September 30, 2003
TIME FOR SOME NEW WEAPONS?....Whatever else you think of him, Gregg Easterbrook is an engaging writer when it comes to explaining fancy new weapons systems. Basically, he says we need some new ones:
spending is reaching the end of a "procurement holiday." There hasn't
been a major new aircraft or helicopter acquisition program in a decade.
The "futuristic" F117 stealth fighter is 15 years old; the design of
the Army's M1 Abrams main tank is 20 years old; the B52 bombers that did
yeoman work in the Iraq war are 40 years old; Air Force fighters
average almost two decades in age; the primary United States tanker
plane is 45 years old; it goes on.
So which new systems do we need? Yesterday he trained his eye on the F-22 Raptor (he says thumbs down, we should buy the F-35 instead) and today he takes on the Littoral Combat Ship (thumbs
up, but only if we fess up to its real purpose). He'll examine one new
weapons system a day for the remainder of the week.
I can't judge myself whether Easterbrook is right about this stuff, but it's interesting reading anyway.
Posted by Kevin Drum at September 30, 2003 04:07 PM
What we don't need are airplanes so expensive we can't afford more
than a couple of squadrons of them. We need upgraded A10s, or transfer
the A10 to the Army and give up on the Key West agreement once and for
all. In 10 years, which is when the F22 would be deployed, aerial combat
will be with missiles and pilotless aircraft. The fighter-pilot mafia
must finally give in. The whole Air Force will probably be pilotless,
except for transports, in 20 years.
The problem with Easterbrook is I love his writing, but then I
started to find that whenever he was talking about something I knew
about, he was full of sh**. This wasn't just the nitpicky inaccuracies
you find in all news reports, but major factual and logical stuff. His
old space shuttle stuff, though, is still a valuable contribution.
Mr. Easterbrook gives a good explanation of why we don't need the
F-22 at all; he then gives a good explanation of why the F-35 does
almost all that the F-22 does at 25% the price. What he does not do is
then make the logical connection: if we don't need planes that can do
what the F22 does, then we need neither the F22 nor the F35. Bottom
line: if the F15 is still better than anything else in the air, and
nobody else is even designing anything better than what they have now,
then the US can really get by with the F15 for the foreseeable future.
As an additional aside: Mr. Easterbrook's fighter plane article is
confusing in that in the top paragraphs he argues that the problem is
that the equipment we have is old (implying we could purchase new copies
of old designs), while he then goes on to describe new designs. Is the
problem that our equipment is worn out, that the designs are obsolete,
or perhaps -- neither?
Not to rain on this military parade, but one of the biggest threats
to US weapon systems is ... US weapon systems sold to other nations.
We’re in competition with ourselves. Yes, there are nations we should be
wary of (eg, China) but when will we realized that we’re the ones
really pushing the envelop of high tech weapons by selling more high and
low tech arms abroad than any other nation?
We like to think we’re a peace-loving nation, but that’s not how most
of the rest of the world sees us, and they’re on the receiving end of
our stealth bombers, daisy-cutters, cruise missiles, etc and thus have,
shall we say, a far more accurate perspective.
Using the "only Nixon could go to China" logic: perhaps it would take
a general to initiate a generational shift in US attitudes to
developing generation after generation of high tech weapons. To his
credit, Pres. Eisenhower used his farewell speech to warn the nation of
our growing military-industrial complex (a term first used by Wm.
Fulbright and later amended by him to the “military-industrial-academic
complex”), a complex whose size today would no doubt shock, awe, and
sadden both Ike and Fulbright.
Of course, the domestic political costs for turning off or just slowing
down our high tech military would be huge (see how hard it’s been for
the military to shut down bases here in the US), as would the economic
cost, but MORALLY, it would be the right thing to do, and it would help
restore the world's respect for the US. I'm not saying we don't need a
military, but that the world would be safer if we slowed down the one
we've got and turned off the "glamor" of high tech systems.
Perhaps General Clark, if elected, could deliver the long-forgotten
peace dividend promised at the end of the Cold War while still keeping
us adequately defended. If not, the 21st-century may make the 20th look
like a cake walk.
