Brother, Can You Spare $100 Billion?

Robert Farley's making new allies in his war on the air force, as the service's top brass decides that this particular historical moment in which the U.S. is fighting two simultaneous wars in which F-22s aren't useful would be a good opportunity to insist that it needs more money to buy F-22s.

Specifically, they'd like "an extra $20 billion each year over the next five" even though it would be exceedingly odd to make that kind of financial commitment to the service least impacted by current action.

In the Air Force's defense, I would say that both the point about the aging of the F-15s and the point about the number of F-22s currently on order looking a bit small have some merit to them. But this is an entirely self-generated problem. Instead of finding a cost-effective solution to the problem of aging F-15s -- like building new, somewhat upgraded F-15s -- the Air Force decided to design an impractically expensive new air superiority fighter. Having done so, the country now can't afford these planes in the quantity the Air Force deems desirable. It'd be as if the NYPD first insisted that in the future it would only buy cars from Lexus and then wound up puzzled as to why they didn't have enough cars.

Comments

Am wrong to believe that the AF is the service least respected by the other services? And I think that Halberstam and a few other authors have suggested that giving the AF its head is always a mistake.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 20, 2008 4:55 PM

I'd rather cut the army than the air force.

As Britain's strength was its Navy, our strength is our air force. Let 'em have Lexuses.

Posted by Petey | February 20, 2008 5:03 PM

Tim, I am close to a few people who have been associated with the Navy (my dad was honorable discharged at the rank of commander), and everyone hates the Air Force. I can't verify this, but it is have said that when new AF bases are built, the initial money appropriated for them goes to the golf course and the officers' club. That way they can simply ask Congress for more money for some crucial air strip in case they go over budget. This is a common gripe about the Air Force among other service members, but I really don't know if this kind of thing happens, so I won't speculate about the truth of the matter.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | February 20, 2008 5:04 PM

The services' appetite for the taxpayer dollar seems well night insatiable. We have an out-of-control procurement process that sucks up far too large a chunk of the federal budget. A bit more cost/benefit analysis would appear to be in order.

Posted by demisod | February 20, 2008 5:04 PM

It not even that they're buying Lexuses -- more like Lamborghinis.

Posted by Don Williams | February 20, 2008 5:16 PM

Agreed, an upgraded F-15 seems like a good idea, now. Some points:

- The air superiority fighter is always much more expensive than the all-purpose fighters. We cranked out thousands of F-16s to haul bombs and missles, and built a few hundred F-15s to clear the skies for them. Skip forward 30 years, and you have the F-22 and F-35.

- At the time the AF made the decision, the potential for going to war with a technically sophisticated opponent were higher than now. Against such an opponent, low observability is key. As an example, the Serbs didn't have the very latest in equipment, but were tactically sophisticated enough to knock down current NATO aircraft, even (granted, probably a lucky hit) an F-117.

- The F-15 is not low observable, and can't be made so without enough changes to basically end up with an F-22. Its combat utility is going to continue to drop, unless you're betting that Oceania will always be at war with Eastasia, and won't ever need to switch to Eurasia.

- The engineering work has already been done, and the costs sunk. Starting over isn't a realistic option, unless we're ok waiting another 10-20 years for the result. If the USAF is asking for more than you want to spend, then cut back their order for now... keeping in mind that each bird will then cost more, because the sunk costs are amortized over the production run.

Posted by cmholm | February 20, 2008 5:42 PM

"The engineering work has already been done, and the costs sunk. Starting over isn't a realistic option, unless we're ok waiting another 10-20 years for the result. If the USAF is asking for more than you want to spend, then cut back their order for now... keeping in mind that each bird will then cost more, because the sunk costs are amortized over the production run."

As I think we're entering an era of shrinking defense budgets, I think you get the most bang for your buck with air superiority.

I'd rather be investing in the air force of a decade or two out than putting more money into the army and navy of today.

If Matthew wants to crusade against the next generation tank and battleship programs, he's got my backing. But letting the air force can gild the lily makes basic sense to me.

