Barack Obama’s First Military Decision Is Now Proven to be a Bad Decision

Barack Obama’s First Military Decision Is Now Proven to be a Bad Decision

Originally Posted by Erick Erickson

It has been almost 90 days since General McChrystal asked Barack Obama for more troops. No decision has been made. The General still waits as our soldiers keep dying.

But that might actually be a better alternative to any decision Obama might make.

As awful as that sounds, new information is proving Barack Obama’s got his first major military decision disastrously wrong and the repercussions to our national security will be far reaching in light of China’s growing aggressiveness.

Back up to January. Barack Obama had just been sworn in to office and the Pentagon then began reviewing whether the F-22 Raptor program should get more funding. Despite lots of talk about saving and creating jobs, the Obama administration nudged Defense Secretary Robert Gates to kill the F-22, an advanced stealth fighter for which no nation has put up a competing system.

In April, Robert Gates said he intended to kill the program. In July, Senators tried to keep the funding alive citing threats from China. But, Barack Obama’s administration said those threats were overestimated and Obama threatened to veto the entire defense budget if F-22 funding were left in.

Unfortunately for the United States military, that turns out to be flat out wrong.

According to Aviation Week, China not only is building a 5th generation fighter to compete with the F-22, but they’ll begin testing it this year.

Note that China announced this while Obama was in China sucking up to them.

[Sigaba]

Was cutting the F-22 the president's first military decision? IIRC, before that, he picked a vice president, a special assistant for national security affairs, and retained the incumbent secretary of defense.

Did Mr. Erickson actually read the entire Aviation Week article? I don't know that the questions raised by an analyst prove anything. The article points out that:

Whether the upcoming fighter is really comparable with the F-22 remains to be seen.

This healthy skepticism is informed by the fact that (a) the production time of the PRC's fighter is unknown and (b) the aircraft's capabilities are also unknown. Also not discussed in Mr. Erickson's post is the article's discussion of the west's ongoing development of drones. (The article itself could have addressed the issue of industrial and economic capacity. Can the west keep pace with the PRC in a contest of putting fifth generation fighters into the sky or are their more prudent options?)

This is to say that a lot can happen between now and 2020.

We are, after all, living through a revolution in military affairs.

(FWIW, earlier discussions of the present administration's decision to cut the F-22 can be found here and here.)

Sigaba, all good points.

My focus, however, when I came across this article, was China's efforts at disrespecting the President. I don't see any good coming out of the perception that our nation can be dissed without consequences.

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by HowardCohodas

Sigaba, all good points.

My focus, however, when I came across this article, was China's efforts at disrespecting the President. I don't see any good coming out of the perception that our nation can be dissed without consequences.

and you comment:
Note that China announced this while Obama was in China sucking up to them.

Did the Chinese disrespect come before or after "Note that China announced this while Obama was in China sucking up to them."

[Peregrino]

The Chinese might have been making a point after "The One" bowed to the Japanese Emperor.

[Richard]

Kinda reminds me of the Mig-25 - which was kept so secret and touted as such an advanced air defense fighter interceptor aircraft to counter the threats of the American XB-70 and SR-71 programs. We spent years trying to gain access to its secrets for analysis - guessing at its capabilities and busily trying to create aircraft and other systems to counter their hinted at advanced functions.

This went on until a Russian pilot flew one to Japan for the reward being offered and gave us the opportunity to examine the aircraft.

Upon dismantling the Mig-25, the data was analyzed by the Foreign Technology Division of the Air Force at Dayton, Ohio, and they found many surprises:

• The Mig had been manufactured in February 1976 and thus was one of their latest most sophisticated production aircraft.
• Transistor circuitry was not used but instead the Soviets relied on vacuum tubes for most of their electronics. The Soviets reasoned the vacuum tubes were less affected by EMP waves in the case of nuclear attack; were more resistant to temperature extremes and they were easy to replace in remote airfields where transistors may not be readily available if repairs were needed.
• Welding was done by hand.
• Rivet heads were exposed in areas not critical to parasitic aerodynamic drag.
• Pilot forward vision was highly obstructed.
• With huge Tumansky R-15D-300 engines the Mig was considered almost a rocket.
• Pilots were forbidden to exceed Mach 2.5. There was a total of three engine instruments and the airspeed indicator was redlined at 2.8 Mach.
• Above Mach 2.8 the engines would overheat and burn up. The Americans had clocked a Mig-25 over Israel at Mach 3.2 in 1973. Upon landing in Egypt, the engines were totally destroyed. We did not understand that the engine destruction was inevitable.
• The combat radius is 186 miles.
• Without using afterburner; staying at optimum altitude and not maneuvering, the Mig can fly in a straight line for 744 miles.
• The plane was so heavy at 64,200 pounds, that according to early rumors Soviet designers had to eliminate a pilot ejection system. However this was disproved. Most MiG-25s used the KM-1 ejector seat. The last versions used an early variant of the famous K-36 seat. The speed record for the fastest successful ejection (Mach 2.67) is held by a KM-1 equipped MiG-25.
• Maximum operational altitude: Carrying two missiles, 78,740 feet (for maximum two minutes duration); carrying four missiles, 68,900 feet is maximum.
• Maximum altitude of missiles: 88,588 feet.
• Ability to intercept an SR-71: Belenko states the Mig-25 cannot intercept the SR-71 for several reasons: The SR-71 fly too high and too fast; the Mig cannot reach it or catch it. The missiles lack the velocity to overtake the SR-71 and in the event of a head on missile fire (The Golden BB), the Guidance system cannot adjust to the high closure rate of the SR-71.
• The Mig-25 has a jam proof radar but cannot distinguish targets below 1,640 feet due to ground clutter. The radar was so powerful it could burn through jamming signals by approaching bombers.
• Maximum G load: With full fuel tanks 2.2 G's is max; with near empty fuel tanks, 5 G's is dangerous. The Mig-25 cannot turn inside a U.S. F-4 Phantom fighter!
• The plane was made of steel alloy, not high temperature titanium, although strips of titanium was used in areas of high heat concentration.
• In a tight turn the missiles could be ripped from the wings.
• The Mig-25 was was not a fighter or an air superiority aircraft but rather designed by the Soviets to climb at tremendous speeds, fire missiles at one pass of the target and then land.
• Search and tracking radar had a range of 55.9 miles.
• The pilot duties were to take off, turn on the auto pilot and await instructions to fire the missiles from ground controllers. The Mig-25 had a superb auto pilot and digital communications from an onboard computer to ground controllers.

