F-22: Won’t Win Wars, Won’t Preserve Jobs
F-22: Won’t Win Wars, Won’t Preserve Jobs
Responding to the news that the Air Force will request an additional 60 F-22 Raptors, for a total of 243 — significantly less than the previous goal of 381 — the Weekly Standard’s John Noonan calls this “respectable — but inadequate.”
The Air Force’s previous desired fleet projection of 381 airframes was, in and of itself, an enormous compromise (planners originally banked on over 600). The Obama administration would nonetheless be making the right choice by choosing to invest in America’s continued air superiority, if they go ahead and order the additional jets. Here’s another humble suggestion: less money for DoD green initiatives, more for war-winning weapon platforms.
As is often the case in defense procurement, the USAF’s original request for 600 Raptors was basically a bargaining tactic. They knew they’d never get 600, but could get a number closer to what they really wanted when they finally “sacrificed” a few hundred planes and scaled back the request to something moderately less utterly unrealistic and staggeringly expensive.
As for the F-22 as a “war-winning weapon platform,” while there is an air superiority argument for the F-22, it’s worth pointing out here that, not only has the F-22 not helped the United States win the the two wars that it’s currently fighting, the F-22 hasn’t flown a single combat mission in either of them.
DoD green initiatives, on the other hand, actually have applications to the wars we’re in now. They make installations less dependent on supply convoys, offering fewer opportunities for ambushes of those convoys. On the downside, green initiatives don’t go fast, shoot missiles, or look nearly as cool when set to heavy metal music.
Moving on to other bad arguments for the F-22, via Rob Farley, David Axe confronts the claim that “more than 95,000 American jobs” depend on the Raptor. Axe points out that this number “counts indirect employment at firms for whom the F-22 program is just one of many clients.”
And it also counts Lockheed assembly workers who are in high demand for other aviation projects. In fact, ending Raptor production today might not result in a single unemployed aerospace worker. [...]
A year ago the industry was worried about huge labor shortages. Shutting down the Raptor line would see thousands of workers snapped up for active production lines churning out F-16s, F-35s, C-130s and modernized C-5s for Lockheed, not to mention the prospect that industry rivals Boeing and Northrop might lure Lockheed workers for their own active production lines for the F-15, F/A-18 and others.
Even in the New Depression, the U.S. has the world’s biggest and most diverse aerospace industry. Trimming a few dozen aircraft from one production line, and shuttering that line a few years early, will not put nearly 100,000 people out of work.
James Fallows also provides a reading list on the F-22, a good corrective to his colleague Mark Bowden’s love letter to the aircraft.
4 Responses to “F-22: Won’t Win Wars, Won’t Preserve Jobs”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
You don’t know anything about the F22 if you believe the blatant nonsense in this article.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:31 pmWell argued, sir!
February 24th, 2009 at 7:28 am“Here’s another humble suggestion: less money for DoD green initiatives, more for war-winning weapon platforms.”
“war-winning weapon platforms” don’t mean a thing if you don’t have the fuel to power them. The AF slurps fuel (aka dollars) like it depends on it… oh, wait, it does. Alternative fuels are not currently but may in the future be critical to ensure air and ground superiority. AFRL among others are doing a great job in developing jet-fuel alternatives, and if they manage to find a solution it could be transfered to the commercial sector as well.
February 24th, 2009 at 9:36 amFirst, before you make arguments saying that the F-22 won’t help win wars – know something about the aircraft and what it brings to an air-superiority fight before you say it.
Second, the argument that the F-22 hasn’t done anything in the current wars we’re in is true, however it is dangerously short-sighted. Current and future threat countries like Russia, China and Iran are producing and acquiring next generation air-superiority fighters in such numbers that it would soon overwhelm even a technologically superior fighter like an F-22 if its only available in limited numbers. Listening to the argument to stop producing F-22’s WILL get people killed in future wars. The POINT of a superior fighter like the F-22, in sufficient numbers, is to be a deterrent to other threat countries to even start a war….so, if the F-22 never fires a shot in war, it is successful, but if it does need to go to war, you can be confident that it will be worth every penny spent on it. Also, if you don’t think there will be a future war, consider Russia’s recent invasion of Georgia, Iran’s apparent disregard for the world’s warnings to halt its nuclear program and China’s MASSIVE military buildup over the last 10 years and hostile policy towards Taiwan, which the US is bound by treaty to protect.
There is a time and place for a focus on green technology, but it should NEVER be at a compromise to national security. The F-22 is a necessary and worthwhile investment, and AT LEAST 60 more should be bought, if not more.
In response to “Anders” about the AF using a lot of fuel…that is absolutely true. The US has the largest coal reserves in the world and currently has the technology to produce jet fuel from coal, technology that has actually been around since WWII when the Germans used it to power their aircraft when oil became scarce. The solution is already on the table, but the current administration has made it illegal as it releases CO2 in the process. This is exactly what I’m talking about that green technology is great, but should NEVER get in the way of national security, which it is doing in this case.
March 4th, 2009 at 2:23 am