Will Eagles Soar Again?

 

Two articles tease a new F-15 fighter variant to bridge the huge gap between aging fourth-generation fighters and the too expensive, too few in number, stealthy F-22 and F-35. The first is cautious and notes the plane has not been pitched, as it might be, like the new run of F/A-18 Super Hornets. The second is a full-length sales pitch. This, in turn, was picked up and summarized on Popular Mechanics’ website. It makes sense, including dollars and cents, at first glance.

The basic problem the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps face is arithmetic. The stealthy aircraft, on which they bet, ended up too expensive to field in the numbers needed. The F-15 and F/A-18 fleets are aging. So how can the gap be filled? The Navy, after the none-too-subtle shove from the Commander-in-Chief, is buying a new set of updated Super Hornets. The Marines, apparently, will get low mileage Navy jets, to replace worn-out equipment. These will meet most missions, at a fraction of F-35 operating costs. But, what of the Air Force?

The Air Force brass has fought desperately to prevent consideration of updated F-15s with supercruise engines or semi-stealthy modifications. These would clutter the simple procurement picture being painted to Congress. But Congress and the last administration balked at the unit prices, development issues, and simple picture of all fighter requirements being met by two super-duper planes. This has put the Air Force, including the politically potent Air National Guard, at risk.

Fortunately, foreign sales have prompted continued production and refinement of the venerable F-15. So, now the idea of an updated F-15 with much larger ordinance capacity is being floated. It may be both a replacement for old Air Guard homeland air defense planes and a non-stealth platform for lots of missiles directed by forward stealthy jets. The new stealthy aircraft give up external weapons racks, so may need a way to deliver more than they carry.

The F-15 and F/A-18s create competitive pressure on F-35 prices and deliver value quickly in two other ways. First, the lack of new lengthy research and development requirements mean more real defense, sooner, for the taxpayers’ dollar. Instead of years of testing, without combat-ready aircraft on airfields, your dollar today goes into an assembly line. This gives us the second short-term benefit. Instead of money going mostly to researchers and CEOs, the taxpayers’ dollars go into skilled labor jobs, as workers are hired back, or newly hired, to build combat-ready aircraft. More planes for the same money, and more jobs, some might call that “winning.”

Boeing Is Pitching the US a New F-15, Using Its Super Hornet Game Plan

FARNBOROUGH, UK — Boeing is quietly pitching the U.S. Air Force a new F-15 fighter jet using the same business strategy that convinced the Trump administration to buy more Super Hornet warplanes for the Navy.

Dubbed the F-15X, the new variant of the venerable jet offers more modern flight controls, cockpit displays, and radar, according to military and industry sources with knowledge of the plan. The plane would also pack a lot of firepower, carrying more than two dozen air-to-air missiles, the most of any U.S. Air Force aircraft.

Exclusive: Unmasking The F-15X, Boeing’s F-15C/D Eagle Replacement Fighter

Although it has been framed as a Boeing solicitation to the USAF, the opposite is actually true—the USAF began the discussion over a year and a half ago. Since then, ongoing talks have been kept incredibly hush-hush, along with the details of the aircraft involved—until now.

According to sources familiar with the discussions, The War Zone has learned about the F-15X’s origins, its intended capabilities and features, and where it would fit inside the USAF’s tactical airpower ecosystem.

Ah, you can smell that sweet sales pitch cooking!

The F-15X came out of a quiet USAF inquiry to Boeing and Lockheed Martin about fielding an aircraft that could seamlessly plug into their existing air combat infrastructure as part of better-defined high-low capability mix strategy—one intended to specifically help counter the service’s shrinking force structure.

The airframe would have to be cost-effective both in terms of operation and acquisition, very low-risk, and most of all, it would need to be non-disruptive to the larger F-35 procurement initiative. If anything else, it had to be seen as complementary to the F-35, not as an alternative to it.

What follows is a lengthy pitch, establishing the need and showing how the F-15X Acme Eagle (well, I made that up) is just the ticket. Very cool photos and illustrations keep you scrolling. You’ll want one for yourself by the end. This pitch is in the military section of a gearhead webzine, but it was summarized on Popular Mechanics.

Here’s What We Know About the F-15X Super Eagle

The F-15X will be packed with weaponry, more than any dedicated stealth fighter. The new jet will also have an astoundingly long lifespan, and be considerably cheaper to fly during than other fighters.

