Monday - September 27, 2004
"Fruitcake in the Pentagon"
I've paraphrased this title from an excellent
article in the September 2004 Proceedings. I wish I had written this article.
Unfortunately, it's not on line yet. I hope it will be soon because it is
brilliant. The basic premise is to
question why we're buying newer fighter aircraft. When was the last time one of
our aircraft was shot down? In the Reagan administration an A-6 or two were
downed, and in the first Persian Gulf War we lost a few aircraft, mostly the
useless AV-8B Harriers, OV-10D Broncos both of which instantly were relegated to
severely limited roles, and the OV-10D was blessedly retired. We lost a few
other aircraft, but never was our hold on air superiority challenged even
remotely.
The author, Captain T. LaMar Willis, USN(Ret), an
old A-6 aircrewman which of course puts him in the category of being a good guy,
points out that we have smart bullets (or bombs) why do we need a smart gun (or
planes)? In fact he points out that one of our best platforms right now is the
50 year old B-52, because it carries a lot of smart
bombs.
So why do we need small
aircraft, let alone new small aircraft? It's a paradigm shift in thinking that
has been in the corners of my brain, but thanks to the good Captain are now
illuminated and shining brightly on our mindless pursuit of more and more
expensive aircraft.
Don't get me wrong,
we need to keep getting better, but this is almost entirely a factor of
avionics, not airframes. This is proven by the new lease on life that the B-52
has been given by smart bombs.
For
example, the latest air superiority fighter to come our way has been in the
works for 15 years and will cost $140,000,000 per copy. Where are the
accountants? What can't be done by remotely piloted vehicles can still be done
with current airframes, and extending their lives won't cost $140M
each.
There is an excellent book, "The
Pentagon Paradox" that examines the procurement of the F-16 and the F/A-18 and
how the original idea of a simple, low cost, light weight fighter was
transformed by the procurement process and misguided staff officers and
bureaucrats into an increasingly expensive and bloated platform. I have to say
that it looks like we've learned
nothing.
The MV-22 has been in the
works for even longer. In 1986 the manufacturer toured my power plant site in
El Toro telling me that this new aircraft would be in the fleet in a year or
two. I think we need the MV-22 for increased troop mobility, but I don't think
the procurement process is working.
We
take too long to buy things, we make them too big and too expensive, and we get
stuck in a mode of buying things that aren't very
useful.
But with so much money invested
in the new strike fighter aircraft, it will take a big man to cancel it.
Cheney cancelled the P-4 and the A-12, both navy platforms that were desperately
needed at the time, but no one ever seems to cancel Air Force platforms.
It's frustrating to me to see so many
dollars sunk into such an aircraft that gives us no increased
capability.
Go Back to the Start, Do Not Collect $200 Send me your two cents
|
