Let’s say there’s this really expensive fighter aircraft that you don’t use in the two wars you’re fighting. You’ve got 183 of them coming, but that’s just not
Jul 31, 202047.1K Shares726.1K Views
Let’s say there’s this really expensive fighter aircraft that you don’t use in the two wars you’re fighting. You’ve got 183 of them coming, but that’s just not enough. Over the years you’ve typically said that you want 381 of them. But then the secretary of defense points out that you don’t use the planes in the two wars you’re fighting, and, to boot, the country is in an economic tailspin. So what do you do?
Gen. Norton Schwartz said that the Air Forceis looking to buy more than the 183 radar-evading F-22s now ordered, but fewer than the 381 planes the Air Force has insisted on in past years. …
“„
The Air Force’s position is “driven by analysis as opposed to some other formulation, and I think it will withstand scrutiny,” Schwartz said.
Um. It’s a savvy move: you’re not going to be sounreasonable as to seek the huge numbers of aircraft that you’re not using in either hot war; you’re just going to ask for somelarger number of the F-22. (Schwartz said he wasn’t going to comment on the specific number of F-22s he’ll tell Secretary Bob Gates he needs by March 1.) And it can work! Somehow, the Wall Street Journal portrayedthe service’s abandonment of the 321-plane dream as a cutto the program, even though Schwartz is explicit about asking for more than the 183 aircraft. Savvy negotiating. But for a more, uh, skeptical view of an aircraft that isn’t used in either Iraq or Afghanistan, read thisand this.
Update: Colin Clark at DODBuzz saysthe Air Force is going to ask for 60 more F-22s. That’s via Noah Shachtman.