I think I'll step in here if no one minds, given I know something about these things...
Sojourner01 said:
F-22; unnecessary; the current heavyweight fighter, the F-15, is already superior.
Incorrect, and under-informed. Do you know the RCS (that's Radar Cross Section) of an F-15 as compared to an F-22? Hardly superior. And moreover, since the F-15 does have a larger RCS, its chance of being detected and detroyed (and thus the loss of a life) can be statistically and physically be shown to be quite a bit higher than the F-22. These are facts, not underinformed opinions such as you have offered. Do you know that the F-22 is much more fuel efficient because of the Supercruise capability? That is superior to the F-15 and ANY other country's supersonic fighter.
Commanche and Crusader; canceled after huge expenditure because they were tactically worthless.
Again, a trite response that is vacuous in its facts. For the time when the Comanche was first built (development, not production) the Comanche fit the tactical need at that time. In the intervening years the operational scenarios changed from battlefield encounters to what we are seeing now in Iraq, where a weapon system like the Comanche would not bring the benefits of its cost. The decision to NOT continue the Comanche to full-scale production was a prudent one. But that has absolutely no bearing on the technology developed during the DEM/VAL phase. I served for a time as the lead flight control systems engineer on the Comanche before it was terminated. There are many technologies that were developed on that program (similar to the F-15 vs. F-22 comparision above) which can and will be carried through on future vehicles and in retrofits. Again, you are passing judgement on these vehicles only from what you know, and I can tell you know fairly little technically, for you are not taking the technical factors into account.
Is the US any better at winning wars now than it was 30 years ago, after huge expenditure in arms development? No, it is not.
By what metric are you coming to that conclusion? You can't just expect to throw out a naked assumption like that without supporting it with real numbers and hard facts. Are you aware of the combat casualty rate? Do you know how much it has gone down since the Vietnam era? That is a metric that would definitely prove your naked assumption incorrect.
The main reason, as far as I can see, to heavily fund arms development is to keep those companies afloat. You'd want to do this for two reasons: Firstly, jobs and economic growth. Defence industries employ large numbers of highly skilled personnel and are major customers for many other industries. The high salaries of their skilled workers serve to invigorate the economy. Secondly, those companies are always around in case the government they contract for gets itself in dodge and really needs some rapid development of new technology.
These are two reasons, but not the primary reason. The primary reason is to always strive for better... not only because it assures you of having the best weapons, but because it leads to breakthroughs and technological benefits (ever hear of GPS and Internet? Both came from DoD) that can eventually benefit the whole society. But another reason is one you infer but never state outright... that is the fact that "one you lose technical dominance, it is downright difficult, if not impossible to ever get it back." Or as a admired president from our 60s said about our quest for the moon "'We do things not because they are easy, but because they are hard." (JFK) That, in and of itself, is worth the investment of society, even if no war is ever fought again (fat chance).
The idea that large military budgets spent on the latest high tech toys are necessary for the safety of a nation is a complete fallacy.
And again I must tell you that you are very one-sided in your analysis. That is not an insult, it is simply a fact. You have overlooked facts (such as the force multipler and life-saving benefits of stealth) to serve your agenda.
I'd suppose you think the F-35 is not needed because the F-18s and F-16s are "good enough", huh? And if you think so, I can give you some public facts about the JSF and what it means for force modernization and operational availability, to name just two metrics.
Let's talk hard facts, shall we? And we will see if you are even aware of some of the facts I deal with every day in my job.
Rainman
