Is the F-22 really dead?

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 08:11:53 AM MDT

Here's the deal. Yesterday, Secretary Gates announced "cuts" made to the US military budget, which put a few weapons programs onto the cutting-room floor:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates' proposed budget would cut back some of the industry's largest deals, from a big upgrade of Army fighting units to contracts for new cargo planes and stealth destroyers.

Gates said Monday the Pentagon's weapons strategy will focus on equipment that can be used against the insurgencies and irregular threats faced in places like Afghanistan, rather than older programs designed for conventional wars. He also expressed skepticism over some programs with newer, yet unproven technology, like elements of the plan to build a shield from missile attacks.

The big news is that the budget includes a phase-out for the F-22, the world's most technologically advanced -- and, at just over $361 million per -- the most expensive fighter jet ever.

The LA Times calls the budget "just about right." Matt Duss says "Gates' recommendations are an important...move towards a responsible re-balancing of America's defense spending priorities." Noah Shachtman calls Gates' proposals, "the most sweeping overhaul of America's arsenal -- and of the Pentagon's budget -- in decades," lauding the Pentagon's moves towards programs that "concentrate on the dirty, irregular wars America is actually in" and touts the Secretary for "trying to shake the defense establishment free of the Cold War."

Well...for starters, the Pentagon's budget isn't being "cut." It's being increased by about forty billion. The "cuts" bandied about by the press and the administration are really cuts to the proposed increases. So, by "cutting," they mean "increasing less."

And don't get me started on the F-22. Yes, I think it's a good idea to phase out the plane. While Black Hawk Down author Michal Bowden's paen to the fighter jet makes it sound as if the existence of the American Empire hinges on the 60 planes Gates yesterday announced we won't be building, it's likely the nation's security would be better served by cheaper, "more austere" planes "tailored to the missions that actually win wars." Not to mention that the F-22 has yet to fly a combat mission, currently useless in any combat zone where there's an overabundance of radio signals. You know, like...well...everywhere.

And while Montana "boosters" are ruing Gates' decision to scrap the 60 F-22s, warning whoever they can pigeonhole that jobs! will! be! lost! at places like Summit Aeronautics in Helena, it turns out those claims are...er...not exactly true. It was only a year ago that the industry was crying over a labor shortage...and it's not as if the Pentagon has suddenly halted production of all its planes. Quite the reverse: Gates announced that we're doubling down on the F-35, the bomber/strike version of the F-22, and built by the same manufacturer, Lockheed Martin. Likely the jobs lost to the F-22 will be picked up by the near endless orders for the Pentagon's other planes.

(Incidentally, Lockheed Martin's stock rose by about nine percent immediately following Gates' comments yesterday on the Pentagon's new priorities.)

And...the F-22 isn't really dead! HuffPo blogger Chris Kelly points out that the 2009 budget still contains money to build the last four F-22s we've contracted...but leaves the door open for the budget presented in 2010 to buy more of the advanced fighter jets! Or, as aerospace analyst Richard Aboulafia commented, it was "just enough of a tactical victory to keep the F-22 going and allow political pressure to be brought to bear." That is, Lockheed Martin's lobbying corps will have a year to focus on Congress to get those 60 planes built.

So, yeah. I'm not sure I'd call this a "victory" of any sorts, especially of government over wasteful spending and big, corporate boondoggles.

Break out the tin foil: military plan for buying up prominent bloggers!

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 16:36:42 PM MDT

One faction sees blogs as security risks, and a collective waste of troops' time. The other (which includes top officers, like Gen. David Petraeus and Lt. Gen. William Caldwell) considers blogs to be a valuable source of information, and a way for ordinary troops to shape opinions, both at home and abroad.

This 2006 report for the Joint Special Operations University, "Blogs and Military Information Strategy," offers a third approach -- co-opting bloggers, or even putting them on the payroll. "Hiring a block of bloggers to verbally attack a specific person or promote a specific message may be worth considering," write the report's co-authors, James Kinniburgh and Dororthy Denning.

Hmmm...a "block of bloggers verbally attacking...or promoting a specific message..."? Like say, I dunno, a frothing riot over an advertisement? In a newspaper? And wouldn't it be yummy if "US government interests" coalesced with a general's presidential ambitions?

It's bad enough that some in the military think they decide what's the "interest" of the "US government" is, never mind the danger that using media this way might - just might -- actually be serving personal ambition over national interest.

Whoo-wheew, these are the kind of things you think about if you lived under the Bush administration. Plus I know from first-hand experience bloggers are pretty much easily bought.