News Is the F-22 Raptor Worth the Cost Amid Modern Military Challenges?

[FredGarvin]

Then why do we need F-22s at $143M each? Why not just buy replacement 16s/18s/15s for much less? Non-afterburning supersonic is great but its largely just a range extender, which we can do w/ in-flight refuelling as always, and still be ahead on cost.

Because those aircraft would never stand up to a Sukhoi SU-35 with vectored thrust or the like in the future. They are losing their grasp of air superiority very slowly, but it will happen. There are times when recycling 1960's technology is well worth it, i.e. the B-52. However, this is not one of those times.

The two F-15's for one F-22 argument is cold war type engagement force multiplier, large air force vs large air force. IMO it doesn't hold up applied to today's reality. If the mission is a one F-15 out and back bombing of some Taliban, it also takes one F-22. If we need one F-16/F-15 each on station in North, South, East, and Western Afghanistan to handle ground support, then we still need one each in those disparate places with F-22s; one-for-two deals don't help.

When have you EVER seen a strike package with one aircraft? NEVER. Aircraft do not fly in combat zones by themselves. Even the F-17s didn't in Gulf War 1. You are always sending out aircraft in at least groups of 2.

 

[FredGarvin]

Of all the companies I've worked with, every single one had a whole different pricing system for anything to do with the DoD.

That's right because when it comes down to it, it is still a business. I work on DoD programs all the time. Of any programs we get hammered on cost and schedule hardest by the government IMO.

 

[misgfool]

That's right because when it comes down to it, it is still a business. I work on DoD programs all the time. Of any programs we get hammered on cost and schedule hardest by the government IMO.

I always thought the costly ingredient was the green paint.

 

[Phrak]

I think it's time the whole of 'Military Spending' needs to be looked at.

Of all the companies I've worked with, every single one had a whole different pricing system for anything to do with the DoD.

Of course. There are a host of added costs in making the same product for defense.

The sequence runs Commercial, Industrial, FAA, Defense, Space. Space is far and above the greatest, where retorquing a screw may require scheduling a technician, an inspector, a witness. and a pretorque review of procedures. Wanna buy a space hammer?

 

[mheslep]

Of course. There are a host of added costs in making the same product for defense.

The sequence runs Commercial, Industrial, FAA, Defense, Space. Space is far and above the greatest, where retorquing a screw may require scheduling a technician, an inspector, a witness. and a pretorque review of procedures. Wanna buy a space hammer?

The higher costs are driven by issues other than the extremes of the product environment. The paperwork and staffing required to step through government hoops, many of them having absolutely nothing to do with the product at hand, is a big, big part of it. Case in point: the spending/stimulus bill that just passed has some Buy American clauses in it. So a contractor is going to have to submit paperwork demonstrating they did so. The people submitting that paperwork should be specialists since the consequences for fouling it up can be severe. The contractor building, say, your home doesn't have those costs.

 

[Phrak]

The higher costs are driven by issues other than the extremes of the product environment. The paperwork and staffing required to step through government hoops, many of them having absolutely nothing to do with the product at hand, is a big, big part of it. Case in point: the spending/stimulus bill that just passed has some Buy American clauses in it. So a contractor is going to have to submit paperwork demonstrating they did so. The people submitting that paperwork should be specialists since the consequences for fouling it up can be severe. The contractor building, say, your home doesn't have those costs.

Not the physical environment, per se, but the demands on performance.

I've had experience in both Industrial and Aerospace. The difference is a shock. For every person adding hands-on value, there are a dozen others pushing paper and computer files, often doing unfathomable support tasks. Those actually adding physical value, can themselves, be devoting a good chunk of their time to jumping other hoops.

 

[Supercritical]

If a small-government Republican becomes a hypocrite for promoting government spending to create jobs, then a big-government Democrat is a hypocrite for criticizing him. Crying hypocrisy when politicians cross the aisle tends to discourage the practice. One of the premises of this thread, that there is a "dichotomy in the logic of [some] Republicans," sounds like a Yogi Berra scenario:

"We're in perfect agreement. I pledged to cross the aisle, and they did too."

