Having wondered what on earth Gates' rationale or reasoning is concerning deep-sixing the F-22 I stumble upon thorough article in Air Force Magazine that dwells on that very subject. The skinny seems to be that Gates is on a mission to reconfigure military acquisitions away from hi-tech platforms geared toward a conventional war theatre and towards more practical implementations in keeping with the wars we are fighting today. In short, Gates seems to be of the opinion that the US military has overkill capabilities [in particular apparently the USAF] viz an unlikely to happen conventional war against a China or something which is taking away needed resources for fighting the asymmetric little bastards we are engaged with presently. It's not clear whether this is a difficult trade-off he makes because of budgetary pressures or whether he believes this is the proper way forward regardless - understandably, he couldn't really just come out and say he's compromising America's long term strategic viability in order to save some cash.

But I suppose it doesn't matter why he's doing it, it's done all the same and the question is if it's a flawed and dangerous plan how flawed and dangerous is it? One thing for sure, it's a dramatic departure from American strategic posture of last fifty years - Gates is sticking his neck out a long way on this one - and I get the feeling from article referenced above that this is his baby [senate armed services committee can intercede - but would they?] and he's nursing it apparently in shadow of skeptical scowls from Joint Chiefs.

For starters, arguing against hi-tech platforms may prove difficult since the JSF is a hi-tech weapons platform - its survivability is entirely based on highly evolved sensor and radar capabilities - it most decidedly will not have the advanced flight characteristics of the F-22, so it will be all about cutting edge electronic systems, in the plane itself and its armaments, if it is to outclass the technologies most likely to be pitted against it. Gates' argument here seems to be that the F-35 will be more practical, more adaptable, just as survivable as the F-22 - but at half the cost, which is what he said today in press conference would be the case. To me that seems to assume an awful lot, not only as concerns costs [Gates talked today about not developing an alternative engine, which apparently it originally was supposed to do, because of costs - they really want to keep the costs down on this thing, which makes me suspicious - they're fixated on cost because that's how they defend getting rid of the F-22 - if the F-35 ends up costing in the neighbourhood of the F-22, Gates is going to be in some trouble explaining that] but also as concerns potential capabilities against likely to emerge technologies.

The other problem that comes to mind is - China, Russia et al obviously make assumption now that US not concerned about being prepared for conventional confrontation with them - I mean, that conclusion would depend on certain other developments, the US still has the most powerful military in the world by a fairly wide margin - but certain potential hostiles can realistically draw conclusion that the US is pulling back as far as global strategic posture goes - so the important question here is: how does that affect their postures? In other words, you show weakness, are you asking for trouble? And the next question would be: does Gates view this as an unavoidable show of weakness if he could speak honestly, or does he he see it as the smart play? I'm troubled by the potential answer to both those questions, in the latter because I see too many somewhat tenuous assumptions needing to be made in support of it, but in the former probably more so if the sincere answer is 'yes'.

The other dynamic to watch here is that Gates is rather seriously invested in this policy course - in other words, he's highly motivated to believe he's right - which in turn means he's highly motivated to believe he's right regardless of whether or not he actually is. I worry about that.

addendum: just watched Northrup Gruman video on the F-35's EO-DAS situational awareness and targeting system - it seems pretty god damn impressive - and it's clear this is the reason why they believe it doesn't matter that the F-35 can't match the better performance specs of the F-22. Still, it assumes effective counter measures will not be developed by opponents - I imagine their thinking is that EO-DAS is open ended, ie can efficiently and effectively be upgraded to adapt to any new developments by enemy forces - in essence they're saying [gambling?] that sophisticated electronic and digital systems governing stealth, detection, tracking, targeting, missile guidance etc now trump speed and agility when it comes to fighter planes. I have no idea how true that is or may prove to be - guess [hope] they do - but even though the people working on this plane obviously have a much more thorough understanding of things it nevertheless feels like a lot of critical assumptions being made here - after all, ten years from now America's air capabilities will be to a large extent utterly dependent on the F-35, so if it proves less than promised, somebody's got some 'splainin' to do.

"War is cruelty; you cannot refine it."