Posted by Petey | February 20, 2008 5:50 PM

I have no problem with the AF designing a state-of-the-art fighter instead of seeking to replace aging fleet of F15s with a design that is decades old. Assuming that all future conflicts will be of the same nature as Iraq and Afghanistan is as shortsighted as previous Generals' assumption that all Cold War conflicts would be set piece tank battles.

That said, the goal should be to maintain some momentum in war fighting technology without creating generations of mothballed squadrons. Let them have 100 planes and a small number of additional planes each year to maintain production. In the event that a conflict requiring their use starts to develop, be prepared to build more.

Posted by Scott Ferguson | February 20, 2008 5:50 PM

"The engineering work has already been done, and the costs sunk."

Ah, the sunk cost fallacy raises its ugly head. If these costs are sunk, then the only question is whether the benefits of proceding exceed the costs, Doesn't look like they do.

And the budget rule currently seems to be 1/3 Army, 1/3 Navy, 1/3 AF, which is absurd.

Posted by Donald A. Coffin | February 20, 2008 6:00 PM

As Britain's strength was its Navy, our strength is our air force. Let 'em have Lexuses.

That would be fine if air wars were relevant to the warfighting the US is currently doing, or likely to do in the next 20 years.

Posted by Justin JJ | February 20, 2008 6:23 PM

"At the time the AF made the decision, the potential for going to war with a technically sophisticated opponent were higher than now. Against such an opponent, low observability is key. As an example, the Serbs didn't have the very latest in equipment, but were tactically sophisticated enough to knock down current NATO aircraft, even (granted, probably a lucky hit) an F-117."

It seems to me like sophisticated target acquisition and missile guidance are actually going to be the cheap and easy technology for our adversaries to invest in, and that as a result any plane that lacks stealth capabilities is going to be a serious target for the next generation of shoulder-fired missiles. This is exactly the kinds of arsenal the Afghani warlords and Iraqi insurgents are going to have access to in the future. As computing technology improves, asemetrical guerrilla warfare is going to become more and more effective.

Posted by Galen | February 20, 2008 6:23 PM

Unless aliens show up beyond the orbit of Jupiter, there is virtually no need for a new air superiority fighter. We already have air superiority and will have it for the foreseeable future.
what the Air force DOES need are more and newer A-10s, transports and helicopters for ground support-but of course thats not as sexy as a shiny new air superiority fighter for hypothetical air battles involving the Russian and Chinese air forces.

Posted by stonetools | February 20, 2008 6:23 PM

I've commented on several occasions that if we were really interested in protecting the U.S., as opposed to maintaining imperial control over far-flung regions of the globe, we could probably get by with just the Navy.

Their ships can keep the sea-lanes open for trade, and their nuclear submarines contain more than enough missiles to deter any rational adversary.

If you want to play the imperial game, then, yes, you need a powerful air force and lots of boots on the ground. But I don't see how playing this game has been beneficial to the average American citizen in any way.

Posted by Josh G. | February 20, 2008 6:31 PM

Again, all of these discussions are fruitless.

These things are meant to be PAID FOR, never used. They are the results of bribes to politicians.

It's that simple and that corrupt. The justifications are all so much ruminant evacuation.

Meanwhile, when was this added, or did I just never read it?

"By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although The Atlantic does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule."

And what sense does it make if The Atlantic "does not monitor comments". We know Matt doesn't, so relying on blog writer complaints ain't going to work either. Matt doesn't even edit his OWN posts.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 20, 2008 6:50 PM

I was particularly amused at the "or otherwise objectionable".

Normally, one has to read the Jim Crow laws of the Old South to find lawyerly prose of that precision.

Posted by Don Williams | February 20, 2008 7:14 PM

I highly doubt that SLC's relatively tame "Raghead" comment triggered this new Atlantic policy -- maybe Matthew would like to explain what's behind it.

Or did the Atlantic's wealthy patrons fear becoming the new Salman Rushdie?
(That Donna Tartt has such a razor wit --nothing like a Southern belle with a mean streak.)

