This is a generally favorable article about Defense Secretary Robert Gates' plan to modify the ways of procurement at the Pentagon. One bone I would pick with Stephen Green is about the F-22. Green mentions, rightly, that the F-22 "Raptor" would be capped at 187, to replace 483 F-15C "Eagles," a net loss of nearly 300 planes. What Green doesn't mention, however, is that Gates' plan includes additional purchases of the F-35, a less expensive plan than the F-22. An additional 100 F-22s might, as Green contends, cost us less than bailing out General Motors, but we can get a larger number of F-35s for the same expenditure. (And it looks less and less as if we're going to bail out GM.)
The other issue I take with Mr. Green is about missile defense. Ever since Ronald Reagan was sold this idea, it has become an article of faith on the right wing. I don't believe a really useful missile defense is possible, so I'm opposed to spending money on attempts to build one.
Glenn A Knight
In my study
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
> ...the F-22 "Raptor" would be
> capped at 187, to replace 483
> F-15C "Eagles," a net loss of
> nearly 300 planes. What Green
> doesn't mention, however, is
> that Gates' plan includes
> additional purchases of the
> F-35, a less expensive plane
> than the F-22.
True. Green also doesn't mention that the F-22, like the F-15 it replaces, is an air-superiority fighter. It's purpose is to counter enemy fighters in order to allow our combat control planes and drones to function unmolested and to ensure that the missions of our tactical attack aircraft aren't disrupted.
However, the US hasn't engaged in any sort of military action where that mission is relevant since Vietnam. The few Iraqi jets that opposed the US in the first gulf war and the early days of the current war were quickly and easily brushed aside by F-15s, but also by Navy F-18s and Air Force F-16s.
Unless one can make a cogent argument that the US will get involved in a major war with another superpower, there is no real mission that will require a full complement of F-22s.
However, the Pentagon will be "forced" to take more than the 187 that Gates proposes, simply because everyone in Congress will be eager to protect home-state jobs. Various parts of the F-22 are built in over thirty states.
> Ever since Ronald Reagan was
> sold this idea [missile defense],
> it has become an article of
> faith on the right wing. I don't
> believe a really useful missile
> defense is possible...
I agree. Nearly all of the tests of the system have either been failures, or they were rigged in order to produce some encouraging result. Nonetheless, the system is currently being deployed-- albeit in a scaled-down version-- in Alaska and, I believe, near Washington, D.C.
The rationale seems to be that if it can stop some of the incoming ICBMs, it's worth it. In reality, the opposite if true: If it can't stop nearly all of the incoming ICBMs, it's not worth it. Better to preempt the attack than to fail to prevent it.
As I sit here tonight, the jukebox playing ...
Actually, I'm sitting here waiting for the last system POC to approve the Business Requirements for a large project of which I am the (temporary) project manager.
And part of my agreement with Gates, and with you, is based on my many years of experience in various aspects of contracting and project and program management. A defense contractor's attitude toward money is the same as a Newfie's attitude toward booze: If it's on the table, it's going to be drunk.
Which brings me back to the honky-tonk theme of this comment.
... that song about the wild side of life, ...
Post a Comment