Ivan, if you are assured of the logical consistency of your politics, entailing criticism of a part of the opposition when it has reversed positions (at least on this issue), then you are letting one position dominate your perspective: that you must oppose them no matter what stance they take on the issue.

It is true that they have blemished the highly-sought quality of logical consistency, but it appears that emphasizing that fact is a higher priority to you than consolidating their support (although in this case you have written that you would oppose defense spending on the grounds of jobs).

Much hinges on what definition of "compromise" one prefers. Did a politician fulfill his ideals by making concessions to reach a compromise? Or did he compromise his ideals by making concessions?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If a small-government Republican becomes a hypocrite for promoting government spending to create jobs, then a big-government Democrat is a hypocrite for criticizing him. Crying hypocrisy when politicians cross the aisle tends to discourage the practice. One of the premises of this thread, that there is a "dichotomy in the logic of [some] Republicans," sounds like a Yogi Berra scenario:

There is no one crossing the aisle here. This isn't about being non-partisan. This is just pushing pork and throwing one's political philosphy out the window. If the argument is that we need more Raptors to provide for the national defense, I can respect that. But pushing weapons as welfare is hypocritical for Republicans in particular.

I do find it interesting that you wish to make a major point out of a minor one. I already stated that I don't support Democrats who do this either.

 

[Cyrus]

The higher costs are driven by issues other than the extremes of the product environment. The paperwork and staffing required to step through government hoops, many of them having absolutely nothing to do with the product at hand, is a big, big part of it. Case in point: the spending/stimulus bill that just passed has some Buy American clauses in it. So a contractor is going to have to submit paperwork demonstrating they did so. The people submitting that paperwork should be specialists since the consequences for fouling it up can be severe. The contractor building, say, your home doesn't have those costs.

Yes.

 

[Supercritical]

It just appears to me that you've recently had an interest in painting Republicans as hypocrites (if politician X supports policy Y, then how can he/she oppose legislation Z?).

And regarding the military-industrial complex (another topic for another time), I still posit that it's mostly hype. It's not that waste and fraud don't happen, but it's not like the industry has hijacked the federal budget as some would claim. For instance, the film "Why we Fight" (the subject of a somewhat lengthy thread in this forum) invokes Eisenhower's speech extensively and would have you believe that the defense industry has a stranglehold on the budget:

[about 33 minutes into the film] Today, the United States spends more on defense than all other discretionary parts of the federal budget combined.

Keyword: discretionary. For 2006 it was 53% of the discretionary budget, but about 20% of the total budget (33% if you use the $750 billion figure which correctly includes intelligence, atomic energy, supplemental spending, etc.)

The defense industry is one of mergers and buyouts. In aerospace alone, the names Bell, Northrop, McDonnell Douglas, North American, Convair, Rockwell, General Dynamics, Vought, Fairchild and Martin have either ceased to exist, having been absorbed by another company, or have sold off sizable divisions in order to stay afloat. This has created giants like Lockheed and Boeing which scoop up most of the big contracts nowadays. There have been other factors at work that drove that, but gone are the days of large numbers of spendy procurement programs. It got to the point that if you missed the boat on a large contract, you might not survive to see the next one. As I noted earlier, defense spending simply has not scaled along with the budget.

But $750 billion sounds like an absurdly big number, and selective facts look really cool and serious when they're shown as white text against a black background.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

F-22 crashes in California desert near air base
31 minutes ago

EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AP) — The Air Force says an F-22 fighter has crashed near Edwards Air Force Base in the high desert of Southern California...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hmfwSyhmPuqX414lfoKORbnZN9sAD9757L8O0

 

[Cyrus]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hmfwSyhmPuqX414lfoKORbnZN9sAD9757L8O0

Dddd-oooooh

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Dddd-oooooh

Re: F-22 Raptor: Do we need more?

At least one.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Today, on ABC's This Week, Paul Krugman made the observation that the same Republicans who opposed the stimulus package on the grounds that government spending won't create jobs, and some Democrats as well, are objecting to halting continued production of the F22... because it will cost jobs.

