US Navy Admiral Questions Expensive Stealth Platforms

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Navy Admiral Questions Expensive Stealth Platforms

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday July 31, 2012 @02:10PM from the doesn't-see-them-being-useful dept.

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."

21 of 490 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Cut military spending. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-31 14:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Cut military spending. by Darkness404 · 2012-07-31 14:23 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Exactly. We need diplomacy, not bombs. We need to stop trying to be the world's "policeman", stop propping up dictators, stop propping up the rebels to take down the dictators we earlier propped up, and slash military spending. Consider Switzerland, for example.
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
2. Re:Cut military spending. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-31 14:27 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Awkward moment when even the military is calling out excessive military spending
3. Re:Cut military spending. by 0123456 · 2012-07-31 14:48 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Many of those countries 'use you as a proxy army' because the US government didn't want those countries to be military competitors post-WW2. While that may have been a sensible policy, you can hardly blame them for something the US government itself encouraged.
4. Re:Cut military spending. by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-07-31 15:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Your average street cop isn't out there to protect you, they are out there to serve the interests of the government.
  
  I beg to differ
  
  The average stret cop isn't out there to serve the interests of the government - rather, his or her main interest is to serve herself / himself
  
  As for secondary interests, maybe for local business concerns or drug lords, or whoever can pull the right strings for the local street beat cops
  
  --
  Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
5. Re:Cut military spending. by DesScorp · 2012-07-31 17:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Exactly. We need diplomacy, not bombs.
  
  This is stupid beyond words. We HAVE diplomacy, and always try diplomacy first, Democrat or Republican in office. Further, this kind of thinking completely ignores the fact that the US has intractable enemies that won't be swayed from their national interests by any amount of diplomacy. Russia is always going to see the US as an adversary. China is always going to see the US as an adversary. Various Middle Eastern and Asian countries are the same. No amount of diplomacy is going to stop Russia and China from blocking UN support for freedom movements in countries with rulers they support. No amount of diplomacy is going to stop Putin's Russia from trying to reassert supremacy over their former satellites in East Europe. No amount of diplomacy is going to stop China from trying to claim all of the islands, oil fields, and shipping lanes in the South China Sea.
  Get your head out of the sand. Everyone here... myself included... agrees that we need a smaller military. But "diplomacy not bombs" is hippy-ish stupidity. Try diplomacy first. If that doesn't work, then you'd damn well better have the bombs.
  
  --
  Life is hard, and the world is cruel
6. Re:Cut military spending. by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-07-31 19:39 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Really? What has diplomacy EVER solved?
  Not getting nuked during Cold War was a fairly nice achievement, if you ask me.
7. Re:Cut military spending. by AmiMoJo · 2012-07-31 21:48 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  his is stupid beyond words. We HAVE diplomacy, and always try diplomacy first, Democrat or Republican in office.
  One of the main criticisms of the Iraq invasion is that you didn't give weapons inspectors time to do their work (and surprise surprise it turned out their failure to find any weapons was because there were not any), and did not exhaust diplomatic options. Not only did you fail to properly negotiate with Iraq, you failed to properly negotiate with the UN and started the war on dubious legal ground.
  
  Further, this kind of thinking completely ignores the fact that the US has intractable enemies that won't be swayed from their national interests by any amount of diplomacy.
  
  We used to think that about the IRA, but when we finally stopped fighting them and actually sat down and worked it out the situation was resolved. Afghanistan looks like it will be the same, with peace ultimately depending on a negotiated resolution with the Taliban.
  
  Russia is always going to see the US as an adversary. China is always going to see the US as an adversary.
  If the US were not trying to Team America World Police I think you would find their attitudes towards you quickly soften. Saying "never" is almost stupid beyond words when you look at how many countries have reconciled. How about Britain and the US? Or Japan and South Korea? France and Germany?
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
8. Re:Cut military spending. by gtall · 2012-07-31 22:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Revisionism isn't helpful. In Iraq, the U.S. removed a dictator who prevented the majority Shi'ites from living in a democracy. They may not have one yet but at least now they have a chance. And Saddam was another war waiting to happen, the only reason it didn't from he or his sons is because the U.S. spent 10 years and a lot of money making sure he couldn't rearm enough to start one. When it became clear, he or his sons were going to be a perpetual threat, the U.S. took him out.
  The IRA was only brought to the bargaining table after it was rammed into their thick heads they couldn't win. That took a lot head-bashing to get them to that point. And if they had succeeded, they'd have started in on Ireland because the IRA was a bunch of socialists on a mission to unify the island under their direct control.
  Britain and the U.S. fought it out, then reconciled, Japan and S. Korea are not reconciled, they simply have decided not to fight it out...yet. Japan recently claimed some islands that S. Korea thinks are theirs, and S.Korea halted progress on a defense pact over the issue. France and Germany only reconciled after Germany was defeated and France had nothing left with which to continue the fight. The U.S. made them reconcile by liberating France and defeating Germany.
  Putin's Russia will never reconcile with the West simply because he wants to create another Stalinist state, but one he thinks can be run efficiently. The whole problem with the U.S. and Russia over Syria is because if the West succeeds in forcing the government there out, then Putin is worried he'll look like the petty dictator he really is and the West might attempt to force him out as well. His methods for keeping power are not all that dissimilar to Assad's and he'll be calling out the military should there ever be a popular groundswell of opposition to him. You can take the man out of the KGB but you cannot take the KGB out of the man.
  Islam will never reconcile with the West either either. The West believes in democracy where power comes from the people. Islam believes that power comes from Allah. You can see it starting to reassert it's political basis in Turkey. Erdogan cannot stop himself from attempting the slow Islamization of Turkey's political landscape. Give it another 10 years and there won't be any democracy left in Turkey.
  China is busy expanding into anything they think they can grab. There's no accommodating them unless by that you mean acquiescing to whatever their demands are this year. A single party system has no bounds stopping it from becoming a major headache.
And by 'controversy', I think they mean ... by pipedwho · 2012-07-31 14:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

'interfere with the military industrial complex gravy train'.
How about... by Darkness404 · 2012-07-31 14:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
The scale is totally different nowadays.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-31 14:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
1. Re:The scale is totally different nowadays.... by ColdWetDog · 2012-07-31 15:03 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  Those are called drones (and cruise missiles which really are a form of drone). The idea is that meatbags don't get to see the action up close. That's for the video gear.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I've met Admiral Greenert by HangingChad · 2012-07-31 14:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

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
Re:Nonsense... it is 100% effective by thesandbender · 2012-07-31 14:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
It's the defence contractors... by sydbarrett74 · 2012-07-31 15:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

...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
Re:Next 17 countries combined. by nedlohs · 2012-07-31 15:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

What sort of moron wants a fair fight if they can have an advantage?
Diplomacy does not always work by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-07-31 15:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 !
1. Re:Diplomacy does not always work by couchslug · 2012-07-31 17:11 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Bankrupting yourself building inappropriate sticks isn't "playing it safe", it's pork.
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
2. Re:Diplomacy does not always work by Dynetrekk · 2012-07-31 21:24 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You guys already have a stick that's as big as everyone else's combined. How big do you really need it to be?
  You can't be too rich, too thin, or have a too big stick.
Re:NObama 2012 by Black+Parrot · 2012-07-31 16:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

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