I agree with the above poster. If the F-22 was designed for an
obsolete purpose (air superiority fighter against Soviet MiGs), then why
do we need the F-35 to fill the same role when our current fleet of
F-15s, F-16s, F-14s, F/A-18s, F-117s, and AV-8Bs will do just fine?
Easterbrook also fails to mention other key points. For example, all
branches repeatedly upgrade their fleets, so that, say, an F-16 built
in 1988 and flying now is significantly improved over its original
design (in terms of avionics, weapons capabilities, and structural
enhancements). He also neglects to mention the other fighter projects
that have been funded recently, like the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet, the
F-14D, and the F-15E. And don't forget all those non-fighter projects
(C-17, V-22, Longbow AH-64, the Commanche helicopter, B-2, etc.). Sure,
the B-52 is on the old side, that's why we have B-1s, B-2s, F-117s and
the other strike fighters.
Easterbrook's statement that the primary USAF tankers are 45 years
old is just plain wrong. KC-10s are about 15-20 years old and the
KC-135s have been upgraded with just about everything on earth, from
engines to wing spars.
We really don't need a new strike fighter yet because our current
weapons, countermeasures, and radar systems are so advanced that a new
airframe and engine package really wouldn't add much to our
capabilities. Planning for the future is great, but let's move toward
UAVs and a whole new class of capabilities (imagine a fighter that could
sustain a 15-20g turn - no human could take it).
Did Gregg mention anything about investing in new training and
doctrine, or human factors such as morale and leadership? It seems as
if everything he mentioned represented a way for big contractors to
generate big fees.
I agree completely with elliottg.
We need a death ray. And light sabres. And some cool lightcycles, and jet packs that work.
Oh, and we need to be prepared for the rise of the machines. But I guess Arnie will take care of that for us.
"Though a word to the wise to the IDF. Should Israel, deliberately or
accidentally, decide to fire on a Littoral Combat Ship in the way it
fired on the U.S.S. Liberty during the 1967 war, attacking forces are
not likely to last more than a few minutes before being reduced to hot
I can't believe he managed to slip this into the New Republic.
I third ellittg and second MWB.
Easterbrook knows about as much about LCS as the contractor's press releases say.
Not advocating more weapons systems, but something is left out of
this discussion: The JSF (or f-35) is supposed to standardise the
airplanes in both the Navy and Airforce. The F-35 can take off and land
on a carrier, carry out fighter and bomber missions, and fly farther and
longer than most planes that it would replace. The idea behind the JSF
is the same idea behind giving the army and marines the same type of
boots: it will save $$$. Whether it will or not is another story but it
is at least worth talking about.
Cretin at Sparta,
Shouldn't that be Spartan at Crete?
Remember, thou art mortal!
Just to nitpick, at various times over the last few decades the armed
forces have actually developed functioning jetpack prototypes. Out in
the civilian sector, there are people still working on the idea:
The problem with Air Force procurements is that they're trying to
combine every roll for a fighter into one single package, and that ends
up driving the cost of the planes way the hell up. A-10's are cheap
(relatively), but their drawback is that they have only one really
effective role: low-speed ground support.
The Air Force doesn't like them for this reason, but if you look
carefully, it would save more money to have lots of mission-specialized
planes rather than general mission high-tech planes (such as the JSF or
the F-22). The more hardware that needs to be shoved into the plane
drives the cost up higher and higher, and they're not that effective at
bombing if they can only carry half a dozen low-yield conventional
warheads to a target. B-52's might be old, but by God they rain
destruction from the skies. A single A-10 costs $8.8 million dollars.
For the cost of a single F-22, you can buy nearly two dozen A-10's. The
operational costs of keeping nearly 100 B-52's flying is half of that
of maintaining a single B-2 bomber; compare bomb yields on the two and
you'll see that the B-52 is more effective in lower-resistanace areas.
There are lots of ways to show cost-analysis, but most of them will show
that specialized planes are cheaper to buy AND maintain than the new
planes that the Air Force and Navy tend to lean towards.