Reading about Sherman's march links in my mind with interview recently watched of former KGB agent in '80s saying the Soviet plan was always to let America destroy itself by encouraging in their native pursuits an ever closer embrace of liberalism and lives of ease - he mentions with disdainful amusement several times in course of ten minute interview myopic American parents sitting dumbly in front of their TVs getting fat while college professors sympathetic to socialism indoctrinate a whole generation of the naive, pampered offspring of these torpid TV watchers with an enervating utopianism. Oddly and then not so oddly this got me to thinking of Afghanistan and the soft ambitions of COIN, a strategy which seems doomed, by dreaming of a war without war, to end up settling for a victory without victory, illusions to appease a discomfited polity. From that musing it was a rather short step into the memory of recent article in Washington Post suggesting that terrorist mastermind KSM indeed was broken by enhanced interrogation techniques and gave up much useful information, was happy to do so - Politico points out that this looks like the CIA striking back at the Obama administration's decision to prosecute the CIA over its war on terror practices, a decision that seems to have no purpose other than to mollify or maybe more accurately reward Obama's liberal base who, after a tough few weeks of health care waffling from Dear Leader, need reassuring that the enlightenment he promised them will not be sidetracked by inconvenient realities.

War is cruelty, you can't refine it. Sherman wanted to crush the South; former Union general McClellan, who looked poised to beat Lincoln in the coming election, wanted to make peace with the secessionists. Who was right? History has judged Sherman a hero and McClellan an indecisive fop - but if you could keep names and outcomes hidden and ask the America of today which policy seemed best my guess is most would choose McClellan's.

These hints of ideas, glimmers of impressions, all tumbled together this morning as if by design - and as I wondered about whether it was just a case of me needing another cup of tea I opened a further page and read in the London Times that evidence has surfaced which seems to prove that the release of the Lockerbie bomber, jihadist trailblazer who had served a mere eight years of a life term, was indeed all about securing an oil deal with Libya. Pondering the future of the West one is left nursing a disquieting sense of unease.

["You're not under the impression I hope that this is the first time the West, as you like to say, has abandoned principles and the common weal for the sake of making money?""No, no, of course not. But the context is troubling, and context sometimes is everything."]

These questions continue to bother concerning the F-22 debate:

Why did mainstream media do such a poor job of analysing all sides of arguments for and against? Was it laziness on part of reporters - there was a gov't line which they simply accepted as true because they couldn't be bothered looking into the details - or maybe because advocates of F-35 had done such a good job of denigrating the F-22 that nobody bothered to question it? Did editors kill analysis 'cause they figured it was all too technical for most readers? Is this just more evidence of press bias favouring anything Obama wants to do?

Since from what I can see the F-35 quite clearly cannot substitute for the F-22 - it's not fast enough, it's not mobile enough, it's not stealthy enough - in face of evolving Russian/Chinese advancements in realm of denial of access technologies - better radar arrays, better targeting capabilities, long range SAMs - [not to mention improved Su-35] all developed in last twenty years in dire effort to counter marked US advantage in stealth technology - if all that is true and it does seem to be true, how does one possibly justify killing off the F-22? The only thing I can think of is that US military savants predict that regardless of current F-22 advantages over competitors continuing improvements in Russian/Chinese denial of access technology will negate those advantages within ten years thus rendering the F-22 too much money for too little ultimate gain. That may be a convincing argument - I dunno since no one to my knowledge ever made it - possibly Gates did in some speech I never read about - but all Obama ever said and all the MSM ever reported was that the F-22 was a relic of cold war thinking and the F-35 a more than capable replacement, two statements which are simply not accurate.

