Slashdot Mirror
US Navy Admiral Questions Expensive Stealth Platforms
Trepidity writes "United States Navy Admiral and Chief of Naval Operations Jonathan Greenert stirred a controversy by questioning much of the thinking underlying current U.S. defense technology. He argues that stealth technology is unlikely to retain its usefulness much into the future, and so focus should switch towards standoff weapons. In addition, he criticizes the focus on expensive all-in-one platforms such as the F-35 fighter, arguing for a payload-centric, flexible approach he compares to trucks rather than luxury cars."
We spend entirely too much money on our military. We are so far ahead of the next country in terms of dollars spent it's not even close. We keep bases all around the world, protecting everybody, so that they don't have to spend their own money on a military and instead can spend it domestically. It needs to end. It's no longer 1955.
'interfere with the military industrial complex gravy train'.
How about trying to maintain a foreign policy that encourages peace and free trade? I'm sure that will keep us much safer and will cost us less. But instead we spend our billions on arms and look for conflicts to use them in...
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
During WWII, they cranked planes out by the 1,000's if not 10's of 1,000's. Nowadays, the number of high performance jets is measured in the hundreds. If there were to be a conflict, due to the complexity of today's aircraft, there is no way to crank out new aircraft by the 1,000's or hundreds or even tens. There may certainly be a need for a much simpler aircraft that can be easily mass produced in significant quantities.
And his logic is hard to fault. He pointed to the B-52 as an example of a flexible weapons platform that had a wide variety of uses that didn't require stealth technology compared to the limited usefulness of the F-117.
Solid, reliable and flexible is more important than stealth, which was designed for a war we're likely never going to fight.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
The F-22 is ultimately meant to protect our AWACS planes. If the AWACS are taking out, the USAF loses their view of the airspace and controlling it becomes much more difficult. The F-22 are meant to loiter a distance away from the AWACS and take their targeting instructions from them. The enemy aircraft get popped and if it's done right the F-22 are still hidden.
If they know its going to be a true dog fight, they're going to send in the F-15s which have proven time and again that it can hold it's own (b/c despite their size, they were designed to be close in knife fighters). The F-15's won't always maintain this superiority and newer Mig's and Sukohi's have closed much or all of the gap... but it's still one of the best out their.
Anyway, using a ground based analogy... the F-22 is meant to a sniper, supporting the F-15's and F/A-18's are the grunts who will be doing the close in work.
People have been arguing over the best value in military equipment for standing armies for the better part of 2 centuries, this isn't anything new.
And no one is right. General purpose versatile weapons that are useful against relatively weak powers if the next war you fight is against a relatively weak power, but you can't anticipate which one, where specialized equipment is useful against a specific target when you know who you're fighting.
If you could predict the future and know what enemy you'd have to fight next, and what weapons you'd want for that war then sure, you could reasonably guess what platforms you want, or what payloads you want. His view is that the US can innovate on those things separately fast enough to adapt to any new threat, he might be right of course, but probably for relatively low involvement conflicts he's wrong, and knowing the future mix is tough.
The specific criticism of stealth isn't anything new. By the time you ever have to fight anyone important they'll probably be able to see stealth aircraft so you're not getting much, on the other hand if you have to go into Syria by the end of the month stealth could payoff. Transferring research to longer range weapons (standoff weapons in his parlance) isn't an inherently bad idea, but of course the longer a munition has to travel the easier it is to disrupt or intercept so you could spend a lot of research dollars on something that will just fail to deliver. Electromagnetically launched weapons probably have a place, but that's only one piece of a large puzzle.
Maintaining a large military does not help the country. Why do you think 9/11 happened? It was because the US interfered in the Middle East. Its no accident that terrorist attacks haven't happened in neutral Switzerland. Peace is never won through bombs, it isn't won by propping up dictators, its won through diplomacy, its won through free trade and honesty. War breeds war.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
...who want to shove this stuff down the armed forces' throats. The generals and admirals themselves say they don't want the kit, but the lobbyists and aerospace companies insist on making their billions or even trillions of dollars; and the members of Congress want their kickbacks and 'campaign contributions'.
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
What sort of moron wants a fair fight if they can have an advantage?
We need diplomacy, not bombs.
In an ideal world, diplomacy should lead the way
Unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world
In this world we live in, talking softly while carrying a big stick is still the most practical way of doing things
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Wise people prefer to win battles without fighting.
Very often that involves:
1) bringing guns or MOABs to knife fights
2) giving the loser hope of survival if they surrender[1], typically with some way of saving face.
[1] If you are known to never take prisoners or known to treat prisoners badly, more of your enemies will fight to the bitter end.
Will Hussein listen to his OWN generals? Hell no.
What *actually* happens, as you would know if you've been following the current case of the M-1 and a hundred like it before, is that the Pentagon decides that they don't want to spend their money on something that they don't think will help them accomplish their mission, and the the defense contractors who will lose funding run screaming to their congresscritter, who the goes screaming to the public that the {commies,terrorists,aliens} will win if the Pentagon is not allowed to spend all those billions of dollars in their district, so Congress puts in the defense budget even though the Pentagon doesn't want it.
'Cause we got to keep that pork flowing.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Why is the owner of the means of production unjustified in having ownership of those produced? He put his capital at risk to start it up, and he fairly compensates people for their labor. They are neither forced into working for him, nor prevented from leaving at their leisure (in the US, at least) if they do not feel that they are fairly compensated. They also have the ability to come up with a new product or improved process to become the next owner themselves.
Marxism is the greatest bastion of those too lazy to innovate and care for themselves. It may look nice in paper, but it failed in the USSR, it failed in Cuba, and it's failing the Chinese as we speak, despite the claims of such exalted "intellectuals" as Elizabeth "I'm a Cherokee!" Warren. IIRC, marxism (lower case 'm' intended in a derogatory manner) calls for 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'...how many college marxists actually believe that? How many would be willing to apply that to their grading system? Probably only those failing.
And just because I can't resist violating Godwin's Law when answering a commie...who has killed more people, Hitler's Nazis or Marx's ideologues? The Cambodian killing fields, Stalin's purges, Chairman Mao's purges. There is more blood, hate, intolerance and exploitation under the Marxist ideology than anything else. The Robespierre period of the French Revolution is on a much smaller scale, as is wahhabi-ism...those are the two closest competitors I can think of.
All that being said, if you are a US citizen, the first amendment does guarantee your right to have and espouse completely stupid opinion, as it guarantees my right to ridicule you mercilessly for having said opinion. Regardless, please keep your marxism to yourself and stop trying to spread its hatred, thanks...the tens of millions of people who have died under its thumb will thank you.
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis hebes