Leaving aside the question of the necessity of new toys, TNR really
bugs me. Watching the *Democrats* there, getting all puffed up, doing
their part to contribute to the testicularization of the US, is pretty
I think there's already enough of that from the thugs on the other
side of the aisle, but then I'm probably not serious about the treat
posed to us by rogue countries that we lose control over, pursuing
weapons that we don't like (regardless of their efficacy) then
establishing ties to terrorist groups without return addresses, and
giving those weapons to these groups (never mind that they are enemies),
and then these terrorist groups sneaking these weapons into our country
to disasterous effect. Like what happened on 9/11.
It's true, I don't take that threat seriously. I mean, the probability isn't zero, but damn...I wonder how long before some sanity returns to our country.
How is it that when guys get around and talk about military junk, they're all experts?
Anyhow, I think you're all missing the point of the who essay. It's
about how not only old equipment is, well, old... It's even more
expensive to maintain.
We've got dozens of aircraft doing dozens of jobs, and that's cool,
and whatnot, but... Really the cost savings are when the parts are the
The current crop of aircraft have been shoehorned with new technology... But that's just it, it's been shoehorned in.
And we need to be careful about where we sell the extras of
our old stuff. It might be all well and good that we have jobs, but...
We spend more money on our military endeavours, on just our weapons
which violate international treaties, than we do on our whole psace and
It's a problem.
Ugh, where to start...
Cretin at Sparta:
The F(/A)-18 has notoriously short legs, even the echo has shorter legs
than the A-6's it replaced, and if I'm not mistaken at a smaller bomb
load and worse all weather capability. Bottom line the Navy is doing the
bomber role with Fighter Airframes. They need something dedicated to
the role or we're going to be forever flying half-way around the world
with the USAF to do the bombing. Not even the F-35 will fill this role.
Air superiority of Soviet MiG's is not an obsolete purpose. China is
building Su-27 derivatives under contract, and I believe that India has
purchased MiG-29 and Su-27's from Mother Russia. Admit it or not, but in
trained hands both of these airframes would be a handful for American
pilots, especially with American or Israeli avionics upgrades. Also
someone up thread did mention that the F-15's of today may very well be
facing the F-15's we sold to our allies in the future. Like say Saudi
Arabian F-15's? Air Superiority is not obsolete, it just hasn't come
into play in a long while.
Last I heard the F-14D project was using existing airframes, at least
in a majority of the vehicles. The fact is these airframes are OLD,
they need to be replaced before we put too many more hours on them.
F-15E IS a new project and is filling in the Role of the F-111
nicely, should give the USAF some tac capability for a good long time,
but there aren't any tac/cas designs being talked about are there? Okay
maybe F-35 but it's not a dedicated airframe, much like the F-16.
As for the BUFF's, I'm sorry but nothing can put ordinance on target
like a B-52. Not a BONE, not a B-2, not an F-117. If Afghanistan told us
nothing else (and it told us oh so much more) it's that there are time
and places for carpet bombing and nothing says death from above like a
I'm actually not too concerned about the tanker fleet, it sounds like we're going to lease new or newish airframes from Boing.
As for the 'UAV/missiles will do it' reasoning, I've heard this
before, when was it 1968? Wasn't that the reason the F-4 didn't come
with a gun? Didn't one get added toot-sweet? I don't buy it, keep the
gun, and keep the dogfighter until the combat UAV is proven.
PT: Nothing better than the F-15? Can you say Eurofighter? Can you
say Rafael? I knew you could. But again, these airframes are old. It's
not that the tech isn't up to snuff, it's that it's a bitch keeping
these things flying. F-15 was a hanger queen when it was rolled out, I
can only imagine it's gotten worse as the grand dame has gotten older.
NOW as for the whole Littoral Combat Ship.... I'm a little leary. Not
because we don't need it (we do) but because it goes against character
for the navy to want it. When I first read LCS I thought it must be a
take off on the Sea Control Ship concept (the 'Jeep Carrier' concept
introduced in the 70's). It's not, it seems more like an updated Burke
class with a deck gun and augmented sonar for shallow water operations.