It's highly unlikely, but I would be particularly intrigued by any report that the Atlantic was visited by people upset over our recent discussions of space warfare.

Alas, I simply MUST stop watching those old X-Files DVDs.

Posted by Don Williams | February 20, 2008 7:22 PM

1) I wonder if anyone on the Armed Services Committee has bothered to ask the Pentagon an embarrassing question: How easy is it to defeat low observable technology? By say-- transmitting radar beams on multiple frequencies and correlating the echos?

2) Plus there's always that embarrassing question: If the F22 and F35 can't transmit radar pulses, then what does? The AWACS? Line of sight, old boy. Curvature of the earth and all that. And if AWACS get closer, then IT's a bigger target than Rush Limbaugh's ass.

3) Gee, I have an idea. How about if we put a radar SATELLITE up in space? Too high to shoot down??? It pulses and receivers on the F22 receives. Only problem would be if
a) The sat malfunctions or
b) Someone shoots it down

http://heavens-above.com/usa193.aspx

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080220/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/dead_satellite

4) It also raises the question of what our allies get for their money (the ones supporting F22 and F35) if their sensor input is ..er.. turned off.
That sounds kinda like a pig in a poke.

Posted by Don Williams | February 20, 2008 7:43 PM

I recently heard a general quote a current kill ratio for the F15 of something like 172 to 1. How "old" a USAF aircraft is doesn't have much to do with the date the design initially entered service. The engines, weapons, avionics, everything gets replaced and upgraded constantly. The general's argument was of course that we need to spend and spend to get that kill ratio for everything each military service uses so that there will be no more objections to wars, since the thing that gets people spun up is dead US soldiers.

The F22 argument is about solving a problem that doesn't exist. Cynics of course will suggest that its about the money, but that would never happen here.

Posted by oldtime | February 20, 2008 7:54 PM

Ooops. I just read some of the insults on this thread and now understand the new Atlantic warning:
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/rightwing_talking_points.php#comments

Where did those people come from? I'm actually missing the slightly deranged SLC. At least he has manners.

Posted by Don Williams | February 20, 2008 7:55 PM

Well, usually.

Posted by Don Williams | February 20, 2008 7:58 PM

If you want to play the imperial game, then, yes, you need a powerful air force and lots of boots on the ground.

The Navy has you covered there too. The Navy and Marine Corps have 3800 aircraft (even if we junked the entire USAF, we'd still the largest Air Force in the world) As for boots on the ground, The Marines have the equivalent of 8 Army divisions (the three active and 1 reserve Marine divisions are twice the size of Army light infantry divisions).

Have the Navy cherrypick those parts of the Chair Force it wants to keep, let the Army remain in charge of the National Guard and all would be right in the forest. We'd be just as safe with at least 1/3rd less defense spending.

Posted by beowulf | February 20, 2008 8:23 PM

Beowulf: right on. While I was on active duty, we always complained about all the "jointness" we had to go through. I was in the Navy, and we already had our own Air Force and our own Army... what did we need those other services for?

Others have also pointed out that if you're truly only interested in "defense" (as opposed to invading and occupying other countries), then you could be entirely well protected with nothing more than the Navy/USMC plus the Army and Air Force Reserves.

Posted by Sean Peters | February 20, 2008 8:55 PM

Good lord..... I should have learned by now to stop reading Richard Steven Hack posts.

They don't monitor posts. They reserve the right to delete posts if they violate certain terms. There's no contradiction. The Atlantic is just being lazy; they'll delete posts only if they notice them for some reason.

Posted by AlanC9 | February 20, 2008 8:59 PM

Did anyone notice Matt's argument against the F-22 is similar to the argument that James Fallow used in the 80s against the F-15?

Posted by chuck spinney fan | February 20, 2008 9:14 PM

The air superiority fighter is and always was a budget-war, not an actual war, concept. It is make-work, an artifact of the 1948 "Treaty of Miami", whereby the separate services get fixed shares of an ever-increasing budget. A certain fraction of that is always devoted to a "higher, faster, further" project that employs thousands.