The War Zone has details on the F-15X, whose existence was revealed a week ago. For one thing, the F-15X does not carry more than two dozen air-to-air missiles as originally reported. It carries “just” 22 missiles thanks to Boeing’s new AMBER missile racks. Still, this level of armament would enable the F-15 to act as a missile carrier for stealth fighters such as the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, carrying many more missiles than either newer jet could.

So now the general reader is in the loop. Maybe he will post about it on social media. Maybe she will tell her member of Congress about this sensible idea, during the August recess. Apparently the House Republicans have a different calendar than us, since they left Washington last evening (July 26th), and won’t be back at their desks until after Labor Day!

Published in Military
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 76 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    Tex929rr (View Comment):

    The F-15 is 104-0 in aerial combat.

    But has never gone up against frontline Ruskie Flankers or even Fulcrums. Exercises with India looked unfavorable for the Eagle.

    • #31
  2. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Tex929rr (View Comment):

    The F-15 is 104-0 in aerial combat.

    Pretty good batting average. Though I did see an article somewhere that an F-22 made them look pretty bad.

    Yeah in simulated combat the F-22’s tore up a larger force of F-15’s and they never saw or got a radar lock on the F-22’s.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ7MwfcjCa0&feature=youtu.be

    • #32
  3. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    JoelB (View Comment):

    I recently got a few frames into one of those clickbait stories about the P-51. According to the article, the cost of a P-51 in today’s dollars was something around $600,000 and they could manufacture something like 350 a month. The P-51 was one of the top fighters of its day. Granted today’s aircraft are much more sophisticated, but it got me thinking. If I recall correctly from a discussion on WWII by Victor Davis Hanson, one of the advantages that Britain had going for it during the battle of Britain was that it could turn out Spitfires and Hurricanes at a greater rate than the Germans could build their aircraft. The German planes were considered to be somewhat superior in performance, but could not be replaced quickly enough. Could it be that we should be considering the efficacy of having more of the less-sophisticated craft? (Not advocating for P-51s)

    I recall reading an article years ago for which the author interviewed an F-15 pilot. He loved the plane, but said it would sure be nice to have a wing man, referring to the cost.

    One of my cousins flew F-15s, then he transferred to the A-10, and ended up as an A-10 instructor.  At a family reunion, I asked him which plane he liked better.  He told me the A-10, because while flying supersonic at high altitude in the F-15 was cool, flying fast while hugging the ground was a rush . . .

    • #33
  4. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Tex929rr (View Comment):

    The F-15 is 104-0 in aerial combat.

    Pretty good batting average. Though I did see an article somewhere that an F-22 made them look pretty bad.

    Yeah in simulated combat the F-22’s tore up a larger force of F-15’s and they never saw or got a radar lock on the F-22’s.

    The F22 is the best fighter jet ever produced in history. I know the man who saved the program, as they were build in my hometown.

    Should have built a lot more. 

    • #34
  5. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment): I know the man who saved the program

    I don’t doubt you at all but it is interesting how many of these such people I have come across over the years.   

    • #35
  6. Steve C. Member
    Steve C.
    @user_531302

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Steve C. (View Comment):
    On a related note, If you want to see how creative American industry could be, check out this 40 minute video on assembling a P47 in the field using hand tools and packing materials.

    Read an interesting book a couple years ago about the industrial machine in WWII [Title escapes me at the moment – maybe Arsenal of Democracy?] Anyway, there were constant engineering revisions being made to the bombers, and production was slowed to a trickle because of the constant changes being made to the production line. They finally solved the problem by not changing the production line for minor revisions – they built the airplanes to a standard completion, then flew them off to a secondary factory where the revisions were retrofitted into place before delivery to the military.

    The book is “Freedom’s Forge: How American business produced victory in World War II” by Arthur Herman. The specific story is in Chapter 13, “Agony at Willow Run”.

    Read that, it is good. I like that kind of stuff.

    The Army “Green Books”, which is the history of the Army in WW2, has all kinds of interesting details about industrial expansion. One of the more interesting stories is what were called “educational orders”. This was a pre war program where the War Dept let small orders for weapons and other gear to civilian firms. The objective was to develop a data base of requirements to underpin the expansion of production. For example, what resources (manpower, machinery, time, raw materials etc) would a firm require to go from zero to sixty mph in producing M1 carbines and how many could they produce?

