‘This Is Not A Paid Advertisement For The F‑22′
‘This Is Not A Paid Advertisement For The F‑22′
Despite the fact that Mark Bowden actually quotes an Air Force officer saying “This is not a paid advertisement for the F‑22″ in it, there’s really no way to describe Bowden’s new article for the Atlantic as anything other than a commercial for the program:
American air superiority has been so complete for so long that we take it for granted. For more than half a century, we’ve made only rare use of the aerial-combat skills of a man like Cesar Rodriguez, who retired two years ago with more air-to-air kills than any other active-duty fighter pilot. But our technological edge is eroding—Russia, China, India, North Korea, and Pakistan all now fly fighter jets with capabilities equal or superior to those of the F-15, the backbone of American air power since the Carter era. Now we have a choice. We can stock the Air Force with the expensive, cutting-edge F‑22—maintaining our technological superiority at great expense to our Treasury. Or we can go back to a time when the cost of air supremacy was paid in the blood of men like Rodriguez.
This is accompanied by a video that, like the above quote, is about as subtle as a red, white and blue tuxedo.
Both the article and video cite the Cope India 2004 exercises — in which Indian pilots flying Russian-built Su‑30s, MiG-21s and -29s performed surprisingly well against U.S. pilots in F-15s and -16s — as evidence in favor of the F-22. As Noah Shachtman noted at the time, USAF pilots participated in Cope India under self-imposed handicaps — it was in no sense a straight fight, let alone an actual representation of how U.S. pilots and equipment would perform in a plausible combat scenario. It was, however, trumpeted throughout the media as a “wake-up call” demonstrating the need to spend huge quantities of money on the F-22 — precisely as it’s deployed in Bowden’s article. Echoing comments that I’ve heard from a number of others, Shachtman quoted a contributor to the National Security roundtable who snarked “What better way to keep an aerial boondoggle like the F-22 program healthy and sucking up funds” than to rig and promote an exercise just like that?
Maybe all that money that Boeing and Lockheed Martin have been pouring into publicity for the F-22 is showing results. Or maybe they just got this one for free.
12 Responses to “‘This Is Not A Paid Advertisement For The F‑22′”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
This is “old school” military junk.
February 15th, 2009 at 12:39 pmOn par with “let’s build destroyers again…they worked during WWII, didn’t they?”
The last sane Republican president – Dwight Eisenhower – warned us of this. And we politely nodded and snickered at the old man’s paranoia.
February 15th, 2009 at 3:07 pmWhere is Jim Fallows on this? Does he still work there?
February 15th, 2009 at 5:27 pmMy question — Who the hell are we going to fight with F22s? Space invaders?
February 16th, 2009 at 8:44 amAt least Obama seems to be opposing the expansion of nuclear warheads
While there may be times when we have to accept a lower standard of living and employ resources for defense, NOW is not the time. To pass off military spending as “economic stimulus is a LIE. It forces all the rest of us to work longer and harder, supporting these military contractor freeloaders. Here in NM, the budget of the Los Alamos genocide factory correlates with our poverty ranking– the higher the LANL budget, the higher our poverty ranking.
February 16th, 2009 at 9:28 amAs a hardcore progressive and lefty, I support raising the f-22 purchase to around 500 +units. They represent a true next generation weapon that can offer a multiplier deterrence effect. (i.e.- if the enemy, say china, thinks the equivalency on most planes is 1-1. in terms of combat effectiveness. if the us had 50 planes, then 100 planes produces a comfortable air superiority advantage. but if america has 25 f-22’s and each of these is 10 times as effective as chinese planes) then suddenly gaining air superiority, (lets say over the taiwan straight) becomes very iffy if not impossible)
February 16th, 2009 at 2:29 pmWe can then save a ton of money by reducing the f-35 A buy from 2300 planes down to a couple hundred, and continue to purchase such 90%+ effectiveness (of the f-35A) planes as the f-18 e/f for half the cost.(around 50 million per plane rather then 100million+ for the f-35A.
In addiiton, keeping the f-22 line open, allows us to develop our next generation bomber- based on the f-22- the b-22 or f/b-22 a plane more like a next generation f-111 for a very low cost (around 10billion or less) in 10 years.
The F-22 is an arguable case. It’s more of a strategic deterrent than an actual weapon. It prevents allies from turning their F-35’s on us, and enemies from even trying to develop an air force that can do damage to us.
February 17th, 2009 at 7:09 amNot electing Republicans will do a better job of preventing allies from turning on us than another boondoggle of the bygone arms race era. We aren’t at war with China, Russia, India, or Pakistan, with most of whom we’ve become inseparable trading partners.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:03 amisaac,
How about the People’s Liberation Army Air Force? Sure, it’s not a big possibility… but it’s still a possibility. They ain’t building competing planes for nothing.
Aaron,
The problem with using the ratios given is that we have to assume that any military we fight with will automatically go after our C4ISR capabilities, reducing the combat effectiveness of any plane.
The advantage of the F-22 is that it is inherently stealthy, and heads and shoulders more capable than even a well-upgraded F-15 or F/A-18. Even in a situation where the F-22 loses the integration of the communications network, it’s harder to spot, more maneuverable, and better equipped as a lone fighter than the F-35.
jps,
The Chinese are spending more yuan every year on modernization, their version of an RMA, and developing an effective deterrent. While I believe strongly that China should be allowed to act within its own borders, a China with a an air force capable of knocking the US out of Taiwan/Japan is not a good thing. China is glad to trade with us, and we should be glad to trade with China, but trade alone will not stop a conflict. The world is not that flat.
Carlossan,
There’s more to it than the F-35s being “turned on us.” Even in the fourth generation (F-15, F-16, F-18), the US kept most of the best avionics for itself. The airframe is not the only factor– what’s inside the cockpit makes a big difference. Even if it were the case that the US were only flying F-35s, we could still maintain superiority through better avionics. The F-15E is a better equipped plane than Japan’s F-15J, for example. The F-22 is just better designed as an air superiority fighter than the F-35, and the USAF needs air superiority to replace the F-15.
February 17th, 2009 at 4:01 pmAri,
Do you have a shred of evidence that a U.S./Taiwan/China conflict, if it occurred, would turn on fighter planes instead of nukes? You can take that airplane money and spend it on diplomacy if you want a decent return on investment. Or you can pour it down another arms race hole.
February 18th, 2009 at 12:10 pmA campaign is underway by Northrup Grummon to have the Navy build four E2-D Hawkeye survailance planes, rather than the three the Navy is now requesting. Each costs $200 million. Our Republican congressman was blaming this on Obama, even though he had been in office only 10 days at the time. When some people were not impressed with the 154 jobs the company said would be cut in St. Augustine, they added on every job they could think of in the country. I can think of better uses for $200 million dollars and certainly fund a lot more jobs with that money.
February 19th, 2009 at 10:45 amF-22 alternative -> How about new F-15s and F-16s equipped with AESA radar, stealth material coating, a jammer that blinds enemy radar (the Indian and Israeli air forces already use it), new long-range missiles to replace the AMRAAM, and the F119 or F136 vectored-thrust engines to provide agility and supercruise?
Good enough?
February 25th, 2009 at 9:35 am