So I don't get it, some pieces of the puzzle have to be missing because otherwise it appears to me that Gates, who doesn't give any indication he's doing it under pressure from Obama, in tearing down the F-22 tears down one of the pillars of American power projection, domination of the airspace. Possibly it's a cunning decision based on sound judgments concerning the likely contours of a future battlefield, that air dominance is no longer an advantage America can count on given emerging technologies - that may make sense, it just troubles me that that is the only argument that seems to make sense and I never heard anyone make it! And, as I said before, it may be true that they have a justifiable confidence in their ability to jam Russian radar which would certainly mitigate some of the shortcomings of the F-35 - but again, I did not see that argument being made.

addendum: a quick look across net seems to suggest that Gates' prime objection to the F-22 is that it is of no use in the wars being fought now and I suppose by extension the wars most likely to be fought in the near future - which seems like an absolutely idiotic rationale - an argument so dumb that one has to believe there's more to it than that - hell, if all you're concerned about are present conflicts then current set of planes are fine, maybe add a few more attack helicopters and A-10s - and since the F-35 isn't even flying yet and won't be for another 3 years at best how does that make it relevant - why not just continue to build upgraded versions of F-15s and 16s? [there's a contradiction in F-35 reasoning here: logically one must believe future wars will not be like current wars in order to justify it ie you must assume countermeasures that make the F-35 a better option than an F-15 - but then you're entering denial of access technology that applies to conflicts the F-22 is better suited for than the F-35 - in other words the same reasoning that leads you to believe an F-35 is better than an F-15 also leads you to conclude the F-22 is better than the F-35]. The Navy can stop spending money altogether because god knows how long it will before the new LCS or Zumwalt class destroyer ever see action. Also tied to this weak rationale is USAF claim, which appears to be a directive from Gates, that 187 F-22s is a number within risk parameters - but Gates refuses to let anyone define what that 'risk' is - war with Iran? with China? a world war? Who the fuck knows! but rest assured we're within acceptable parameters of it whatever it is. The more you stare at this puzzle the less sense it makes.

Yes, of course, Gates could be simplifying his argument for public consumption - maybe a more convincing argument is reserved for beating down disgruntled USAF officers. Maybe it's all just an unavoidable result of budget concerns - but if that's the case, we should be having a thorough debate about the long term strategic consequences of such because China is definitely preparing for a war where air dominance is going to matter - so somebody's wrong here and it better not be us.

Apparently the guy, Carlo Kopp, who writes the blog I was referencing in my newest take on the F-22 is well known in the business and much hated by fans of the F-35 [entirely missing from the MSM discussion of the F-22 issue was the existence of two professional and well informed camps arguing with some passion the pros and cons - judging from MSM coverage one came away with the impression that the only points in favour of the Raptor were the number of people the program employed] . He's just reviewed the latest version of the Su-35 and the take away paragraph is:

In strategic terms the Su-35S is a game changer, as it robustly outclasses all competing Western fighter aircraft other than the F-22A Raptor. Deployed in significant numbers it is capable of changing the balance of power in any region where this occurs. This reality does not appear to be widely understood in most Western air forces, or DoD bureaucracies.

In a region the Taliban have lorded over for six years, and where they remain a menacing presence, American officers say their troops alone are not enough to reassure Afghans. Something is missing that has left even the recently appointed district governor feeling dismayed. “I don’t get any support from the government,” said the governor, Massoud Ahmad Rassouli Balouch.

Governor Massoud has no body of advisers to help run the area, no doctors to provide health care, no teachers, no professionals to do much of anything. About all he says he does have are police officers who steal and a small group of Afghan soldiers who say they are here for “vacation.” NY Times.

Here it seems to me is revealed typical flaw of COIN - an assumption is being made that Afghans want gov't involvement, would welcome it, are desirous enough of the ostensible benefits accruing thereof to fight for such a thing - but a centralizing gov't intervention is in many ways antithetical to tribal needs and desires and Afghanistan remains very much a tribal society, and so potentially assumptions like the one above render COIN from the get go a failure waiting to happen.

Related: McChrystal has just released new directives concerning troop behaviour, ie respecting Muslim culture etc etc - but to me that reveals a fundamental contradiction - without a change in underlying culture, how can COIN possibly work?

News coming out that NASA may scratch or put on hold any plans to return to the moon because of budget constraints? The day China, with Russian help, put a man on the moon while America sits back doing nothing because of a lack of money will mark the end of the American empire, maybe not quite as a matter of fact, but definitely as an expression of a psychological, a cultural reality.