The F-16 is still in production. "Low-observable", usually hyped as "stealth", and "supersonic cruise" are just marketing terms that make no sense in a fighter.

Vectored-thrust is a useful concept that can be cheaply bolted-on to the F-16 and, indeed, was about a decade ago. But, then, Newt GINGRICH -- a self-was the Speaker and the F-22 was built in his district.

To the extent a long-range, all-weather fighter might have a use, it is escorting the handful of B-2 bombers. But, the number of F-22's already in hand are sufficient to that small, somewhat hypothetical, task.

Anybody with much respect for the US constitution needs to question, I think, the Cold War era creation of a "Defense Department", an "Air Force", and a duplicate of Los Alamos, called Livermore Radiation Lab.

Those re-created the Navy Department and the War Department (now called Department of the Army) as just bastions of pork and privilege with no serious responsiblities. It also created at least two more entire War Departments -- the Clandestine Service of the CIA with a black budget to run mercenaries and paramilitaries with, and the Marine Corps, which is not subordinate to the Navy for any practical purpose. (Nor is the Navy subordinate to the Corps).

If Democrats take office in 2009, they need to be prepared to take full responsiblity for national security and to not honor a post-Civil War agreement (Jim Crow) to cede all of that to the GOP. If CLINTON or OBAMA are going to play "Commander-in-Chief", they need to "march in" and terminate a lot of contracts "for the convenience of the government", fire a lot of flag and even more field-grade officers, and start thinking very seriously about what "a well regulated militia" would be in an era of what is called "fourth generation warfare".

These are Congressional responsiblities. But, since 2006, Congress has done nothing but re-label earmarks.

Posted by John Robert BEHRMAN | February 20, 2008 9:23 PM

@chuck...

Well, what has the F-15 done for you lately, other than the ground attack E variant? Shot down lots of Soviet or Chinese fighters? No? How about the Taliban's airforce? No? Ok, maybe Iraq's joke of an airforce, which couldn't have been taken by F-16 or F-18? Hmmm....

Posted by N M | February 20, 2008 10:30 PM

Specifically, they'd like "an extra $20 billion each year over the next five"

So would I.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | February 21, 2008 12:27 AM

Specifically, they'd like "an extra $20 billion each year over the next five" even though it would be exceedingly odd to make that kind of financial commitment to the service least impacted by current action.

Because of course the current fight is the only one that matters.

I would take exception with Matt's wording as well ... "least" may be a relative term, but the Air Force has been flying over Iraq for about 16 years now, and please try telling C-17, tanker, RJ, C-130, A-10, and yes, F-16 and F-15 crews (especially those flying the post-9/11 Noble Eagle missions) that they're least impacted by current action.

Or the thousands of Airmen or Sailors who spend 12 months in Iraq doing Army jobs. Or the home units who face deep budget cuts while covering the absence of those deployed Airmen.

Posted by Respectful Dissent | February 21, 2008 12:46 AM

Meanwhile the AF is retiring the F-117s.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/14900791.html

Posted by Tim_G | February 21, 2008 3:03 AM

Ever here of the F-35?

Posted by piscivorous | February 21, 2008 3:15 AM

The Air Force's most important mission is to defend the homeland from air attack. In its entire existence, it has only been called on to do this once - on September 11 2001.

It failed.

Fifty years, trillions of dollars, tens of thousands of men and women, and when it mattered the Air Force couldn't put a single fighter in the air to defend its own capital city. Not one of the vaunted F-15 Eagles, supposedly the finest in-service fighter in the world. Not one of the thousands of F-16s. Even an F-86, obsolete after the Korean War, could have done the job. But apparently the Air Force had "other priorities".

Posted by ajay | February 21, 2008 5:28 AM

"They don't monitor posts. They reserve the right to delete posts if they violate certain terms. There's no contradiction. The Atlantic is just being lazy; they'll delete posts only if they notice them for some reason."

Look, stupid, that's exactly what I said.

