Looking at the New Models

My dad used to pore over the new car ads every Fall and see what marvels Detroit was bringing out for the new model year. Most of the fun was in the looking, but every 3-4 years he would actually buy a new car and we would proudly motor through town enjoying the newest advances like air conditioning, seat belts, and power door locks. Necessity did underlie the ritual, though, because a car is a necessity in America and they do wear out at some point.

The same is true of military weapons systems and much of our equipment, big and small, is wearing out from age and usage in multiple wars over the last 20+ years. Here is an article by a defense analyst that focuses on the Air Force. Air supremacy is an absolute must in any conflict. If you don't have it, you lose - end of discussion. The F-22 was the designated successor to the F-15, which has given the U.S. air superiority since the late 1970s when it was introduced. The Obama Administration canceled the F-22 just when it was ready to go into mass production. The F-35 was designed to be a cheaper complement to the F-22. It is running into huge budget overruns. We need tankers to gas our aircraft in flight, but some of the KC-135s in the fleet are 50 years old and literally held together with duct tape and baling wire. It's not a pretty picture and if we get into a "hot" war with an adversary with a decent air force, it could be a real problem.

The Pentagon bears part of the responsibility. It tries to make combat aircraft the equivalent of Swiss Army knives with a gazillion different bells and whistles. This adds significantly to the development cost and often to a lessening of the aircraft's ability to perform any particular mission well. Even with tankers, the Pentagon has been dithering for years. As the article says, there are two perfectly serviceable models out there - just pick one!

Another part of the problem is Congress and the White House. Even though national defense is one of the critical Constitutional obligations of both branches, it doesn't generate the votes that pork does, so dollars that we should be spending on replacing old aircraft instead get spent on bridges to nowhere, handouts to favored constituents, etc.

Finally, we the voters who let politicians get away with this stuff are ultimately at fault. We got caught with our pants down at Pearl Harbor but, because of our oceans, still had a year to ramp up military production and ultimately defeat the Axis powers. With ballistic missiles, missile-launching subs, etc., the oceans no longer afford us the luxury of time. We need to be prudent on military spending, we need to insist on value, but in the end, when we send our children in harm's way, we need to give them the best equipment in the world and we need to win.

(Ed. note - the link I originally provided to this article, "The Air Force Needs a Serious Upgrade", linked to a subscriber-only page at The Wall Street Journal. If you are not a subscriber, google the headline and you will be able to find the entire article posted elsewhere. I apologize for the inconvenience.)