    The whole series is on the internet today.

    https://history.army.mil/html/bookshelves/collect/usaww2.html

    • #36
  7. Steve C. Member
    Steve C.
    @user_531302

    JoelB (View Comment):

    @stevec Fascinating video. Any idea how many P-47s were actually field assembled this way? I wonder if this video does not make it look a lot easier than it actually was.

    No idea. I suspect most were probably delivered to an airfield with hangar facilities which as the film points out is much easier. But pretty amazing still.

    • #37
  8. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Tex929rr (View Comment):

    The F-15 is 104-0 in aerial combat.

    Pretty good batting average. Though I did see an article somewhere that an F-22 made them look pretty bad.

    Yeah in simulated combat the F-22’s tore up a larger force of F-15’s and they never saw or got a radar lock on the F-22’s.

    The F22 is the best fighter jet ever produced in history. I know the man who saved the program, as they were build in my hometown.

    Should have built a lot more.

    Yeah. Obama and the traitors in his admin made sure it wouldn’t happen when they destroyed the tooling along with prematurely canceling the program .

    • #38
  9. Randy Webster Member
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    JoelB (View Comment):

    @stevec Fascinating video. Any idea how many P-47s were actually field assembled this way? I wonder if this video does not make it look a lot easier than it actually was.

    It probably didn’t happen much in the European Theater, maybe some in North Africa.  It probably happened mostly in the Pacific.

    • #39
  10. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Stad (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    JoelB (View Comment):

    I recently got a few frames into one of those clickbait stories about the P-51. According to the article, the cost of a P-51 in today’s dollars was something around $600,000 and they could manufacture something like 350 a month. The P-51 was one of the top fighters of its day. Granted today’s aircraft are much more sophisticated, but it got me thinking. If I recall correctly from a discussion on WWII by Victor Davis Hanson, one of the advantages that Britain had going for it during the battle of Britain was that it could turn out Spitfires and Hurricanes at a greater rate than the Germans could build their aircraft. The German planes were considered to be somewhat superior in performance, but could not be replaced quickly enough. Could it be that we should be considering the efficacy of having more of the less-sophisticated craft? (Not advocating for P-51s)

    I recall reading an article years ago for which the author interviewed an F-15 pilot. He loved the plane, but said it would sure be nice to have a wing man, referring to the cost.

    One of my cousins flew F-15s, then he transferred to the A-10, and ended up as an A-10 instructor. At a family reunion, I asked him which plane he liked better. He told me the A-10, because while flying supersonic at high altitude in the F-15 was cool, flying fast while hugging the ground was a rush . . .

    Yeah, I got to go supersonic 1 time in the F-4.  We were out at sea at altitude and the only way I knew was looking at the mach meter.  

    On the other hand, one day we went to practice “nuke laydowns”.  In this we would fly to the range and practice dropping a tactical nuke.  You would roar into the range at about 600 knts, and at the bottom of the run you were about 20 feet off the ground. The idea is the weapon has a drogue chute and a 50 second delay timer, giving you time to put some distance between you and the Great White Light.

    The sensation of going that fast, that low to the ground, with pine trees above you was… interesting.

    The pilots would laugh about how when they glanced in their mirror at the back seaters all they could see would be gigantic dilated pupils.

    • #40
  11. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Tex929rr (View Comment):

    The F-15 is 104-0 in aerial combat.

    Pretty good batting average. Though I did see an article somewhere that an F-22 made them look pretty bad.

    Yeah in simulated combat the F-22’s tore up a larger force of F-15’s and they never saw or got a radar lock on the F-22’s.

    The F22 is the best fighter jet ever produced in history. I know the man who saved the program, as they were build in my hometown.

    Should have built a lot more.

    Yeah. Obama and the traitors in his admin made sure it wouldn’t happen when they destroyed the tooling along with prematurely canceling the program .

    I’m all for blaming the Obama gang for everything and then some but the responsibility for the end of the production run can be spread to many, many entities…and some of them would probably surprise you.

    • #41
  12. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    philo (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment): I know the man who saved the program

    I don’t doubt you at all but it is interesting how many of these such people I have come across over the years.