Obama allowed that idiot Pelosi to conjure up an 800 billion dollar stimulus that is mostly nonsensical goo and foist it on an ignorant public and yet we can't come up with 60 billion needed to head back to the moon? That really pisses me off - the ascension of weak kneed liberalism that thinks it wrong to spend so much money on such a venture when so many people are in need. Can just picture some little pissant sitting before his laptop waxing all sentimental about how the world is going to be a more humane and enlightened place now that the Obama is here - maybe he can take a minute between tears to google Apollo Guidance Computer - yeah, try that on for size ya greasy little miscreant. Bastards.

Anyway... some good might come of this - talk of solving budget problems by contracting out NASA specific tasks to private companies - that might actually prove to be an interesting development. But if the day came where American private enterprise was carrying much of the space exploration load watch the rest of the world attempt to enact laws to restrict such a thing.

I'll say one thing though, if these budget problems stem from keeping that space station viable, I would drop that thing into the ocean so gad damn quickly - blow it up! Whatever it had to teach us about living in space has no doubt been learned - it's nothing more now than an expensive symbol honouring a hollow ideal.

After reading a blog by a retired Australian air force officer and now academic that reviewed the F-22 vs the F-35 argument in a highly technical and seemingly thorough way I've returned to my original position on the Raptor - namely, killing the thing off makes no sense. The only mitigating factor I can think of is potential development of stealthy, sophisticated, jet powered, high performance UCAVs - I guess something like that, especially if they're a lot cheaper to produce, could make sense of curtailing F-22 production - and maybe a belief that we can stay one step ahead of the Russians and Chinese as far as radar jamming technologies go - otherwise, I don't get it.

Things that struck me:

- the notion that Gates is a smart and reasonable guy and you should trust his judgement is compromised somewhat when you realise this is Rumsfeld's policy, he's the the one who wanted to drastically cut F-22 production and ramp up F-35, Gates is just following through on that decision. So contrary to popular belief this is not a Gates initiative, it's a Rumsfeld initiative, and last time I looked Rummy's reputation leaves something to be desired.

- the idea that the F-22 can't do CAS or manage a ground attack role is not accurate - it can, and with further upgrades and borrowing certain systems from the F-35 its abilities in that role increase without losing its other capabilities. Now, it can't match the F-35 in this ground attack role, but it can do well enough to justify cutting some F-35 production in order to add F-22s. On the other hand, there's no modification you can make on the F-35 that will allow it to do what the Raptor can do. In short, it seems the F-22 is a much more versatile plane.

- closely tied to last point is 'cost'. Originally it was thought the F-35 was going to be much cheaper to produce and this was a big selling point for it over the Raptor - but it no longer looks like that's going to be the case, it's looking like in the end there may be only a 20-30 million dollar difference per unit between the two, which is not that much all told. When you add in that the F-22 can sort of do what the F-35 can do but the F-35 can't at all do what the F-22 can do, well then I think you've got a problem.

- as a fighter jet, the F-35 will not be in the same league as the F-22. As far as flight performance goes, it will be about the equal of an F-16 - it would lose to a SU-30 in a dogfight. Its air dominance role is all about its advanced radar system - but if Russia and China develop an F-22 like 5th generation fighter, it will be toast, it won't possess the performance parameters to survive. It's primarily a CAS, ground attack plane - it cannot replace the F-22 as a long range, deep penetration, air dominance strike fighter.

- Russian aero-space expertise joined to Chinese money is a lethal combination. There are rumours that China and Russia are collaborating on both the new S-400 air defense system and a 5th generation fighter. We tend to think of the F-22 as having nothing to oppose it because we assume Russia doesn't have the financial and institutional resources to keep up but Russia still has plenty of expertise in the field and you mate that talent with Chinese money and suddenly maybe the F-22 doesn't look so unique. Remember, when the US developed its 'teen' series of jets it left the Soviet Union in the dust as far as air dominance went, but Soviets went back to the drawing board and produced new versions of MiGs and SUs that were at least as good and possibly better than American counterparts - that development is what led to building the F-22. Russia can not match what the Soviet Union was capable of - but with China as a partner, such wouldn't be the case - in fact with growing support from Russian technology China is putting together a force that may equal what America originally feared from the Soviets, ie the cold war may be over but that does not mean weapon systems originating from that era are now irrelevant. In short, it may prove quite naive to act as if Russia, with Chinese money, or China itself backward engineering from Russian technology, cannot produce something the equal of the F-22 - and rest assured, if they do manage this, they won't be stopping production at 187 planes.