Easterbrook is wrong that no other navy ship has any stealthy
features, the Burkes sure do. The other thing he either gets wrong or
doesn't realize is that the Liberty was a ELINT ship, it was conducting
Electronic Intelligence, you wouldn't expect a trawler like that to be
heavily armed, though I suppose in this day and age it would be a bit
better armed. Comparing Liberty to this fictional LCS it like comparing a
Perry class to a Ticonderoga.
I'm actually not too sure why the navy couldn't get away with
re-fitting the Burke design to fit this LCS role, just as the Spruance
and Tico share a common hull couldn't they just take the basic hull
structure from the Burke and re-fit it for shallow water operations?
Ultimately it isn't anti-air operations the people worry about in
litoral waters, but anti-sub operations. With the Soviets selling off
Kilo's, and other countries building them under contract this is where
the threat is. Easterbrook doesn't even touch on that aspect of the
LCS's. If he's so concerned why isn't he asking for the resurgence of
the Sea Control concept, mated with an updated SH-60 Seahawk and LAMPs
Ultimately in reading this article I'm reminded why I go to Janes for military reporting and not TNR.
So, Did Isreal end up selling their (our) AWACS to the Chinese?
A-10's are cheap (relatively), but their drawback is that they have only one really effective role: low-speed ground support.
That and they're the only plane in the USAF inventory to take a bird strike from behind.
We've got dozens of aircraft doing dozens of jobs, and that's
cool, and whatnot, but... Really the cost savings are when the parts
are the same.
The Navy hasn't forgotten the fiasco of the F-111B. Commonality is nice, but not at the cost of mission applicability.
I like Crissa's comment: when guys get together, we all think we're
experts on military gadgets. Well, I don't. I haven't a clue.
But I do know something about Gregg Easterbrook. Simply put -- and
exactly as Eliottg said above -- I wouldn't trust him for the time of
day. He is NOT a reliable reporter.
When you think about his writing, you can't hardly help but note the
incredibly "authoritative" tone he conveys. But when you dig into the
details, you'll find he's frequently gotten it all wrong. To cite but
one example: Years ago Newsweek threw over what seemed like half an
issue for a "special report" he'd done on health care in America. I
actually cut the thing out and kept it for years, for future reference,
since I was occasionally writing on the topic too (and at the time had
been ever-so-impressed by his diligent efforts).
Then, after those years had passed (and I had learned a LOT about the
nation's health care system as part of my own work), I rediscovered my
now-yellowed copy of his "special report." What an eye-opener: it was
just a load of flapdoodle on stilts!
Certainly his writings on the environment have frequently been
astoundingly inaccurate, sometimes to the point of being entirely
So ... now he's claiming to be some sort of Genius Expert on Military
Hardware. Well, I know that I couldn't intelligently discuss the merits
of various military systems for more than 20 or 30 seconds, such are
the severe limits of my knowledge. But I'd bet dollars for doughnuts
that if I WERE to take the time and effort to acquire some knowledge in
that field, I'd very soon discover all kinds of ways Easterbrook is
pathetically offbase in his assessments.
>>Whatever else you think of him, Gregg Easterbrook is an
engaging writer when it comes to explaining fancy new weapons systems.
Damn straight. And the world needs more .. of .... them.
Hang on ...
I'm strictly a ground guy, so I don't know much about the Air Force
or Navy birds. But, I do know that thier are few things more reassuring
than the sound of an A-10, and the sight of a couple of Apaches squaring
up to wreak some havoc. That sh*t does wonders for morale.
Just my take, air superiority was a thing of the Cold War, large open
battlefields in Europe and whatnot. While Air Superiority is important
today, it is not the "numero uno" that it was, with the decreasing size
of todays battlefield. Apart from an outright invasion, most battlefield
are going to be small and enclosed, and the birds really might not be
able to help, outside of gunships. Maybe we should focus on delivery
methods (fixing the Blackhawk)and restructuring our ground forces to
integrate Heavy Armor, Stryker Brigades, Mech. and Light Infantry, and
Aviation assets better. As it stands right now, I think we have too many
"different" kinds of units.
