"?

And on that last bit that little gem that Fred Kaplan noted recently seems highly relevant - if the budgets for the Air Force, Navy and Army have been weirdly equal for the last 40 budgets, that alone pretty clearly shows that the merit of various programs is likely not at the top of the list of things that inform budget requests.

Farley adding more fuel to the fire.