Weapons as welfare. Never mind that we see a net jobs gain because of increased production of the F-35s, under Gate's plan.

It is claimed by panel members on This Week that their are, by design, 46 States involved in producing parts for the F22s. This helps to insure that discontinued production of the F22 will affect as many Congressional districts as possible.
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7317451

 

[russ_watters]

All politics is local: regardless of what politicians say about national strategy, when it comes to money being spent in their district, they all want it. Yes, that means that Republican politicians are often hypocritical on this issue, while democratic ones are not. Democratic politicians always want spending and pork - Republican ones only want it in their district.

 

[WhoWee]

Nearly every heavy industrial factory (foundries, specialty machine shops, electrical, specialty metals) in W. PA is involved in either some type of military or automotive component manufacturing.

Auto related production has already dropped, significant cuts in defense spending could have a major (Regional) impact on the economies of PA, OH, W VA, MD, and NJ.

 

[turbo]

There is a Pratt-Whitney plant in North Berwick, Maine, that produces engine parts for the Raptor, and industry flacks are already complaining about how 250 out of 1400 jobs might be threatened, as if producing engines for a particular airplane was a zero-sum game. That's a small division of a very large company, and they have 2 years or so to make the transition to other products. Still, they're turning up the heat as if disaster was imminent. Predictably, politicians are falling all over themselves to "support the jobs".

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090215/GJNEWS_01/702159893

 

[Jack21222]

lf the US didn't take it upon itself to police the globe, we wouldn't need to spend so much on the military.

Notice I didn't say "national defense," because nowadays the military is used for international offense. Look at Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Bosnia, gulf war one, gulf war two... And I've probably missed some in there.

We need to stop kicking the crap out of 3rd world countries who are no threat to us.

 

[mheslep]

lf the US didn't take it upon itself to police the globe, we wouldn't need to spend so much on the military.

Notice I didn't say "national defense," because nowadays the military is used for international offense. Look at Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Bosnia, gulf war one, gulf war two... And I've probably missed some in there.

We need to stop kicking the crap out of 3rd world countries who are no threat to us.

Ugh. I'm so tired of this big bad US bully line.

 

[WhoWee]

Ugh. I'm so tired of this big bad US bully line.

Didn't the "Obama Apology Tour" cover this?

 

[Jack21222]

Ugh. I'm so tired of this big bad US bully line.

And I'm so tired of my tax dollars being used to blow up 3rd world civilians. I'm also tired of suicide bombers attacking our buildings in response to the "big bad US bully."

 

[mheslep]

And I'm so tired of my tax dollars being used to blow up 3rd world civilians. I'm also tired of suicide bombers attacking our buildings in response to the "big bad US bully."

Yes, yes, of course, 911 is our own fault. Why can't we just all get along?

 

[Jack21222]

Yes, yes, of course, 911 is our own fault. Why can't we just all get along?

Yes, a bunch of people committed suicide to kill Americans just because they were bored one day, and not because of our foreign policy.

Oh oh, I know, "they hate us for our freedoms," right? They're so angry that we have freedoms that they are willing to die to teach us a lesson for having freedoms. Is that honestly what you believe?

If not, what do you believe? What caused the 9/11 terrorist attacks? How about the previous bombing of the WTC? How about the USS Cole? I propose that the actions of the US military abroad incited all of those attacks. I don't agree with what Al Qaeda did, but I'm hardly shocked that they did it.

Lets put it this way. If a guy is running his mouth off at a bar, and he gets a tooth knocked out because of it, you can't really say it was unexpected. Sure, the guy who punched him was in the wrong, and may go to jail for it, as well he should... but it's a logical conclusion to the first guy running his mouth off.

 

[Cyrus]

What does this have to do with the F-22?

 

[Jack21222]

What does this have to do with the F-22?

You see, the F-22 is an airplane used in the military. Therefore, how we use the military is a vital piece of information on whether or not we should engage in more military spending.

If we want to be World Police, then yes, we may need the F-22 in large quantities. On the other hand, if we stop engaging in military adventurism, the F-22 may not be so important.

