Threat Based or Capability Based?

[BigRob]

With all the back and forth over the ending of the F-22 program one thing stands out in a big way. We keep hearing arguments that the F-22 is not necessary because there is no threat.

While I personally, for varying reasons, think that entire argument is useless, it does raise this point. Should the United States military capability be threat based or capability based?

For example, should we only develop weapon systems as a response to a threat? Further, if we wait to see what the threat is before going into development on a weapons system we will find ourselves continually behind the curve. While it is true that the F-22 has no peer in existence today, the Chinese, Russian, and Indians are all in full development of their own 5th generation fighters, which are expected to be out in a few years. These are a direct challenges to the F-22.

So, threat based or capability based? Under a capability based system the United States would develop and implement weapon systems based on threats, but also systems that continually demanded new innovations and could carry out missions that we have not even seen the need for yet.

Should we wait until there is a clear threat before developing our own matching system, or do we develop systems based on threats but also that are capable of performing missions that we do not have a urgent need for? What do you think?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

first we already have the jets, all this says is we dont need more. While others still play catch up.

2nd we are fighting 2 wars, and the major conflits we see is most likey in the future...the F-22 has no, or limited role...while other programs we are under funding have a very large role.

the Pentagon has stated it does not want these, congress buys them anyway...its just the same old same old...no one wants to lose the jobs in there district attached to the program.

like it or not, the Military has to have a budget as well, and the F-22 currently I think ranks pretty low in priority, and yet very high on price...so its a fairly easy choice.

If we realy need the F-22....I open as to where we want to take the money out of to build them. Some other military program? or we just going spend even more on military...knowing we already outspend the next 4-5 nations added together in military spending.

also I think its not as easy as threat vs capability...just becuse there is no threat does not mean we should not prepair for it...and just becuse we can build someting, does not mean we should just becuse well ...we can...even if we have no idea what we would do with it.

 

[BigRob]

first we already have the jets, all this says is we dont need more. While others still play catch up.

When the assembly line shuts down, it is not going to be restarted. Make no mistake, this means the program is dead. Additionally, our current F-22 fleet would be unable to survive in a confrontation with China. This is something we need to avoid.

That said, if we already have jets, why do we need 2400 F35's?

2nd we are fighting 2 wars, and the major conflits we see is most likey in the future...the F-22 has no, or limited role...while other programs we are under funding have a very large role.

What conflicts do you anticipate in the future?

the Pentagon has stated it does not want these, congress buys them anyway...its just the same old same old...no one wants to lose the jobs in there district attached to the program.

like it or not, the Military has to have a budget as well, and the F-22 currently I think ranks pretty low in priority, and yet very high on price...so its a fairly easy choice.

I agree that sadly the F-22 is a low priority at the moment. I think that it should not be however. I am not advocating that we build 1000 of them, but we should keep the assembly line open.

If we realy need the F-22....I open as to where we want to take the money out of to build them. Some other military program? or we just going spend even more on military...knowing we already outspend the next 4-5 nations added together in military spending.

Our spending does not mean we are invincible. 9/11 did not even cost $100,000 and it caused billions upon billions in damage. Spending levels should not be a gauge for security. Further, in multiple war scenarios we have run, we have struggled against nations with spending that is much less.

If the solution to this is to cut spending and eliminate our best weapon systems then so be. I just do not think that is the solution.

also I think its not as easy as threat vs capability...just becuse there is no threat does not mean we should not prepair for it...and just becuse we can build someting, does not mean we should just becuse well ...we can...even if we have no idea what we would do with it.

Sadly the Pentagon seems to disagree. There is a rising threat in my mind, and we are downgrading to fight wars like Iraq. I think this is a big mistake.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

When the assembly line shuts down, it is not going to be restarted. Make no mistake, this means the program is dead. Additionally, our current F-22 fleet would be unable to survive in a confrontation with China. This is something we need to avoid.

