|
|||
I'm a little apalled by the emphasis on captital acquisition. Experience shows that training makes much more difference, and yet most of what's listed here is things they're going to buy. They do say that they fully funded training and spare parts; that said, I'm a little concerned over "spare parts" because traditionally the Pentagon has not spent enough on that. Unlike Sean, I think the Osprey is a complete waste of money and I think they should cancel the program; it's an example of one which has hung on not because the military really needs it, but because of where it will be built and who will get paid. I'm not sure I understand the logic behind adding one extra destroyer to the Navy; that looks to me more like a payoff for someone whose district includes a shipyard. I also note no mention whatever of base closings, despite the fact that the Pentagon has been pleading for that for a long time. It mentions just in passing full funding for the Crusader, without mentioning what it is. The Crusader is a new generation self-propelled artillery system. There's been a crying need for a new artillery piece for years. In the Gulf War, our artillery was out-ranged by the Iraqi artillery; that's not acceptable. So I'm glad to see that they're proceeding with this system. What I'm most scandalized by is that they are buying 13 F-22's for a staggering $200 million each. The Air Force has got to stop making their jets out of platinum. That price is preposterous; I don't care how good those things are, they're not worth that much money. There comes a time the Air Force is no longer going to be permitted to pack every single toy they can think of into each jet; when they are that expensive you simply can't afford to buy enough of them. Which would be better to have? 1 F-22 or 6 F-16's? The F-16's would cost less (since they cost $30 million each). The Joint Strike Fighter project was just approved and will be given to Lockheed-Martin; they are expected to cost about $40 million each, and the reason they'll be in that price ballpark even though having about the same features as the F-22 is because of economy of scale. The Air Force and Navy are both going to use it, and so will several European nations. As a result they'll be able to build enough of them to get the per-unit cost down. The reason those F-22's are going to cost so much is because they're going to be built by hand, because the quantities are so small. It is not practical to deploy such a small number of a given kind of jet because it will require its own supply chain. The work involved in supporting 200 jets of a given kind in combat is only perhaps three times what would be needed to support 20 of them, just because of the supply problems. And that's another place where the F-16 has it all over the F-22: it uses the same engine as the F-15 and has many other parts in common, and with the number of them we already have the supply chain is already in place. I think that this F-22 acquisition is another political deal; some congressman was going to get massacred if none at all were bought. But $2.6 billion is quite a consolation prize, you must admit. (discuss) |
|||