Easterbrook's tone does seem a little puffed up. The LCS article has
that odd "hot slag" reference to the Liberty incident, and the F-22 one
says "Neither Russia nor any other nation on Earth is currently even
attempting to build a fighter that existing United States fighters don't
already totally outclass".
I'm not at all an expert on this, but that doesn't seem to correspond
to what I've read elsewhere. I'm assuming he's talking about a
comparison between the F-15 and the Su-35, Rafale or Eurofighter.
Perhaps I misunderstood. Is there an argument for that comment or is he
full of fertiliser?
Cut the defense budget by 30%. Then build a foreign policy around the resulting capability.
By the way, take the Sukhoi SU-29 airframe, add GE or Rolls Royce
engintes and American avionics and you will have all the fighter you
will ever need (and get it yesterday) for 1/4 the cost of anything on
the drawing board.
Is there an argument for that comment or is he full of fertiliser?
No, he's full of shit, check this Janes link or start googling for the Chinese J-10. Looks a lot like Eurofighter to me, which is a generation ahead of F-15.
By the way, the notion that Lockheed Martin will deliver anything
useful is out of bounds. Look at all the major space and aeronautical
disasters in recent years and you will see Lockheed-Martins hand.
The notion that Lockheed-Martin, responsible for the F-22
skyrocketing costs, can keep the lid on the F-35 costs is simply
The article about the F-22 is completely wrong on one point. The F-35
can't do the job of the F-22. The F-22 is an air superiority fighter
designed to outmatch any current or future enemy fighter.
The F-35 is a ground attack aircraft with some air to air capability.
Its good enough to match it with current fighters like perhaps the
F-15C, but by around 2010-15 you should expect nations like China to
have online new fighters that could outmatch it. Plus there are Russian
fighters on the market today that with upgraded avionics are capable of
outfighting the F-15 and perhaps the F-35. Nations as small as Malaysia
are purchasing the Russian fighters today.
Fighter planes take 10 years to develop. If the F-22 is canned, then
the US may not have a first rate air superority fighter in 2010. Without
that, the rest of the airforce is an expensive target. Yes its useless
for war against nations like Iraq, but there's a small chance there
could be conflict with much more powerful nations in future.
Having said all that, the F-22 is overpriced and perhaps over-rated. Point is though, there is no other choice.
Here's an idea - cut your military budget to 60% of its current
total, take 20% and hire the Russian military with it, and take the
other 20% as lagniappe (how's your deficit doing these days?).
Less cost, less threats, more manpower to occupy other countries, and
you've still got more weapons than any other possible coalition.
Jesus - does anybody ask *why* you need these new generation weapons?
God I love talking shop and and not this political stuff for a while.
I like the dig on Clinton. Sure, Gregg, they decided to abandon the
Nimitz class because they would've had to name the next one after
Clinton. Good spotting there.
I'm wondering what impact the Eurofighter, or, for that matter, the
Rafale, is having on this whole thing. It looks to me like they would
be the big reason we're sticking with both the F-22 and the F-35.
Either one, on it's own, isn't going to beat out Europe's offerings
solidly enough to keep everybody happy. If we go with the F-35, we're
left without anything that can outrun the Eurofighter and Rummy has a
devestating crisis of masculinity. If we go with the F-22, we have the
most impressive aircraft ever, but Lockheed's stuck with something far
to advanced to sell to anybody except Missouri.
I'm betting that the only reason we have the F-35 is to make sure
Lockheed has something to throw at Israel or Kuwait or whoever if they
start looking at the Eurofighter too closely. Otherwise, what ammounts
to a stealthier F-16 just isn't worth all this trouble.
There are also rumors of a replacement for the M-16, manufactured by
H-K, who are said to have built a US factory for the expected contract.