That said, if we already have jets, why do we need 2400 F35's?



What conflicts do you anticipate in the future?



I agree that sadly the F-22 is a low priority at the moment. I think that it should not be however. I am not advocating that we build 1000 of them, but we should keep the assembly line open.



Our spending does not mean we are invincible. 9/11 did not even cost $100,000 and it caused billions upon billions in damage. Spending levels should not be a gauge for security. Further, in multiple war scenarios we have run, we have struggled against nations with spending that is much less.

If the solution to this is to cut spending and eliminate our best weapon systems then so be. I just do not think that is the solution.



Sadly the Pentagon seems to disagree. There is a rising threat in my mind, and we are downgrading to fight wars like Iraq. I think this is a big mistake.

the f-35 fits the current needs , and replaces more planes , more flexable, and cheaper. you add those f-35's to the current f-22's and I dont think we will have a issue with China in the air...also its lack of a Carrier is a big issue for them ( though that is yes changing)

wars I think we will see, are basicly what we have now, Iraq Iran afganistan Korea, and situations like that. Maybe Tiwan, but even then I question how much the US realy wants to fight that one out over something with so little value to us to the cost of fighting for it. I dont forsee some big showdown with Putins Russia, or China. Maybe some new Kosavo in Europe...where do you see us in a fight where air to air combat is going to be a key role?

Also like I said, where would you get the funding to build the more planes? raise the budgets more, or cut cost...and what programs should go then?

also I would question if we can even just keep the lines going but not build them are a decent pace costing alot...if you keep the lines open to make them, but make very few...each one cost more and more to build.

 

[BigRob]

the f-35 fits the current needs , and replaces more planes , more flexable, and cheaper. you add those f-35's to the current f-22's and I dont think we will have a issue with China in the air...also its lack of a Carrier is a big issue for them ( though that is yes changing)

Want to bet we wouldn't have an issue with China if we went to war? They currently have highly developed anti-ship missiles that could disable carrier groups quickly, as well as hundreds of ballistic missiles aimed at the forward airbases that the F-22 would have to operate out of. Once the planes are in the air we would be fine, but in war game scenarios with Russia, the Su-30 easily denied the F-35 access to refueling, there is no reason to believe the Chinese could not do so as well.

And I give you that the F-35 is more flexible. But the F-35 is far more vulnerable to current planes in unfriendly nations arsenals than the F-22. Perhaps a modified F-22 (which would need to be created) is the way to approach this.

wars I think we will see, are basicly what we have now, Iraq Iran afganistan Korea, and situations like that. Maybe Tiwan, but even then I question how much the US realy wants to fight that one out over something with so little value to us to the cost of fighting for it. I dont forsee some big showdown with Putins Russia, or China. Maybe some new Kosavo in Europe...where do you see us in a fight where air to air combat is going to be a key role?

Well a war in Taiwan is a war with China. I personally think we will see minor interventions and some wars like Iraq, but I think as China rises and Russia attempts to rise we will see confrontation with them. Maybe short of all out war, but situations in which we do not want an Army geared towards fighting a war like Afghanistan.

Both of those scenarios, air to air will be crucial. The Su-30 and the JX-11 are going to challenge the F22 for air superiority, granted the Su-30 would lose right now. Either way, I think we are gearing up for more of a Cold War scenario in a multipolar world.

Also like I said, where would you get the funding to build the more planes? raise the budgets more, or cut cost...and what programs should go then?

I would get rid of the rest of the stimulus that has not been spent. I would free up a lot of cash by cutting domestic programs.

In reality, all I am saying is that we ought to keep the assembly line going. The budget only had $1.75 billion for that. When you compare that to other spending that is nothing.

also I would question if we can even just keep the lines going but not build them are a decent pace costing alot...if you keep the lines open to make them, but make very few...each one cost more and more to build.

Well, the F-22 does cost a lot, but it would cost a ton more to have to redo factories to build them after the line closes.