[RapidRonnie]

"Those comments are certain to alarm advocates of the newest
generations of high-tech and high-cost weapons programs, in particular
the Army’s Future Combat Systems and the Air Force’s F-22 advanced
warplane. Both have come under the scrutiny of Pentagon budget
officers questioning whether either would be required for missions
similar to the current operations in Iraq or Afghanistan."

"The defense secretary also criticized a budget process that he said
results in the production of fewer, but more expensive, warships,
warplanes and armored vehicles."

[i.e. So we'll need more A-10s and AH-64 Apache Longbows, and larger
quantities of less-expensive weaponry, kind of almost exactly like
I've been saying all along, 2pid. The F-22 is an anachronism from the
cold war.]

"To be sure, the defense secretary is set to step down at the end of
the Bush administration, and thus is not expected to be in a position
to write his strategic view into any but the next budget. Thus, the
services and industry may seek to push through the programs Mr. Gates
said should be scrutinized."

[i.e. There is no shortage of boneheads such as yourself. LOL!]

"The military, he declared, “has ample and untapped combat power in
our naval and air forces, with the capacity to defeat any — repeat,
any — adversary who committed an act of aggression, whether in the
Persian Gulf, on the Korean Peninsula or in the Straits of Taiwan.
There is a risk — but a prudent and manageable one.”

Nothing is static. How long will the risk in the Gulf, the Taiwan
Strait and the Korean Peninsula be "prudent and manageable"?

Until our overstretched forces are out of Afghanistan and Iraq, 2pid.
That's the reason there's any risk at all. Can't you read? LOL!

Duh.

How long will it take to make it prudent and manageable again should
we let that apparently acceptable status slip away?

It's "prudent and manageable" *now*, 2pid. There is no "again".
Nothing has "slipped away".

Duh.

This is the debate on advanced weapons systems.

No, it isn't. The debate is what type of weapons systems we need to
invest in go up against current or projected adversaries, 2pid. What
Gates is saying is that we aren't very likely to face the teeming red
hordes that our military, to a large extent, is still built and
trained to oppose.

The military-industrial complex will *always* want to sell the latest,
greatest (and most expensive) technology whether it is actually needed
or not. Generals and admirals *always* want the latest and greatest
(and most expensive) technology out there.

As long as the military is expected to be the vanguard of technology
it will always be cheaper to buy the best first and cry once.

The Navy Aviator's Creed states:

"I am a United States Navy flyer:

My countrymen built the best airplane in the world and entrusted it to
me. They trained me to fly it. I will use it to the absolute limit of
my power.

With my fellow pilots, air crews, and deck crews, my plane and I will
do anything necessary to carry out our tremendous responsibilities. I
will always remember we are part of an unbeatable combat team - the
United States Navy.

When the going is fast and rough, I will not falter. I will be
uncompromising in every blow I strike. I will be humble in victory.

I am a United States Navy flyer. I have dedicated myself to my
country, with its many millions of all races, colors, and creeds. They
and their way of life are worthy of my greatest protective effort.

I ask the help of God in making that effort great enough. "


Now, there's nothing in there that says "the most cost effective
airplane in the world". Airplanes per se are not expensive to build:
even modern supersonic jets are a small percentage of their purchase
price if costed on a labor and materials basis. Doctors and lawyers
and CPAs and salespeople and retired firemen build airplanes in their
garages every day. Aircraft workers make, at most, thirty bucks an
hour, plus benefits and retirement costs, which is a trivial sum in
the great scheme of things. Aeronautical engineers are very lucky to
make much over sixty or seventy thousand a year.

We could probably build jet fighters for a little more than a Cessna
Citation goes for, if even that much, if we built them in quantities
like the Russians did. The Russians built 35,000 MiG-21s at a cost to
the State probably comparable to a good European sports car.

You want to ask our aviators to strap one on? I'm not going to.