IF YOU DO NOT READ THE FRICKIN' POSTS, HOW THE HELL DO YOU KNOW WHEN TO DELETE ONE? ONLY BY EXPLICIT COMPLAINT FROM SOMEONE VIA EMAIL!

Christ, idiots can't read on this blog...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 21, 2008 6:10 AM

All this misses the point that they're way cool :-)

Posted by Oliver | February 21, 2008 8:33 AM

I'm not surprised the F-117's are being retired. It's not called the "Wobbly Goblin" for nothing. Though its capabilities are much broader, the F-22 is probably perfectly capable of fulfilling missions the F-117 had been performing.

I don't have a problem with building the F-22. There's value in keeping defense companies in business at a base level that can be ramped up if need be. Also, I think it's foolish to take the myopic view that asymmetrical engagements like Iraq and Afghanistan are the only forms of conflict that will confront us going forward. Hell, Russia still has ambitions to be our international rival. As does China, even if China's focusing more on soft power right now.

There are a number of problems that remain unaddressed when it comes to budgeting. For one, the segmentation of the armed forces makes no sense and creates needless duplication of effort and financial expenditure. On top of that, it doesn't appear to me that the people running the services are particularly good managers of their budgets, and that's exacerbated by politicians trying to direct defense spending to their districts even if what the money's being spent on isn't needed or useful.

Posted by Kurzbein | February 21, 2008 9:57 AM

This should make people feel a little better about defense spending. From the F-117 link:

"Much of the aircraft was made from off-the-shelf parts. The landing gear came from F-15 Eagles, engines from F-18 Hornets and controls from F-16 Falcons."

So they're not reinventing the wheel on every aircraft. I wonder if the same is true w/ the F-22?

Posted by Kurzbein | February 21, 2008 9:59 AM

I highly doubt that SLC's relatively tame "Raghead" comment triggered this new Atlantic policy -- maybe Matthew would like to explain what's behind it.

That's been the policy for some time, but to actually find it written down anywhere you had to poke around someplace obscure on the Atlantic home page. Now it's on the comments screens for your edification.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | February 21, 2008 10:13 AM

I understand the pressures as MY.com stops being 35 commenters and starts being 350 or 3500, but the site has really benefitted from allowing comments that are insulting etc esp. when part of discussions on US politics in the Middle East that other blogs close down or edit. I've learnt alot from those insult-larded flamewars. May they long continue.

Posted by otto | February 21, 2008 10:25 AM

Matthew- Brother, I flew AF F-15Cs for 15 yrs. Its about killing bad guys who would kill your joint forces from the air, if they can. (See "Kasserine Pass" for example of combat without Air Superiority). AF not impacted by OIF/OEF? 300 sorties/day and 8000 kids riding convoy duty. Ask Army/Marines if they enjoy the fact they yell for air support and it shows up in minutes; from the very 1st seconds of OIF/OEF. Mid-1970's Arguments vs Air Dominance fighters: Folks said don't buy the F-15, just buy new F-4s. We'd have lost many, many more a/c in Des Storm with F-4 and instead of 104:0 kill ratios, it would have been war of attrition and no chance to get airpower F-16/F-18s in to blow up their tank divs. Now its time to buy new. Lexus analogy is a red herring. F-22 woulda been as cheap as F-15E today if we bought them at 32-48/yr as planned, but OSD cut and cut, and now brothers in AF have to fly 25+ yr old jets. F-35 is good enough? Not so. You gotta do Hi/Low Mix. With the 'Hi' up flying HIGH/FAST to quickly kill the HIGH/FAST bandits. Threat? China alone has 500 Flankers NOW, and the Commie Club is designing their version of the F-22. If it was a Lexus, why are they rushing to build them?
BTW--Re Spinney, Sprey and Wheeler Ninnies: They're are old, out of touch with BVR combat since '91, and ignore the F-22 FACTS the AF Fighter Mafia of TODAY has shown them. It's like it's 1935 and the Ninnies are saying we'll never need the P-51. What a travesty! Their thinking is how we lose FUTURE wars.