 

[WhoWee]

Yes, a bunch of people committed suicide to kill Americans just because they were bored one day, and not because of our foreign policy.

Oh oh, I know, "they hate us for our freedoms," right? They're so angry that we have freedoms that they are willing to die to teach us a lesson for having freedoms. Is that honestly what you believe?

If not, what do you believe? What caused the 9/11 terrorist attacks? How about the previous bombing of the WTC? How about the USS Cole? I propose that the actions of the US military abroad incited all of those attacks. I don't agree with what Al Qaeda did, but I'm hardly shocked that they did it.

Lets put it this way. If a guy is running his mouth off at a bar, and he gets a tooth knocked out because of it, you can't really say it was unexpected. Sure, the guy who punched him was in the wrong, and may go to jail for it, as well he should... but it's a logical conclusion to the first guy running his mouth off.

Nothing about the F-22 or any other military spending cited here.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/21/alqaida.terrorism

Maybe they're mad about the environmental issues in the Middle East...all of that dirty oil mixed with sand.

It doesn't matter why at this point.

If we let our defenses down...and/or lose our military superiority...we will be attacked.

Remember the "Voluntary Somali Coast Guard" boarding last week?


If I recall, 4 teenagers in a row boat held off our Navy for how long? We not only need to own the hardware, we have to use it when threatened.

 

[Jack21222]

If we let our defenses down...and/or lose our military superiority...we will be attacked.

[citation needed]

 

[OmCheeto]

Gads. I used to brag about how I saved the US Navy $10,000,000 by solving a problem that would have kept our submarine in drydock an extra 10 days. (It cost $1M/day to keep them there in overhaul back in the 80's).

Never mind!

It appears that I only saved enough for a spare tire on one of these jets...

 

[Jack21222]

I was going to go to bed, but let me add a bit more to my last post, which may have been overly snarky.

Perhaps you could explain how cutting back our inventory of multi-hundred-million dollar aircraft implies "we will be attacked?" What are these planes going to be used for, specifically? I've seen some fantasy scenarios in the thread where we go back to war with Japan, I've seen vague premonitions of war, but I haven't seen any specific uses for all of these new planes. Who, specifically, are we expecting to bomb?

If we don't build this fleet of planes, who do you expect will attack us? Another terrorist attack? F-22s are useless against them. Aggressive use of the F-22s, however, may inspire a terrorist retaliation, in my opinion.

I just think it's kinda sick that this one order of airplanes is approximately 4 years worth of NASA's entire budget. As has been posted before, we're already spending about as much on our military as the rest of the planet Earth COMBINED. Basically, if every single country in the world declared war on us right now, we'd have a fighting chance to beat them all.

Yet, people claim that if we cut back on the military, "we will be attacked."

That's nothing but baseless fear-mongering, unless somebody can give me evidence that cutting back on our military means "we will be attacked."

 

[WhoWee]

I was going to go to bed, but let me add a bit more to my last post, which may have been overly snarky.

Perhaps you could explain how cutting back our inventory of multi-hundred-million dollar aircraft implies "we will be attacked?" What are these planes going to be used for, specifically? I've seen some fantasy scenarios in the thread where we go back to war with Japan, I've seen vague premonitions of war, but I haven't seen any specific uses for all of these new planes. Who, specifically, are we expecting to bomb?

If we don't build this fleet of planes, who do you expect will attack us? Another terrorist attack? F-22s are useless against them. Aggressive use of the F-22s, however, may inspire a terrorist retaliation, in my opinion.

I just think it's kinda sick that this one order of airplanes is approximately 4 years worth of NASA's entire budget. As has been posted before, we're already spending about as much on our military as the rest of the planet Earth COMBINED. Basically, if every single country in the world declared war on us right now, we'd have a fighting chance to beat them all.

Yet, people claim that if we cut back on the military, "we will be attacked."

That's nothing but baseless fear-mongering, unless somebody can give me evidence that cutting back on our military means "we will be attacked."

You were talking about "military adventurism"...not the F-22 specifically.

Lest we forget
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/
was this "fear-mongering"?