Two months after the defection, the United States and Japan returned the Mig-25 to Russia...in dismantled pieces. No Mig-25 ever shot down an SR-71.

http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/mig25.html

As to China - homeland defense is one thing - the capability to effectively project and sustain military power beyond ones contiguous borders is another matter. Maybe we'll have to find out one day...but they remain pretty engaged with India and Russia, a fact routinely lost in the general daily news cycles of the Western MSM.

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02

[afchic]

Originally Posted by HowardCohodas

Barack Obama’s First Military Decision Is Now Proven to be a Bad Decision

So they get a new pretty fighter. What are they going to do with it, that is threatening to us? Do they have an aerial refueler? Do they have an aircraft carrier? Until one of those weapon systems is built by China, all a new fighter is going to do is fly around China, and the local area.

The other nations directly surrounding China may have cause for raising their eyebrows, but not the US, in my opinion.

And the choice to cancel the fighters was Congress and Congress alone. Doesn't matter that the POTUS was threatening to veto any bill that had them in it. If they thought enough of the program (like the C-17 program that was suppose to die as well, but didn't). They obviously took a look at the program and for one reason or another decided it wasn't worth it.

I distinctly remember a few months back, many members of this board cheering the announcement. Now it is a bad military decision? Can't be both, so which is it?

[Razor]

Originally Posted by afchic

The other nations directly surrounding China may have cause for raising their eyebrows, but not the US, in my opinion.

Such as our allies Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan? Maybe the eastern Stans, where there has been/is a US staging base presence? What if they decide to export?

[afchic]

Originally Posted by Razor

Such as our allies Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan? Maybe the eastern Stans, where there has been/is a US staging base presence? What if they decide to export?

True as your comment may be, how would our onward movement of purchasing more F-22s help the situation? I don't remember seeing anything saying that we were planning on stationing any of them in any of those locations, although I may be wrong. So other than stationing them on China's doorstep, how would the additional production be beneficial?

[ryno]

Originally Posted by afchic

So other than stationing them on China's doorstep, how would the additional production be beneficial?

I don’t have a good answer to your question as I am not very knowledgeable about the capabilities of our air assets or the projected level of strength necessary to maintain air superiority. I do have an issue with the F-22 being scrapped for the F-35, since the F-35 is now behind schedule and going over budget.
Secretary Gates once said the U.S. military has a problem with “Next-War-itis” instead of focusing on current wars. I am afraid we are also prone to the “we’ll never fight another one like that again” syndrome. We need to take honest assessments of our enemies and their capabilities as well as our own. Of course we cannot do this unless we have a POTUS that will actually admit we have enemies.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by afchic

True as your comment may be, how would our onward movement of purchasing more F-22s help the situation? I don't remember seeing anything saying that we were planning on stationing any of them in any of those locations, although I may be wrong. So other than stationing them on China's doorstep, how would the additional production be beneficial?

Very true. I don't know if the discontinued F22 is any better or worse than the F35, so I'm not smart enough to be upset over stopping the F22 program. I do think, though, that regardless of having no plans today to forward deploy an advanced fighter has little impact on our ability to do so in the future, so long as we actually have the aircraft in the inventory and not still stuck in blueprint or test flight status. Balancing cost vs. future security need projections is a tought nut to crack...I'm glad its not my job.

[ryno]

Originally Posted by Razor

Balancing cost vs. future security need projections is a tought nut to crack...I'm glad its not my job.

Razor, I strongly second that. I just hope the ones who have that job make good decisions.

[akv]

This thread made me think of the late Col. John Boyd's warnings about the dangers of technology as a panacea. He would argue an expensive technologically superior aircraft could be overwhelmed by 3 cheaper less sophisticated planes, and we needed to make sure our forces were a blend of technology and sufficient numbers for the mission.

Despite our technology the success of the surge in Iraq seems linked to higher troop levels, yet General McChrystal is still waiting for his 40k troops in Afghanistan, and you still hear administration support for the tactic of just using cruise missiles.

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by akv

yet General McChrystal is still waiting for his 40k troops in Afghanistan, and you still hear administration support for the tactic of just using cruise missiles.

I can't stop thinking of how trying Akbar Kahn's wait at the entrance of the Khoord-Kabul Pass must have been in January, 1842.
"What?" he had to wonder "was delaying the 4,500 British troops along with 12,000 camp followers?"
I suppose he could've asked Dr William Brydon about a week later.

Waiting can be so difficult . . .

[Dozer523]

On a serious note, if you haven't read Stephen Tanner's Afghanistan (A Military History from Alexander The Great to the War Against the Taliban) DaCapo Press 2009 edition) you really haven't got a solid historical background for discussing the Afghans. We are not in Kansas.
.02