GINGREY: Maintaining air superiority

"Maj. Gen. Dunlap makes the case that it is absolutely imperative that we have the conventional (non-nuclear) means to deter and defeat the existential threat the enemy that would have the ability to end the "existence of the United States as anything we would recognize ... The magnitude of the potential loss is just too great to make national security decisions based simply on the expected frequency of conflicts where the stakes are not as great." In 1987 George Kennon observed that should the Soviet Union suddenly cease to exist there were those in our gov't who would seek to replace them with another threat. It is silly and childish to actually argue as Mr. Gingrey does that 200 F-22 fighters is all that stands between the US and possible oblivian from a conventional enemy. Which enemy is envisioned in the next 20 years who posses this power? Clearly none exists or is even close to possessing such power projection today. The US military today is capable of removing any gov't we wish from power in any country. That will not change anytime in the next 10 years. No conventional military force is capable of standing up to the US Military on land, sea or air. These arguments are straight rehashes from the cold war. They had little basis in reality then and from this article, appear to have no basis in reality now.

KC, My friend if you think that there is no "near peer" country out there you haven't been watching the re emergence of Russia with it's oil money or the Chinese rise from regional to world power. R

I have seen the emergence of China and the resurgence of Russia. They are militarily incapable of conquering us. Even together they lack that ability. Economically they are both utterly dependent on the US to sustain their currencies. As is the rest of world. We are in no immediete danger or even for the forseeable future. The US military stands miles above all the other worlds militaries. We have no peers.

This is the same thing the liberals were saying the same thing about the F-15 (pictured above) back in the 1980s. They were wrong about the capabilities of the Russian Air Force. By the way, the caption is wrong. The aircraft are the F-22A, P-51 Mustang, F-15 Eagle, and A-10 Thunderbolt II.

KC, I agree with you on the current abilities of the US military to some extent. But, I can assure you that we didn't get here by patting ourselves on the back at how good we were. If we sit on our hands for 10 years content with what we have we likely could lose that advantage. Granted the F-15 is the magnificent machine but the first RFP's went out for it in October of 1965 with its first flight in July of 1972. There is no getting around it, it's old and needs to be replaced. Our 'enemies' have had nearly 40 years to figure out how to bring it down and although it's still holding up extremely well it's time unfortunately has come. For the record, the same nay-sayer's arguments against the F-22 are simply rehashes of the same arguments used against the F-15 when it was first in production. We moved ahead back then and we should move ahead today as well.

Not suggesting we sit around and pat ourselves on the back. The F-22 is the equivalent of the old F-15. We need to realistically consider the current threats and future threats. Of course we need to build the F-22 and lots of them but we have a projected $500 billion deficit next year. We're spending $10 billion a month in Iraq. This article is not a realistic threat assessment. Military spending is the most wasteful type of Gov't spending. We need to think about what we spend money on in a realistic manner. We badly hurt our economy with all the cold war spending we did. Anyone notice how the economy boomed once we cut military expenditures?

KC, The Soviet Union has not gone away. It has simply reverted to again being Russia, which was the state in the Soviet Union that did all of the ruling, and built all of the military equipment. With the lethality of current military equipment, both ours and that of Russia, China, and our current friends, we can not consider any conflict as being “not as great”. As for your question about “Which enemy is envisioned in the next 20 years who posses this power?” I should have to believe that you have not heard about the MiG replacements that Russia is building. They are stealthy, have forward swept wings which enhances maneuverability, and in all respects appear to be worthy adversaries for the F-22. You can rest assured that Russia will build many more than 200. As for our capability to remove any government that we wish from power in any country, I reply, “Possibly, but to do so would in many cases require the use of a nuclear weapon.” I believe that this would be a trigger for a world wide nuclear war. I am not willing to risk this. We have absolutely no reason to believe that the Russian replacement for the MiG would not have the same advantages over the world's former “Best Air Superiority Fighter” that our own F-22 has demonstrated. The Federal government has taken over way too many duties that should be restricted to the states. In most cases it simply screws them up because the “One Size Fits All” federal programs fit the situation no better than a “One Size Fits All” glove will fit both your baby daughter and you.

Current Russia isn't quite the same as the former SU. It's shorn of several of its richest provinces. Since I stopped doing research on Russian military hardware at the fall of the SU (which made my degrees obsolete overnight..bums.)I'm not familiar with their newest generation of fighters. However based on past fighter generations and being all to familiar with the exagerated claims for there performance I'm highly skeptical that even the newest generation is up to the standards of our previous generation fighters. If you include training and combat experience into the mix, any 2-3 Russian fighter squadron would be "meat on the table" for a single American fighter squadron. However, we're talking about war. Russia isn't our enemy. They have never truly been our enemy. We have no real reasons for conflict. Our two countries aren't Poland and Russia which have centuries of animosity and common invasions. We're not sunni and (wow the language police won't let me spell the other muslim sect) with centuries of religious conflict. We have no reason for conflict. We actually have many reasons for mutual beneficial cooperation. We have no need to set our military budgetary planning based on a projected war that has no real reason for coming about.