    There are so many quiet heroes out there, who did their jobs and had amazing results, aren’t there? Too much air is used up on celebrating the wrong people.

    • #42
  13. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    philo (View Comment):

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Tex929rr (View Comment):

    The F-15 is 104-0 in aerial combat.

    Pretty good batting average. Though I did see an article somewhere that an F-22 made them look pretty bad.

    Yeah in simulated combat the F-22’s tore up a larger force of F-15’s and they never saw or got a radar lock on the F-22’s.

    The F22 is the best fighter jet ever produced in history. I know the man who saved the program, as they were build in my hometown.

    Should have built a lot more.

    Yeah. Obama and the traitors in his admin made sure it wouldn’t happen when they destroyed the tooling along with prematurely canceling the program .

    I’m all for blaming the Obama gang for everything and then some but the responsibility for the end of the production run can be spread to many, many entities…and some of them would probably surprise you.

    Seems to me the culprits were the usual suspects….

    The Senate voted Tuesday to kill the nation’s premier fighter-jet program, embracing by a 58 to 40 margin the argument of President Obama and his top military advisers that more F-22s are not needed for the nation’s defense

    • #43
  14. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    Kozak (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Tex929rr (View Comment):

    The F-15 is 104-0 in aerial combat.

    Pretty good batting average. Though I did see an article somewhere that an F-22 made them look pretty bad.

    Yeah in simulated combat the F-22’s tore up a larger force of F-15’s and they never saw or got a radar lock on the F-22’s.

    The F22 is the best fighter jet ever produced in history. I know the man who saved the program, as they were build in my hometown.

    Should have built a lot more.

    Yeah. Obama and the traitors in his admin made sure it wouldn’t happen when they destroyed the tooling along with prematurely canceling the program .

    I’m all for blaming the Obama gang for everything and then some but the responsibility for the end of the production run can be spread to many, many entities…and some of them would probably surprise you.

    Seems to me the culprits were the usual suspects….

    The Senate voted Tuesday to kill the nation’s premier fighter-jet program, embracing by a 58 to 40 margin the argument of President Obama and his top military advisers that more F-22s are not needed for the nation’s defense

    True…and yet there are a few more layers of complexity to situations like this. (Senators? Trusted with real important decisions? As if.)

    • #44
  15. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    philo (View Comment):

    Kozak (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Tex929rr (View Comment):

    The F-15 is 104-0 in aerial combat.

    Pretty good batting average. Though I did see an article somewhere that an F-22 made them look pretty bad.

    Yeah in simulated combat the F-22’s tore up a larger force of F-15’s and they never saw or got a radar lock on the F-22’s.

    The F22 is the best fighter jet ever produced in history. I know the man who saved the program, as they were build in my hometown.

    Should have built a lot more.

    Yeah. Obama and the traitors in his admin made sure it wouldn’t happen when they destroyed the tooling along with prematurely canceling the program .

    I’m all for blaming the Obama gang for everything and then some but the responsibility for the end of the production run can be spread to many, many entities…and some of them would probably surprise you.

    Seems to me the culprits were the usual suspects….

    The Senate voted Tuesday to kill the nation’s premier fighter-jet program, embracing by a 58 to 40 margin the argument of President Obama and his top military advisers that more F-22s are not needed for the nation’s defense

    True…and yet there are a few more layers of complexity to situations like this. (Senators? Trusted with real important decisions? As if.)

    The Senate are simply the monkey. The organ grinders were Obama and the people he placed at DOD.

    • #45
  16. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Seems to me the culprits were the usual suspects….

    The Senate voted Tuesday to kill the nation’s premier fighter-jet program, embracing by a 58 to 40 margin the argument of President Obama and his top military advisers that more F-22s are not needed for the nation’s defense

    Idiots . . .

    • #46
  17. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    Kozak (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    Kozak (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Tex929rr (View Comment):

    The F-15 is 104-0 in aerial combat.

    Pretty good batting average. Though I did see an article somewhere that an F-22 made them look pretty bad.

    Yeah in simulated combat the F-22’s tore up a larger force of F-15’s and they never saw or got a radar lock on the F-22’s.

    The F22 is the best fighter jet ever produced in history. I know the man who saved the program, as they were build in my hometown.

    Should have built a lot more.