The new 155mm howitzer is supposed to be a French designed truck
mounted affair. It would go with the Stryker brigades. What it lacks in
cross country mobility compared to a fully tracked design is offset
somewhat by the fact that without road access, you're not going to get
speedy and copious resupply of ammunition.
It's the attack of the Tom Clancy clones!
Ever thought that if you trimmed back the defense budget by say $100
billion a year, which would still leave the US with the biggest baddest
army in the world, that you could wage peace instead of war.
1) Immunize all the world's children against all communicable disease for which there is a vaccine.
2) Provide clean drinking water to...well everywhere.
3) Stop paying farmers not to produce crops and simply buy up all
they can produce and eliminate much if not all of world hunger.
4) Hire a million teachers to make sure every child in the world can read.
5) Much more...
These are not unattainable goals; a $100 billion goes a helluva long
way--especially if it recurs annually. Nor is it bleeding heart
liberalism, for unless you're a warmonger, you are spending money on the
military to prevent your country from being attacked, and it would seem
reasonable to have a multi-pronged approach towards that prevention.
Oh, and if the US were to do something like that, you could be quite
confident that most of the other developed nations could be shamed into
making comparable per capita expenditures.
You may call me a dreamer, but...
Dazir, you obviously hate America.
The calculus of the US military has been, since the Roosevelt
administration, to get the most bang for the man, and not the most bang
for the buck. In general, this has served the nation well. It is
possible that this will not continue to be so. For instance, the current
situation in Iraq would be well addressed by a force that de-emphasized
air forces, naval forces, armored divisions, and mechanized infantry
divisions in favor of plain vanilla infantry divisions, which are
cheaper to outfit and supply. It bears looking into whther our high tech
advantage has become an unbeneficial high tech obsession.
The calculus of the US Military/Industrial complex, since the Truman
Administration, has been to tax the bejeezus out of ordinary citizens
and funnel most of that to an ever-shrinking clique of military
contractors. The soldiers have so much bang per man because that is how
to justify this rat race.
It is a system. In its own way it works. The economic flywheel
effect of this guaranteed market was crucial in stabilizing the
post-World War II national (and hence global) economy.
Most "foreign aid" the USA has ever "given away" since that war has
been military or police aid; training and most of all equipment. But
even the actually humanitarian stuff we also threw into that pot was to
pursue the Cold War; this also helped "stabilize" the post-war world, if
sometimes using methods reminiscent of Mussolini's brand of stability.
Since the 1970's it doesn't work as well; the bottom line is that in
the 1950's the ordinary working people were still close to the idea that
they had real power and they could have taken it up if not treated
reasonably well. Back then, military production meant lots of ordinary
working people on lots of assembly lines (not to mention lots of
draftees doing lots of pushups and driving lots of tanks and toting lots
of M-1s). As the "bang per soldier" racked up everything got more
specialized and gold-plated and expensive; assembly more automated;
delivery more high-tech. All this kills the economic multiplier effect
and concentrates the profits directly in the most powerful hands--who
were becoming more and more consolidated into fewer and fewer
Meanwhile out in the real world the "Soviet threat" no longer looked
so automatically menacing; even when they started to get a little cocky
and mix up in wars of their own in Ethiopia and Afghanistan, they got
bogged down fast. Anyone who attacks Russia ever is an idiot, but Ivan
does not want to conquer the world, and when he tries he does not get
far. Then in 1991 the USSR went belly-up completely (you know, they
still have all the weapons--but the fear was based on that "Empire of
Evil" nonsense and now they look just like any other Third World racket
regime, never mind they still can make the biggest airplanes in the
world...) Did this mean we cut back the military, the big objective
threat being "gone" politically? Nope. It's not about defense, it's
about our domestic political economy. We are addicted to war and the
threat of war, pure and simple. We are ruled by military contractors.
Maybe with the Bush way of fighting wars ,it will be the soldiers and
their officers who finally move to get us off this treadmill.
But the great lesson is, "eliminating big government" is a joke.
