The F-22 & Choices

It increasingly looks like the F-22 will be saved, as the Senate Armed Services Committee markup of the FY2010 Defense Authorization Bill provided funding for seven more fighters. The Washington Times ran an op-ed that calls on Congress to save the F-22 program. It features some common mistakes and misguided warnings.

Debate has been vigorous, but the F-22 line enjoys bipartisan support and the availability of reasonable, unobligated funding options in fiscal 2010 and the possibility of production in fiscal 2011

What funding options are the authors talking about? They've cried foul when other programs are in danger of being cut (see here and here), so what exactly are they proposing we get rid of?

The continuing development of advanced fighters and proliferation of surface-to-air missile systems abroad is increasingly placing American air superiority in question

This is an interesting statement. What we have to consider is that due to the F-22's runaway costs, the Air Force has reduced pilot's training to only about 10-12 hours a month. The surest way to put US air superiority in question is to rob our pilots of training, rather than procure more of the F-22.

Existing fourth generation fighters from China and Russia can already challenge our legacy platforms. Their fifth generation aircraft will be even more formidable

Again, why are we naturally assuming that we are going to face China or Russia in an imminent total war? Our fourth generation fighters are miles ahead of anything coming out of China or Russia. And if we procure more of the F-35 (which I don't think is a great air craft either, but it is much better than the F-22), then that should be more than enough to deal with threats from across the spectrum. Having an imagined war with China or Russia drive our defense budget is a recipe for disaster. Do we want more conventional funding or more counterinsurgency funding? The hawks can't have it both ways.