Speaking of military economics
Cruising the net I found this. It is not just the war in Iraq that is costing so much money, it is all these incredible weapon systems that we just have to build. The thing is, I really cannot see the reason for a new class of Virginia attack submarines, when our Los Angeles class already dominate the oceans and lack a credible opponent. The same goes for the F-22 fighter. The F-15 is arguably the best, or at the top in the world right now. OK, I know the Russikies have a sexy Sukhoi fighter, and an Akula attack class sub, but they are really not challenging the US in a strategic way.
These weapons are just so expensive, a country cannot afford to produce them in a major way. So as the article says, we are using these weapon systems to attack terrorists, because we don’t have any comparable opponents. 9/11 was done with $2 box cutters. And when we shoot these expensive weapons at a terrorist, we cannot even be sure if we hit the intended guy. (or girl, I am equal opportunity) Although we do hit people who just happen to be in the neighborhood, but nobody seems to care about that. We spend hundreds of billions on super systems with no opponent. But are we not helping to sink the US economy in the process?
On historic battles, that other forum I occasionally write on, some people there said we must continue to develop sexy complex weapons because somebody else someday might. Maybe. That seems to be a pretty ridiculous reason to build all this stuff and bankrupt ourselves.
And let us remember. That is precisely the way we pulled the Soviet Union on the road to collapse. We forced them to compete with us in a spending war, and they belly upped. Now, we are competing in a spending war against phantoms, will we too go belly up?
Posted: March 23rd, 2008 under Where's the Outrage.
Comments: 4
Comments
Comment from timr
Time: March 24, 2008, 12:18 pm
Max, I have been in discussion groups at Military.com about the F-15 vs the F-22. People who have worked on the F-15 say that there are major metal fatigue problems with the wing spars, and in the mainframe ribs. Ony a few months ago an F-15 actually came apart in mid air because of metal fatigue. The AF has grounded the fleet more than once over the last couple of years, and they have permanently grounded all of the early models. 20 years is a very long lifetime for a fighter or a fighter/bomber due to stress on the airframe because of extreme maneuvers that they always use. You can’t compare a fighter to any other type of A/C. It is like comparing apples to oranges. The F-22 is a great leap forward in A/C design, and I can give arguments both for and against it. The bigger problem is the JSF F-35, in which both the Navy and Marine versions are very complicated. The Marines-IMHO should have gone with an updated Harrier rather than go with an entirely new platform. But I am just one of very few voices crying in the wilderness on this.
Comment from Max
Time: March 24, 2008, 2:54 pm
I take the point about aircraft age, but would it not be more effective to build more new F-15’s, does not the plant still exist? Developing a new aircraft, when the present one already has superiority, is too expensive.
Comment from timr
Time: March 25, 2008, 10:00 am
Max, the problem is that the F-15 jigs and machines are long gone, also the F-15 has a really really big radar return, and if it goes one on one with an equal A/C and an equal pilot, the odds do not favor the F-15. Its time has gone, it was developed in the 1960’s, so the design is over 40 years old. Think about this. The following were developed in the 1950’s, and did not start flying until the 1960’s. B-52-(sorry this was developed in the late 1940’s), F-4, F-105, F-102, F-106, F-100. Most A/C need about 10 to 20 years lead time to develop them, esp if they are bleeding edge tech, which the F-22 is. There are so many innovations on the F-22 that I can’t keep track of them all. This will likely be the very last manned fighter that the US ever has. The only thing that we can do after this is go UAV. The F-22 has software limits on what the pilot can do, not because the pilot might damage the A/C, but because the pilots body can not take the stresses of everything that the plane can do.
Comment from JerryA
Time: March 26, 2008, 9:49 am
Tim, I kinda gotta be with Max on this one. These Virginia class subs and Raptors are just a little bit of overkill. The Guv is spending billions of our bucks on weapons for which we have no enemy. THe raptor is not only replacing the F-15, but also the f-117. Don’t ya think that sending these billion dollar aircraft into Kandahar to drop million dollar smart bombs on suspected insugents is just a bit over the top? So why develop a more sophisticated camel killer? If they are going to spend OUR money, why not spend it on weapons systems a bit more suited to our enemies?
Granted, the world has changed, and we need to approach our enemies appropriately. I liked Max’s 2$ box cutters approach. How much damage do ya think a Raptor or a Virginia Class Sub could inflict on a box cutter?
Write a comment