    Yeah. Obama and the traitors in his admin made sure it wouldn’t happen when they destroyed the tooling along with prematurely canceling the program .

    I’m all for blaming the Obama gang for everything and then some but the responsibility for the end of the production run can be spread to many, many entities…and some of them would probably surprise you.

    Seems to me the culprits were the usual suspects….

    The Senate voted Tuesday to kill the nation’s premier fighter-jet program, embracing by a 58 to 40 margin the argument of President Obama and his top military advisers that more F-22s are not needed for the nation’s defense

    True…and yet there are a few more layers of complexity to situations like this. (Senators? Trusted with real important decisions? As if.)

    The Senate are simply the monkey. The organ grinders were Obama and the people he placed at DOD.

    As with the Iran deal they told transparent lies but virtually nobody in the press or Republican establishment had the guts to call them on it.

    They claimed we would update the <200 F-22 Just like the F-15 to keep them in service for 50 years. But that’s impossible. 

    F-15 C/D are not reused A/B airframes and E are not reused C/D. 

    Even lesser upgrades are impractical when dealing with a composite airframe. You can’t unbolt sections or cut and weld.

    Airframe attrition will be much higher due to lack of repairability for similar reasons. 

    The small volume has already made software and electronic upgrades impractical. You can’t spread any significant development cost over an installed base of only 150.

    • #47
  18. FightinInPhilly Coolidge
    FightinInPhilly
    @FightinInPhilly

    We need to all read (or reread) Boyd and then invite Pierre Sprey on for a marathon podcast hosted by VDH. Make it happen Yeit!! 

    • #48
  19. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    Kozak (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    Kozak (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Tex929rr (View Comment):

    The F-15 is 104-0 in aerial combat.

    Pretty good batting average. Though I did see an article somewhere that an F-22 made them look pretty bad.

    Yeah in simulated combat the F-22’s tore up a larger force of F-15’s and they never saw or got a radar lock on the F-22’s.

    The F22 is the best fighter jet ever produced in history. I know the man who saved the program, as they were build in my hometown.

    Should have built a lot more.

    Yeah. Obama and the traitors in his admin made sure it wouldn’t happen when they destroyed the tooling along with prematurely canceling the program .

    I’m all for blaming the Obama gang for everything and then some but the responsibility for the end of the production run can be spread to many, many entities…and some of them would probably surprise you.

    Seems to me the culprits were the usual suspects….

    The Senate voted Tuesday to kill the nation’s premier fighter-jet program, embracing by a 58 to 40 margin the argument of President Obama and his top military advisers that more F-22s are not needed for the nation’s defense

    True…and yet there are a few more layers of complexity to situations like this. (Senators? Trusted with real important decisions? As if.)

    The Senate are simply the monkey. The organ grinders were Obama and the people he placed at DOD.

    True…and yet there are those who exert much influence over the “organ grinders.”

    • #49
  20. Unsk Member
    Unsk
    @Unsk

    Although I can’t and won’t speak to the technological issues, the jet fighter issue to me raises a much more important  and profound issue and that is ” are we ready to invest sufficiently now to defend this nation”.  For much of the 1950-‘s defense spending was close to 10% of GDP; now it is 3.6%, a  modern all time low.  We need to face the fact that China and in some cases Russia, after stealing some of our technology and cornering the market on chip making and raw materials,  are developing very sophisticated tactically and strategically asymmetric weapons in a effort to dominate the world.  We cannot continue to drive along on cruise control as we have since the fall of the Berlin Wall. At the rate we are going, we are likely to get brutally smacked in the near future that could mean the end of the Republic.

    Following the lead of the anti-war Clinton administration, the brain dead Dubya administration cut the number of F-22 down to 183, after previous cuts by the Clintons. Originally there were to be 750 F-22’s. The savings of these cuts compared to the cost of the Iraq war or additional welfare spending during the reign of Buraq Hussein  are miniscule.  I also think it is unfair to object to the high cost of the F-22 when the guvmint  cut the number of orders to a paltry one quarter of the original order envisioned. That is no way to spend money or develop a new fighter.

    The F-18 is based on 1960’s technology. The F-22 is based on 1980’s technology. Perhaps the F-22 will still rule the skies for the foreseeable future, but the idea that an updated F-18 will is just nonsense.