Let's not forget this list either
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908746.html

or this
http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/chronology.html

or this
http://www.heritage.org/research/HomelandDefense/bg2085.cfm

These people aren't going to stop their fight just because we stop defending ourselves.

 

[WhoWee]

Will an F-22 protect us from these people? I don't know.

 

[Cyrus]

You see, the F-22 is an airplane used in the military. Therefore, how we use the military is a vital piece of information on whether or not we should engage in more military spending.

If we want to be World Police, then yes, we may need the F-22 in large quantities. On the other hand, if we stop engaging in military adventurism, the F-22 may not be so important.

Please back up these statements or keep them to yourself. The pentagon decides if it needs the F-22's based on the requirements of the air-force. What you've posted is speculative nonsense.

I attend talks given by people like three star general Dell Dailey who works on counterterrorism for the state deparment. I don't need a lecture on your bogus claims.

 

[Jack21222]

Please back up these statements or keep them to yourself. The pentagon decides if it needs the F-22's based on the requirements of the air-force. What you've posted is speculative nonsense.

I attend talks given by people like three star general Dell Dailey who works on counterterrorism for the state deparment. I don't need a lecture on your bogus claims.

First, the air force and pentagon are basing their desire for more air power on the US's current foreign policy, which includes getting involved in "police actions" globally. I don't see how that is "speculative nonsense." If we were to adopt Switzerland's foreign policy, there would be fewer wars to fight, and therefore, the air force and pentagon wouldn't need so many expensive planes.

Second, the secretary of defense says we do not need the F-22. Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a0NQwnEqxSl4&refer=home

Third, just because the air force submits a "wish list" doesn't mean everything on that list is a must-have. With the current budget situation, where the US is trillions of dollars in debt and going deeper in debt by a few hundred billion dollars annually, we can't purchase everything we want right now. The air force doesn't necessarily have the country's fiscal well-being in mind.

Fourth, to date, no F-22 has ever been flown in a single combat mission. It's never been used in Iraq, it's never been used in Afghanistan. It is NOT designed for counter-terrorism missions. So, to answer WhoWee's question, here is a quote from Secretary Gates as reported by Time Magazine:

"It is principally for use against a near-peer in a conflict, and I think we all know who that is,"

(source: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1710944,00.html)

By "near-peer," he means China.

So, I've outlined three different reasons why we do NOT need any more F-22s. First, they're not effective in the wars the US finds itself in today. We have 187 of these things, and we've never used a single one in combat.

Second, these planes come at an enormous cost which we simply can't afford right now.

Third, a change in foreign policy would lower the change of needing to use 350 F-22s in battle in the first place, and I believe that may be a better option.

The first two reasons are facts, the third reason is my personal opinion. Some people here seem to have "Monsters Under The Bed" syndrome (war with Japan? They're our allies, people). For those people, there's really no point in continuing the "We'll be attacked," "no we won't," "yes we will" line of argument. If somebody seriously thinks that every "near-peer" country on the globe is just waiting to attack us, if only we scaled back our military spending a bit, I don't have a convincing response. It just sounds an awful like paranoia.

Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if the responses to this post focus in on my idea for the US's foreign policy, and not the other two points about the F-22 not being used in either Iraq or Afghanistan and the fact that it's incredibly expensive at a time where the US is too broke to pay for it.

 

[Topher925]

I think the John Stewart says all that needs to be said.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/67157/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-military-budget-cuts

http://vodpod.com/watch/1508309-stewart-lampoons-defense-spending-imbroglio

 

[WhoWee]

I think the John Stewart says all that needs to be said.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/67157/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-military-budget-cuts

http://vodpod.com/watch/1508309-stewart-lampoons-defense-spending-imbroglio

Stewart is a funny guy...RFC.

Isn't part of our strategy (regarding new weapons development) to sell the technology to our allies...and thus offset the R&D (and possibly our) production costs? Doesn't this create American jobs? (and not outsourced to China)

 

[Jack21222]

Stewart is a funny guy...RFC.

Isn't part of our strategy (regarding new weapons development) to sell the technology to our allies...and thus offset the R&D (and possibly our) production costs? Doesn't this create American jobs? (and not outsourced to China)

Not that I'm aware of. If you're going to make such a claim, I'd like to see some evidence.

