The US Military Is In Another Tizzy

[unhappycamper]

unhappycamper note: Since the ‘Pentagon’ (DoD? Gannett?) has ‘requested’ that I only post one paragraph from articles on Army Times, and Airforce Times, To keep in that same (new) tradition, I will also do the same for for articles on Navy Times, Marine Corps Times, stripes.com and military.com.
To read the article in the military's own words, you will need to click the link.

Read all about Fair Use here. It sure is beginning to smell like fascism.

unhappycamper summary of this article: Those 40 F-35s are gonna cost around $10 billion dollars.







RAF Could be Reduced to Just Six Fighter Squadrons by 2020

Giving some of the first real insight into the numbers of F-35Cs the United Kingdom may purchase, the U.K. announced late last week that it’s considering halving its fighter fleet to a mere six squadrons by 2020.

[charlie and algernon]

1. it's a whole new world now

The fighter airplane had a long 100 year run, but it looks like it's coming to a close. Nearly all the nations that have competant fighter jet programs are all on the same side. And if the US entered a war with Russia or China, it would more likely turn nuclear before we saw a large air war break out. Jets are more like fast, mobile artillery units now than actual fighters. Plus we have the drones now too. The days of Top Gun are now in the past.

[zipplewrath]

4. Absolutely

The days of fighter on fighter, or tank on tank battles are over. You don't send a tank after another tank. You send guided munitions launched from a helicopter, plane, artilery, or even a shoulder launched version.

You may send a "fighter" (interceptor really) after a bomber, but you send a missile after a fighter.

And a superpower doesn't fight another superpower on the ground, it's all done with ballistic missiles. The only other option is surrogate wars.

We're going to need one more bomber, mostly to replace the THREE we are using now. Unfortnately, the military will over specify what it needs to do. We don't need a fighter to replace the F-35 or F-22. We will need some semi-autonomous air vehicles to do ground support and some recon/interception activities. We need some APC's that can address IED kind of threats without weighing more than a tank (not an easy problem).

But mostly we need to stop "leading with our spear". They eyes are suppose to be on the olive branch. Our State Department needs to stop relying upon our military to "back them up" and instead find ways to lead without might. In other words, the DoD needs to truly become the Department of DEFENSE.

I've advocated for some time that we need to create the "West Point" of foreign diplomacy. A place that teaches and produces a more diplomatic oriented Department of State. Politics, and ambassadorships have far too long been pursued through military careers, and political patronage. Presidents, UN ambassadors, and politicians in general should be far more interested in showing off their diplomacy "rings" than their military academy backgrounds. Smart students should be able to get an "appointment" to an academy to study diplomacy, civil service, political science, as well as sociology, anthropology, history, and to some extent the rule of law. These appointments could come with the same commitment to spending 6 years in civil service, most likely overseas, in a consulate, embassy, or with the Peace Corps.

I can actually see creating 5 "core" schools around the country, each with its own focus. Students could study at just one, or move around to each. They could have graduate degree programs as well. The could even create various "continuing education" courses for educators, civil servants, nonprofit administrators, and NGO's in general. And their entire purpose would be to teach how to achieve the concept of "Peace through justice". Of recognizing that one can "defend freedom" without carrying a gun. That war is suppose to be what you do after you've missed all the opportunities to do the "right thing" and that it means now you are having to do the "wrong thing" because you weren't paying attention, or took stupid risks.

But I guess I'm suppose to compromise on such an idealistic concept and just accept that we will try to achieve the same things with the whole "peace through greater threats of war", or so a Nobel Peace Prize winner suggests.

[DirkGently]

2. Still fighting the last war(s). nt

[DCKit]

3. Yeah, but they're sooooo HOT!

For the cost of one plane we could probably give every senior member of the Air Force a new Lamborghini to ease their mid-life crisis.

Would that be an adequate prescription for what ails them?

[Poll_Blind]

5. We're still giving 20 of those planes to Israel FREE even though they rejected the settlement deal.

We're giving them to the Israelis at 20 for $2.75 Billion, a substantial price cut (compared to the price quoted in your OP) from what we charge the Brits for them. And after reducing the price, they still don't have to pay it, the price cut just means the whole shipment can be covered by an annual U.S. defense grant of $3 billion.

PB