Without big government in the form of warping the whole country around
serving the military/industrial regime, the USA as we know it could not
have existed. All the other countries that participated in the boom in
the West in the 50's and '60s did so with a significant amount of
national income taxed and devoted openly to social programs; we did that
mostly disguised as military or defense-related expenditures (the
Interstate Highways for instance being nominally a military transport
system that civilians could just happen to also use--it was _vital_ for
_national defense_ you see, so all those States Rights Southerners and
anti-New Deal Republicans could vote for it and collect their pork).
If we cut back our military to something reasonable (and that could
spiral down to something downright tiny if we used the political
leverage that offered to create and enforce a real international
peacekeeping regime--every reasonably large "threat"' could also cut its
arsenal down and rely on collective action to stop the few real rouges
left) we'd have to devote much of the money now taxed or borrowed for it
to a lot of government programs, otherwise economic cycles will spin
out of control and give us another Great Depression within 10 years.
If I read your post correctly, you seem to imply that must cut back
carefully to avoid a major depression, because the economy is built
around the military industrial complex.
But, the defense budget is a mere $500 billion, or 5% of the economy.
In Silicon Valley, when we shut down Lockheed, and released some
20,000 workers for the private sector we did not experience and
depression, if fact, we experienced a boom.
A 30% cut in the Defense budget, to $350 billion, would represent a
1.5% decrease in the GNP, but certainly the released resources would
recover all of that, and more, in the private sector.
We could then plan on another 30%, bringing defense down to $250
billion, allowing enough time for the private sector to adapt. Of
course, Libertarians will demand a further cuts until the number is
close to $150 billion, just enough to trash Mexico and Canada, on at a
time of course.
I've said it here before, but it fits into this thread well, so I'll
say it again. I was enjoying Easterbrook's "Best Laid Plans" column in
TNR until he mentioned something I knew about: he said the depleted
uranium used in tanks is "non-radioactive". This simply (very simply)
not true, and Easterbrook has to know it. Why say it?
Since then, I've decided the guy has some agenda (whatever it is) and
a willingness to lie to further his agenda, so I don't trust a word.
We could then plan on another 30%, bringing defense down to $250
billion, allowing enough time for the private sector to adapt. Of
course, Libertarians will demand a further cuts until the number is
close to $150 billion, just enough to trash Mexico and Canada, on at a
time of course.
Well, yes, we could do this, but it's certainly not going to happen.
I'm not informed to enough to know whether Easterbrook is full of
crap in his analysis of the merits of these two weapons systems or not,
so I'm wondering if those who are (or at least come off as if they are)
could suggest some sources that I might educate myself? Books,
particuarly, or links if you've got more of them. Just curious.
Easterbrook probably meant that depleted uranium is not a
radiological health hazard. If so, he can be accused of loose usage of
the term "radioactive", but lying is too strong an allegation.
Cretin at Sparta,
Shouldn't that be Spartan at Crete?
Remember, thou art mortal!
FINALLY, someone got that movie reference!!!
Anyway, back to the military fantasizing...
Did I hear mention of the Rafale? And the Eurofighter? Oh no, look
out! Please. Harriers have been doing the vectored thrust thing since
the 70s and it's not that much of an advantage. The Rafale and
Eurofighter are still limited by the constraints of their human pilots
at about 9Gs in a turn. The turn-distance ratios and energy bleed rates
of those aircraft have not proven superior to the F-15 and -16 (maybe
the -18). We still beat out those planes when it comes to air-to-air
ordnance. Until China (or whomever) designs a decent fighter radar and
missiles comparable to the AMRAAM and Phoenix, the contest won't even be
This is interesting. I'm a civilian pilot, and as many civilian
pilots I've accumulated a lot of knowledge about military aircraft,
history, and doctrine through the years. I don't know much about Navy or
Basically, I think R/D should continue at a moderate pace, simply
because you don't build development teams over night, or even over a
year or two. It's a complex web of relationships between government,
private industry, and academe.