Furthermore, at the moment it's illegal to export the F-22.

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HZ00295:

 

[Topher925]

Isn't part of our strategy (regarding new weapons development) to sell the technology to our allies...and thus offset the R&D (and possibly our) production costs? Doesn't this create American jobs? (and not outsourced to China)

No. That is what the JSF is for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II

 

[WhoWee]

Not that I'm aware of. If you're going to make such a claim, I'd like to see some evidence.

Furthermore, at the moment it's illegal to export the F-22.

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HZ00295:

I'm not sure what my "claim" was, I asked a question.

 

[turbo]

Let's get back to basics. We have a huge military and each branch is making its case for what they want in their stocking for Xmas. The problem is that we cannot weight these requests equally unless we're going to blow our military budget to smithereens. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have placed extreme burdens on ground-troops, including special forces, marines, army, and reserve units. We went into these wars sorely unprepared and under-equipped and we need to rebuild our capabilities for such asymmetric warfare, including equipment for the detection and detonation of IEDs, armored-up Hum-Vees, better-designed APCs, drones with Hellfires, etc, etc. This is going to take a lot of money, planning, production time, and time to stage the equipment in-theater. Right now, it seems a bit silly to spend more money on Raptors when our ability to fight asymmetric ground-wars is sorely stretched. To take this a step further, we have a lot of returning veterans who have medical problems and they are taxing the VA. If we spent the production-costs of a few Raptors beefing up our VA system, would that help the soldiers who have already served? Our priorities need a real gut-check.

 

[Topher925]

I'm not sure what my "claim" was, I asked a question.

No you weren't, you made a very bold and daring statement about the comedic value of John Stewart.

Stewart is a funny guy...RFC.

How dare you say such a thing without even a hint of evidence to back it up! For shame.

Turbo-1, your absolutely right. Are you running for office anytime soon?

 

[WhoWee]

No you weren't, you made a very bold and daring statement about the comedic value of John Stewart.



How dare you say such a thing without even a hint of evidence to back it up! For shame.

Turbo-1, your absolutely right. Are you running for office anytime soon?

I'll vote for Turbo-1

 

[Jack21222]

I'm not sure what my "claim" was, I asked a question.

You phrased it as a rhetorical question.

If you honestly didn't know, you could have said "Is part of our strategy to sell our technology to allies?" Instead, you phrased it "Isn't part of our strategy...?" But I guess you left yourself some room for plausible deniability.

You phrased your question the same way the congressman asked Dr. Chu about arctic oil. He said "Isn't it obvious that..." et cetera.

So, forgive me if I misunderstood your question, but the way you phrased it made it sound like you were making a statement in the form of a question.

 

[WhoWee]

You phrased it as a rhetorical question.

If you honestly didn't know, you could have said "Is part of our strategy to sell our technology to allies?" Instead, you phrased it "Isn't part of our strategy...?" But I guess you left yourself some room for plausible deniability.

You phrased your question the same way the congressman asked Dr. Chu about arctic oil. He said "Isn't it obvious that..." et cetera.

So, forgive me if I misunderstood your question, but the way you phrased it made it sound like you were making a statement in the form of a question.

Fair enough...I didn't know the F-22 is off limits for sale at this time...it makes sense.

I was thinking more in terms of economies of scale...with volume production the price per unit should drop...and I would hope we'd realize a savings...but I really don't know.

 

[Cyrus]

I flew down to NASA Langley in a Piper Arrow today. Outside the office of where I visited was an F-22 flying RIGHT over our building for an air show. IT WAS AWSOME!

 

[Jack21222]

Fair enough...I didn't know the F-22 is off limits for sale at this time...it makes sense.

I was thinking more in terms of economies of scale...with volume production the price per unit should drop...and I would hope we'd realize a savings...but I really don't know.

Well, yes, each unit will be cheaper.

