Skip to main content

This is how you pad your resume to become a defense industry lobbyist when you retire

From the Christian Science Monitor:

WASHINGTON - A top Air Force general, crossing swords with Pentagon leadership, says a proposed cap on the number of F-22 stealth fighters puts America at "high risk" of compromising military strategy.

In a June 9 letter to a senator, Gen. John Corley, commander of the Air Force's Air Combat Command, wrote: "In my opinion, a fleet of 187 F-22s puts execution of our current national military strategy at high risk in the near to mid term." General Corley's letter, obtained by the Monitor Thursday, came in response to a query from Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R) of Georgia, where parts of the F-22 Raptor are built.

The 187 cap is the symbolic centerpiece of Defense Secretary Robert Gates's budget request, which aims to rein in defense procurement costs. He has said it is time to wrap up the program to buy the $140 million-a-copy plane.

The Air Force had long disagreed, calling for as many as 381 planes as recently as last year, in apparent defiance of Mr. Gates. The Defense Secretary fired the Air Force's two top leaders last year, largely over the issue.

The new Air Force chief of staff, Gen. Norton "Norty" Schwartz, is on board with Gates's position, publicly stating his support for ending the program in a newspaper oped in April. "The time has come to move on," General Schwartz and Air Force Secretary Michael Donley wrote.

But General Corley, in his letter, wrote that "there are no studies" yet to justify the figure of 187. Even 250 F-22s would put the nation at "moderate risk," Corley wrote, citing analysis by his command.


Of course, Genearl Corley also fails to mention that there are no studies justifying the 381 number, either. Nor does the Air Force the F-22 was expected to counter actually still exist.

But look for another 20 F-22s to be added back into the defense budget through various Congressional maneuvers, bringing our total defense spending up to at least a 6-8% increase over last year.

Comments

Anonymous said…
"Of course, Genearl Corley also fails to mention that there are no studies justifying the 381 number, either. "

fact or suposition on your part?

The Air Force Brass didn't throw darts at a dart board to come up with 381.
Curiously, anon--and you must be new to reading my material--if there are any studies they have never been released to the public nor cited at budget hearings within the past 15 years. I went back that far looking.

If you really think that quantities of larger weapons systems ordered is completely dependent upon operational and tactical projections, and does not include a huge, expansive political component, then you really have not been paying attention.
Anonymous said…
I was thinking along the lines of quadrenial defense review.

The Pols and the Brass and the Eggheads sit down and think, what military challenges are we likely to face, what capabilities do we need to prevail?
In the old days it was something like fight the Russins in Europe, fight an insurgancy or two in south america and handle a peacekeeping/disaster relief in africa...

From that they divine the force structure needed.
X actve fighter ssquadrens
Y reserve fighter squadrens
Z training squadrens
and so on.

so no, no one started a study labeled "How many F-22's should the Air Force buy". What you will find is studies on number of squadrons of fighter/attack aircraft needed to support the mission, along with life cycle studies of current aircraft inventory and planned purchases.

The number 381 was the result of military, scientific and engineerinf analysis, combined with politics.

the 187 is pure politics. picked soley based on a dollar figure, with no mission planning or worse some very cynical, unilateral planning ("hey were not realy going to defend Tiawan, so we can cut our plane order in half")

Popular posts from this blog

Comment Rescue (?) and child-related gun violence in Delaware

In my post about the idiotic over-reaction to a New Jersey 10-year-old posing with his new squirrel rifle , Dana Garrett left me this response: One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice. OK, Dana, let's talk facts. According to the Children's Defense Fund , which is itself only querying the CDCP data base, fewer than 10 children/teens were killed per year in Delaw

With apologies to Hube: dopey WNJ comments of the week

(Well, Hube, at least I'm pulling out Facebook comments and not poaching on your preserve in the Letters.) You will all remember the case this week of the photo of the young man posing with the .22LR squirrel rifle that his Dad got him for his birthday with resulted in Family Services and the local police attempting to search his house.  The story itself is a travesty since neither the father nor the boy had done anything remotely illegal (and check out the picture for how careful the son is being not to have his finger inside the trigger guard when the photo was taken). But the incident is chiefly important for revealing in the Comments Section--within Delaware--the fact that many backers of "common sense gun laws" really do have the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights and eventual outright confiscation of all privately held firearms as their objective: Let's run that by again: Elliot Jacobson says, This instance is not a case of a father bonding with h

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?