    We need to face the fact that we face a well financed and technological advanced enemy in China that is hellbent on world domination. We therefore will need to spend a ton  more on defense and we need to get used to the idea that we need to play to win, not just get along.

    • #50
  21. Randy Webster Member
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    I looked at a chart.  The US is spending about $600 billion a year on the military, China about $200 billion.  Is this really a problem?

    • #51
  22. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    I looked at a chart. The US is spending about $600 billion a year on the military, China about $200 billion. Is this really a problem?

    What are they getting for that money? Consider relative salary differences. Are their defense contractors working the kind of union hours ours are?

    • #52
  23. Randy Webster Member
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    I looked at a chart. The US is spending about $600 billion a year on the military, China about $200 billion. Is this really a problem?

    What are they getting for that money? Consider relative salary differences. Are their defense contractors working the kind of union hours ours are?

    I assume, without knowing, that the publishers of charts like that try to control for things like that.  I might be wrong.

    • #53
  24. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    I looked at a chart. The US is spending about $600 billion a year on the military, China about $200 billion. Is this really a problem?

    What are they getting for that money? Consider relative salary differences. Are their defense contractors working the kind of union hours ours are?

    I assume, without knowing, that the publishers of charts like that try to control for things like that. I might be wrong.

    Check then. How about providing a link for your initial assertion. Perhaps that would explain. IIRC china has a bout 2/3 our nominal GDP and spends about 2/3 as much as a percentage. Thus, the 200 figure clearly is not adjusted and is likely low.

    • #54
  25. Randy Webster Member
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    This is the one I looked at:

    https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison

    • #55
  26. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    This is the one I looked at:

    https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison

    The legend says raw dollar expenditures.

    • #56
  27. Unsk Member
    Unsk
    @Unsk

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    I looked at a chart. The US is spending about $600 billion a year on the military, China about $200 billion. Is this really a problem?

    Ctlaw: What are they getting for that money? Consider relative salary differences. Are their defense contractors working the kind of union hours ours are?

     

    That’s right Ct.  You also have to factor in the salaries of all that slave labor. Oh! that right that’s a zero. 

    Plus most of our $600B is to maintain our forces around the world,  Yes China at $200 B is a problem. A very Big Problem.

    • #57
  28. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    Unsk (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    I looked at a chart. The US is spending about $600 billion a year on the military, China about $200 billion. Is this really a problem?

    Ctlaw: What are they getting for that money? Consider relative salary differences. Are their defense contractors working the kind of union hours ours are?

    That’s right Ct. You also have to factor in the salaries of all that slave labor. Oh! that right that’s a zero.

    Plus most of our $600B is to maintain our forces around the world, Yes China at $200 B is a problem. A very Big Problem.

    I’ll add three more factors. The first actually applies against many of our friends and adversaries.

    We no longer have a permanent infrastructure for developing most military equipment. Our adversaries do. If we need a new nuclear weapon, a new submarine-launched ballistic missile, a new bomber, etc. We have to turn to entities that have no recent experience in designing these things. And they then have to waste time reinventing the wheel.

    Then consider how badly our procurement process slows things. I’ll add a factor to those normally discussed: safety. our obsession with safety means massive delays. It may take a year to design flight controls for an aircraft to the point where you have a 90% chance of not killing someone in your first squadron. 95% may take 2 years and 99% 5 years. We are striving for 99+%. China may be satisfied with 95%.

    Our adversaries can steal our technology.

    The result of these is that China may be able to field new weapons faster than we can. Consider how quickly they have advanced in stealth aircraft.

    • #58
  29. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    ctlaw (View Comment):
    They claimed we would update the <200 F-22 Just like the F-15 to keep them in service for 50 years. But that’s impossible.

    My guess is the know-nothings in Congress think if we can keep B-52s in the air for a hundred years, we can do it with every plane we’ve got.  Wrong!

    • #59
  30. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Stad (View Comment):

    ctlaw (View Comment):
    They claimed we would update the <200 F-22 Just like the F-15 to keep them in service for 50 years. But that’s impossible.

    My guess is the know-nothings in Congress think if we can keep B-52s in the air for a hundred years, we can do it with every plane we’ve got. Wrong!

    Yeah. B52s were built to be upgraded. Magnificent Machines!

     

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.