That's true in the same way one spouse will say to another "I just saved 50 dollars by buying THREE pairs of shoes!" Meanwhile, they already had three pairs of shoes, and spent 250 dollars. "But at normal prices, they're 100 each! I just saved 50 dollars" they protest.

Well, yes, if the shoes were needed.

In your scenario, the spouse sells two pairs of the shoes on eBay for 40 each to offset the costs. Either way, you're down money, and you have an extra pair of shoes that weren't necessary.

 

[Cyrus]

Well, yes, each unit will be cheaper.

That's true in the same way one spouse will say to another "I just saved 50 dollars by buying THREE pairs of shoes!" Meanwhile, they already had three pairs of shoes, and spent 250 dollars. "But at normal prices, they're 100 each! I just saved 50 dollars" they protest.

Well, yes, if the shoes were needed.

In your scenario, the spouse sells two pairs of the shoes on eBay for 40 each to offset the costs. Either way, you're down money, and you have an extra pair of shoes that weren't necessary.

I'd like to know what information you are basing this 'not necessary' argument on.

 

[Jack21222]

I'd like to know what information you are basing this 'not necessary' argument on.

Please, I've already linked to Secretary Gates's comments. Please scroll up.

 

[Cyrus]

Ah, I didn't read your post earlier. My apologies.

 

[jhae2.718]

I would say this is a complicated matter, and probably one which should have waited for the completion of the QDR.

At the moment, do we need F-22s for engaging in asymmetric warfare? No, we don't. Could we use them to do so? Yes, we could: by configuring the F-22s with internal and external stores of JDAMs and SDBs.

However, what will we be dealing with in the future? The F15 fleet is aging rapidly and is a 30 year old airframe. Foreign fighters are already surpassing the F-15 and F-16 in capability and are being exported in large numbers. Furthermore, advanced air defense systems are being developed in fielded.

It is a central tenet in US doctrine that we maintain air superiority. The F-22 for the considerable future will allow us to maintain air superiority with much less risk. It can also serve as a precision strike aircraft; for this reason the F-117 fleet was retired as the F-22 was more capable in that role.

Thus, we need to ask ourselves as a country what are priorities are:
How do we value defense as compared with economic stimulus/social spending etc.?
Do we want to focus our capabilities on combating insurgencies at expense of our conventional capabilities?

As far as the F-35 goes, is it important? Yes. Can it replace the F-22? Not really. The F-22 and F-35 each fill their own niche: the F-22 as the powerful air dominance fighter and the F-35 as the versatile strike fighter. As far as numbers go, it is very unlikely that the F-35 will be purchased in as large numbers as stated. Thus we should probably get as many of both as possible. Once the production line closes, it will be very difficult to restart.

 

[Supercritical]

I'm not sure the case could be made that the US needs to equip for an asymmetric foe, at least not in Iraq. Afghanistan is another story.

Drawing from the Brookings Institution's Iraq Index (http://www.brookings.edu/saban/iraq-index.aspx ), page 15 (graphs are placed on adjoining pages), the following facts can be realized:

As far as uparmored humvees are concerned, RPGs have killed 3 GIs during the past 12 months (vehicle not specified). This is a low number, but RPG deaths have historically never numbered very high.

Mortars and rockets have also claimed 3 lives in the past 12 months. Tragic, but not exactly a dire problem.

And finally, regarding IEDs, historically the single largest killer of US troops in Iraq: they've killed 3 US servicemembers so far in April, and 1 was killed by an IED during the entire month of March (an average of fewer than 3 per month for the past 6 months). This compares very favorably to the average of 40-60 per month sustained from May 2005 to July 2007.

These numbers are very low, especially relative to the statistics from earlier parts of the war (the current trend appears around October 2007, see page 14). In fact, a fascinating transformation has taken place. Considering the entire Iraq War to date, IEDs have caused 40% of the casualties and non-hostile deaths (friendly fire, accidents) account for 16.7%. For the past 6 months, however, non-hostile deaths comprised 44% of the deaths and IEDs 19%.

Non-hostile deaths have remained fairly constant at 5-10 per month for the entire war. The trend is therefore due a unique indicator of the marked decrease of other threats (nowhere is this more visible than on page 26).