Gates's defense deja vu

I'm not clear on why the author described the F-22 as "not particularly impressive". Everything I have read or viewed about this aircraft indicates that nothing flies that can go toe to toe with it. Not even close! Over the Bering Strait the Russians turn tail as soon as they realize that aircraft we have deployed to counter their attempts at penetrating our airspace is the Raptor.

I would submit that if the cost of avoiding a confrontation with an adversarial air force is the cost of a number of well-placed squadrons of F-22's its well worth that cost. Unless someone can offer specifics as to why the F-22 is "not particularly impressive," I would think it is well worth the admittedly expensive investment.

The F-35 does not utilize the same power plant as the F-22 and it's performance profile, although well worth the investment, is not in the same ballpark as the Raptor's. The fact is, we will sell the F-35 to our allies in addition to being our premier multi-role tactical aircraft. It will pay for itself. It is also badly needed by both the USAF and USN for different reasons. However, it will not be an air superiority aircraft unless it flies against older versions of our opponents current air superiority forces.

I'm not advocating going out and buying multiple air wings of Raptors in the next fiscal year. However, the technological advances we make over time can be more easily assessed and implemented on an active duty aircraft that can be upgraded over its lifecycle vice returning to the drawing board to re-design entire new models of air superiority aircraft.

We should continue to purchase the Raptor over a time line that will allow continuing development of new technologies while keeping the USAF the supreme air force on the planet.

Sec'y Gates was hired by President Obama to do just what he is doing with DOD budget and defense procurement. Hard choices must be made. The very expensive F-22 is a two generation jump in tactical aircraft technology that affords the USAF complete superiority in the air. That cost is a result of that very technology. It would be foolhardy to discontinue a program that affords the USAF such a complete advantage.

spend generously to defend against less -- not more -- likely threats (e.g., missile defense).

Are you crazy? Missile technology (particularly ballistic missile technology) has become so cheap and widespread that even impoverished, Stalinesque societies like North Korea can build them. At the same time, you see the Chinese doing things like buying up missiles that could be used to counter US carrier groups in the advent of a war over Taiwan, and many other regimes rushing to get their hands on this type of thing.

That makes Missile Defense absolutely crucial in the 21st century to American security. If we can develop solid ABM, then all the potential enemies with missile technology will have to resort to other methods of assault, none of which are as cheap or versatile. The Iranians, for example, might be able to build missiles to carry nuclear warheads, but it is much less likely that they can build long-range bombers if ABM makes missile technology much less valuable.

An entirely different problem with missile defense is that it undermines Mutually Assured Destruction. A second order effect could be a very expensive arms race, both in terms of ABM defensive shields, and arsenals to penetrate those shields.

First, MAD is a joke of a strategy. The only reason we consider it viable is because we got lucky during the Cold War; there are at least 8 openly revealed incidents (including "Able Archer" and others) where the US and Soviets almost came to a nuclear exchange. That's not counting any un-revealed instances. I don't particularly want to leave US security in the hands of luck, particularly with ballistic missile technology getting better, cheaper, and more widespread.

Second, that arms race is good from the US point of view. We ,and probably the other "responsible" nuclear states, can afford to build things like bomber fleets, which can be called back at the last minute from strikes (meaning there's more control). Many of the parties we're concerned about - the North Koreans, the Iranians, among others - don't have the technology, skill base, industry, and so forth to build that kind of thing. Drastically weakening the viability of missile-delivered nukes for these states means that there is less of an incentive to get a serious nuclear deterrent, slowing proliferation.

Of course, we could always share/sell that technology, could we not?

I'm all for it. I'd spread ABM technology as fast and widespread as possible, for the reasons I listed above. At the same time, of course, I'd put massive efforts into building a major bomber fleet, as well as other methods (like subs).