Posted by BoBo F-15C vet | February 21, 2008 2:12 PM

Matt, a couple of points to increase your understanding of the Nation’s requirement for the F-22:

First, comparing fighters to cars is like comparing lions with apples—fighters are not cars—they undergo up to nine times the force of gravity every day they fly, they fly at 1000+ miles per hour, they employ multiple types of weapons, etc., etc. The F-15s that are now literally breaking apart in the air because of structural aging are on average 25 years old. As a result, the entire fleet of over 660 was grounded last November due to structural problems resulting from their advanced age. Most are back flying now, but they were designed for a 4000 flying hour lifetime—they now have on average over 6500 hours. As a result of their age maintenance costs have increased 236 percent. The flying hour costs have gone up 87 percent, and the man hours per depot maintenance per airplane has gone up 800 percent. So we need to recapitalize this force.

Second, producing new “old” aircraft like the F-15 is a non-starter. They are simply not survivable against modern air and surface to air missile threats. Potential adversaries have not stood idly by as our Air Force has aged. They have developed highly advanced air and missile systems to challenge us. U.S. legacy fighters are now second-best. The characteristics of the F-22—stealth, supercruise, integrated sensors—allow it to survive against these modern threats.

Third, two enduring requirements of our National Security Strategy that have remained consistent across administrations are that we will engage forward in peacetime to secure stability, and if required, we will fight forward in war. This dual mandate calls for a 365-day per year capability to sustain operations abroad. The Air Force underwrites this capability with a force structure of ten air expeditionary units. Through this rotational force we are able to sustain operations that meet our national security commitments in both war and peace. To sustain those ten rotational units—without excessive personnel and operations demands—studies, analysis, and history have shown that a minimum of one squadron of F-22s per AEF are required. Along with the National Military Strategy that calls for the ability to fight and win in two major combat operations, that results in a requirement for 381 F-22s.

Fourth, while the F-22 is taking up the mantle of ensuring air dominance for our nation’s joint forces it is important to understand that the F-22 is much more than a “dogfighting” aircraft. Its capabilities span from fighter, attack, and bomb dropper roles, to those of an intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platform, an electronic attack jet, and an advanced processor and data-handling platform. The numbers of legacy aircraft required to perform the capabilities resident in one F-22 far exceed its unit cost. So you need to consider the value of the F-22 relative to the effects it can achieve.

Fifth, with respect to claims that imply that F-22s have little or nothing to do with the war on terrorism today, consider that Air Force fighters operate with near impunity in Iraq and Afghanistan—conducting critical elements of these conflicts—precisely because we control the air. If we want to be able to control the air domain in a future conflict with adversaries possessing advanced surface to air missile systems, we need the F-22. The time it takes to develop and produce fighter aircraft does not allow our military to arm up for each conflict only once it materializes. We need to plan for the future, and be prepared to engage across the spectrum of conflict not just one end of it—if we want to remain the world’s superpower.

Finally, it makes no sense to advocate that we invest in weapons the enemy can easily counter or already possesses. Air power is America's asymmetric advantage.

Retired Army General Barry R. McCaffrey warns the Air Force is “badly under-funded, its manpower is being drastically cut and diverted to support of counter-insurgency operations, its modernization program of paradigm shifting technology is anemic—and its aging strike, lift, and tanker fleets are being ground down by non-stop global operations with an inadequate air fleet and maintenance capabilities.”

Without adequate numbers of F-22s America’s air dominance cannot be assured in the context of our National Security Strategy. Hope some of these points clarify your perspective on why the Air Force has a requirement for the F-22.

Posted by Dave Deptula | February 21, 2008 11:23 PM

Lexus police car? What a crazy analogy.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/08/lexus_hybrid_police.php

Posted by Jack | February 22, 2008 10:25 AM

Regarding post at 11:23PM:
"Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula is Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. He is responsible to the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Air Force for policy formulation, planning, evaluation, oversight, and leadership of Air Force intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities."
http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5213

Posted by Jack | February 22, 2008 10:30 AM