One might think that if one believed it appropriate to spend federal money just to create jobs that jobs for Lockheed Martin workers would be at least as worthy of creation as jobs for community organizers and social workers. It could be argued as well that investing in long-term American Air Supremacy is far more likely to contribute to the welfare of the nation than funding uneconomic energy projects or pouring more dollars into Amtrak. Of course, as decisions on spending priorities are made, it isn’t very likely that Barack Obama is going to look at it that way.
In the Atlantic, Mark Bowden discusses the meaning and consequences of the probable termination of F-22 purchases.
[US] complete dominance is eroding. Some foreign-built fighters can now match or best the Fâ€‘15 in aerial combat, and given the changing nature of the threats our country is facing and the dizzying costs of maintaining our advantage, America is choosing to give up some of the edge weâ€™ve long enjoyed, rather than pay the price to preserve it. The next great fighter, the Fâ€‘22 Raptor, is every bit as much a marvel today as the Fâ€‘15 was 25 years ago, and if we produced the F-22 in sufficient numbers we could move the goalposts out of reach again. But we are building fewer than a third of the number needed to replace the older fighters in service. After losing hope of upgrading the whole Fâ€‘15 fleet, the Air Force requested 381 Fâ€‘22s, the minimum number that independent analysts said it needs to retain its current edge. Congress is buying 183, and has authorized the manufacture of parts for 20 more at the front end of the production line, enough to at least keep it working until President Obama decides whether or not to continue building F-22s. Like so many presidential dilemmas, itâ€™s a Scylla-and-Charybdis choice: a decision to save money and not build more would deliver a severe blow to a sprawling and vital U.S. industry at a time when the nation is mired in recession. And once the production line for the F-22 begins to shut down, restarting it will not be easy or cheap, even in reaction to a new threat. Each plane consists of about 1,000 parts, manufactured in 44 states, and because of the elaborate network of highly specialized subcontractors needed to fashion its unique airframe and avionics, assembling one F-22 can take as long as three years. Modern aerial wars are usually over in days, if not hours. Once those 183 to 203 new Raptors are built, they will have to do. Our end of the fight will still be borne primarily by the current fleet of aged Fâ€‘15s.
When Obama unveiled his national-security team in December, he remarked that he intended â€œto maintain the strongest military on the planet.â€ That goal will continue to require the biggest bill in the world, but the portion that bought aerial dominance for so long may have become too dear. …
The Air Force fears that the dominance of U.S. airpower has been so complete for so long that it is taken for granted. The ability of the United States to own the skies over any battlefield has transformed the way we fight. The last American soldier killed on the ground by an enemy air attack died in Korea, on April 15, 1953.
Russia, China, Iran, India, North Korea, Pakistan, and others are now flying fourth-generation fighters with avionics that match or exceed the Fâ€‘15â€™s. Ideally, from the standpoint of the U.S. Air Force, the Fâ€‘22 would gradually replace most of the Fâ€‘15s in the U.S. fleet over the next 15 years, and two or three more generations of American pilots, soldiers, and marines would fight without worrying about attacks from the sky. But that isnâ€™t going to happen.
â€œIt means a step down from air dominance,â€ Richard Aboulafia, an air-warfare analyst for the Teal Group, which conducts assessments for the defense industry, told me. â€œThe decision not to replace the Fâ€‘15 fleet with the Fâ€‘22 ultimately means that we will accept air casualties. We will lose more pilots. We will still achieve air superiority, but we will get hurt achieving it.â€