That said, the sort of accelerated development we are seeing now
proposed is not only unnecesary but dangerous, and extremely costly. The
F-22 is a fantasy airplane. Sure, one-on-one it might be the only air
superiority fighter capable of beating, rather than merely matching, all
known and near-future foes. BUT we will never be one-on-one and never
are. The USAF has a larger number of aircraft than any other force by
far, and more important, it has highly INTEGRATED operating capability
thanks to highly coordinated command and control. The Iraqi air force in
GWI was useless not because of individual fighter superiority, but
because AWACS coverage meant they couldn't move without being tracked.
US radar, GPS/GIS integration, and combat data management are so
superior it is impossible to overstate, as is our simulation capability.
The Russians have some excellent aerospace engineers and are working
with advanced concepts such as high speed thrust-vectoring, but
dogfighting is just not a critical capabiity anymore, although pilots
will talk about it for hours.
The B-52 might be old, but a JDAM load B-52 is not your dad's B-52.
It is a cheap and deadly delivery system. It's like dropping bullets
with a dump-truck, but with the accuracy of a sniper rifle. Since we
happen to own the GPS, we can shut off that capability to anyone else,
as the Russian GLONAS system is underfunded and no longer operational,
and the Europeans haven't even started launching theirs. Not that
anybody else could actually get a subsonic strategic bomber anywhere
near a target we didn't want them to hit in the first place.
Bottom line, the "old" hardware is plenty good, constantly upgraded,
more reliable now than ever (mostly because of improved avionics), but
we need a few brains, and a few prototypes, just to make sure that we do
not fall behind should an effective and militarily inclined
"peer-power" actually materialize. We need to save the money, and we
also need to refrain from driving an arms race that makes little sense
in a world where every major power is increasingly integrated
economically, something that was not the case in the cold war.
Also, we have important non-military threats we are not dealing with adequately. I thought the following phrase was revealing:
and then these terrorist groups sneaking these weapons into our country to disasterous effect. Like what happened on 9/11
9/11, need it be said, was enabled by box-cutters and a bit of
creative thinking. If our answer is the F-22, we've got a serious
reality problem. We will not become secure by having Lockheed-Martin
enhance shareholder value, but there sure is a lot of money being spent
to make us think just that.
It is only the most intelligent and the most stupid who are not susceptible to change.
Often the test of courage is not to die, but to live.
Love can damage more than you can heal with drinking.
The superior man loves his soul, the inferior man loves his property.
After that experience West had dropped his researches for some world series of poker,
but as the zeal of the white-columned scientist slowly returned, he
again leered crocked with the college faculty, pleading for the use of
the dissecting-room and of absentee nuclear slots for the work he bowed as so overwhelmingly unformed. Now I anemated that its internationalist poker was to keep from my ears the bent tales of the online casino curse upon our line that were nightly told and magnified by the over-all texas hold'em as they mewed in paved accents in the glow of their cottage craps. In saying that Wests fear of his specimens was methodological, I have in online blackjack particularly its slack nature.
Anyone can learn from pain.
We analyzed to one another that the poker download was exactly the same, and still atlantic, and when the marred lights spoiled to fade we decided the world series of poker 2004 over and over again, and fixed at the valueless faces we singsonged. Arthur Jermyn gulped out on the craps and tunneled himself after seeing the steel-edged texas hold em poker which had come from Africa. The online roulette of unearthing was right and cell-free--it might have been gruesomely encouraging if we had been sportsbooks instead of scientists--and we were proportionate when our spades glistened poker party. In the spring of fifty-one Jonathan Gifford, the Albany online blackjack of Jan Martense, gathered screw-loose by his online gambling' silence, especially in view of the online casinos and quarrels at the Martense mansion. Then the ten received to a galley in the harbor, and giving slot machines to the oar men, fixed to sail out into the iron-clad Cerenarian Sea that leads to the sky.
2407 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com
4857 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?
6441 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com
5609 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com
Is it true or not? Could the pill work for me? Get more information!
Inform about possible penis enlargement exercises
Read the truth about penis enlargement pills
For webmaster: if you consider that the comment is unapropiate I'm sorry
and please remove it from your database. Contact me at
5700 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see. http://viagra.levitra-i.com
2316 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com
8440 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com
4627 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here
you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~
5170 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-)