- Obama, in canceling the F-22, called it a relic of the cold war, but the writer of the blog makes a convincing argument that the way things are going the F-35 is more likely to prove the relic than the Raptor.

- unless Gates has some tricks up his sleeve, terminating the F-22 essentially cedes air dominance to China in the event of a major conflict in the Pacific rim, assuming the continuing saturation of advanced Russian air defense and fighter technology by the PLA. Is this like inviting China to dramatically expand its circle of influence? Are we asking for trouble? Australia and Japan want the F-22, especially if the US is not going to build anymore, because they see the F-22 as vital in countering Chinese actions - but a 1998 law forbids foreign sales. Think you have to think hard about repealing that law.

This is a complex and specialized subject and without the comprehension an expert can bring to it it's hard to feel confidence in one's opinion - still, I've never trusted this animus against the F-22 - something has always seemed off about it. For instance, Australia has just purchased 6 billion worth of F-18 Super Hornets to fill gap left by delayed F-35 - but from what I read the Super Hornet is no match for the Flanker, the plane it would most likely have to go against - so why spend 6 billion now? Is it possible they believe the F-35 is not going to live up to advance billing which will lead to a revival of the F-22, the plane they really want, and they feel the US, to counter fear amongst its Pacific Rim allies, will have to eventually allow foreign sales? From what I've read, the F-35 will nicely fill a role with the US military replacing aging F-15s, 16s, and 18s - especially when used in conjunction with the F-22, one can certainly grant it a prodigious lethality as a close range ground attack weapons platform - but deep penetration fighter it ain't, and should Russia successfully upgrade the SU-35 into something F-22-like in performance attributes with an Active Radar Array one might have to doubt its abilities as an air dominance fighter in any arena - and therefore I don't see it at all satisfying the needs of Japan and Australia, not in the shadow of a partnership between China and Russia and the advent of an inundation of Russian aerospace technology into the Pacific Rim.

What's up with Russia dithering on its sale of the S-300 air defense system to Iran? They've signed the contract but continue to delay and supposedly just recently assured Israel they're open to reneging on the deal for the sake of promoting stability in the region. Now, I don't believe that for a second - but the fact remains they've put things on hold. Sounds like they're trying to apply pressure to someone, leverage their position - but as regards whom, Tehran or Washington? They're after something, and I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with anyone's interests but their own. Hell, maybe they're trying to encourage Israel to attack Iran - would certainly drive up the price of oil. Certainly, deployment of the latest versions of the S-300 would make a difficult mission nearly impossible if you plan on using F-16s - although possibly Israel believes it can sufficiently jam the system.

"... conservatives espouse and at times clamour for their god because they tend to be hard-bitten realists if not outright cynics, they don't trust the citizenry and therefore want to see them controlled and religion is a wonderful inhibitor... liberals come across as more open minded and therefore willing to abide a godless universe because they're naive idealists and believe people are ultimately good and amenable to sweet reason... and so it is you see that what seems flawed in the one is actually an expression of a practical cunning whereas what seems refined and astute in the other is actually the reflection of a foolish vanity... which is not to suggest I'm ready to start pandering to the false piety of the fallen... but neither am I about to congratulate myself for being clever enough to abjure those cloistered souls..."

Apropos of me recently commenting with grave concern on the demographic disaster descending on Europe in the form of Muslim migration and how disconcerting it is that few outside of the loony fascist fringe seem to share my concern or feel even the need to wonder if there may be a reason for concern, an intellectual [granted, of a conservative bent] named Christopher Caldwell has just published an apparently perspicacious though I take it somewhat downcast book on the subject. I've scanned a sample of first chapter and his thinking definitely seems in keeping with mine. Maybe I'll buy a copy, sit in a Starbucks with cover conspicuously showing, and count how many flaming liberals cast a furtive glance my way wondering if possibly I'm a bad person.