Boys With Toys

"Sit down before facts with an open mind.
Be prepared to give up every preconceived notion.
Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you learn nothing.
Don’t push out figures when facts are going in the opposite direction."
Admiral Hyman Rickover

Admiral Hyman Rickover is considered the father of the nuclear Navy. He was a pioneer and harsh taskmaster for those under his command in the US nuclear submarine force. One of them was a young officer named Jimmy Carter, who was headed for his own command until called from service to save his family farm.

So, let's push out some facts, no matter what figures politicians are misusing.

The Republican led House of Representatives has a budget plan. Well, actually they have a budget "framework." Sort of like a "concept of a plan" to quote the President in a 2024 debate. And in this plan, they want to keep tax cuts that total $4.5 trillion over the next ten years.

No matter what anyone tells you, or your duly elected representative claims, tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves. It is money lost to the Treasury and thus, money that has to be borrowed. This is anathema for the so-called "budget hawks" in the only Congress we have, but they apparently are not all that hawkish.

Now, let me remind you, the total national debt from the Revolutionary War to now is $36 trillion dollars. The annual deficit, which we borrow to pay for every year is about $1.3 trillion. That is a big gap to close. And let me also remind you that as recently as 27 years ago, we did.

We had a budget surplus under President Clinton from 1998 to 2001. We were in the black. It involved cuts and taxes, and we got it done. Clinton's final four budgets were balanced budgets with surpluses, beginning with the 1997 budget. The ratio of debt held by the public to GDP, a primary measure of U.S. federal debt, fell from 47.8% in 1993 to 33.6% by 2000. And, incidentally, the national debt in 2000 was only $5.6 billion, with a B.

But, here we are. No one seems to be displaying that kind of courage, so, how do we head toward balance now? Well, it would help if you didn't dig the hole $4.5 trillion deeper, but the Republicans seem hell-bent on that. So, they have promised to cut $1.5 trillion in spending, per year, to do it. Where?

Glad you asked. Forget the DOGE clowns and their silly and false claims of massive savings. They can't back up their Twitter posts with anything resembling actual math and have only managed to make the government meaner, less efficient, undermanned and the lives of dedicated public servants miserable in the process.

There are only two big targets in the budget to go after, Defense and the big entitlement programs, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Since SS and Medicare cuts would bring the wrath of every senior in the country, including me, down on MAGA, Medicaid seems the likely victim. It seems the MAGA folks don't realize who their voting base is in some of the poorer states in the US of A, but they seem to be inclined toward cutting their access to healthcare anyway.

But let's consider another alternative, and I know, it's one that raises the hackles of all of us who lived through the Cold War, and some hot ones in between. The Defense Budget.

And I confess, I'm going to get a little nerdy here, but it will be understandable, I promise. And, I have pictures.

Firstly, we spend more than anyone, by a ridiculous margin.

And President Trump says he wants a $1 trillion Defense Budget next year. That is fully one third of the entire US national budget. And what are we spending that much for? Let's take a deep dive.

First, people. In Fiscal Year 2023, the U.S. military personnel budget, which covers pay and retirement benefits for active-duty and reserve troops, was approximately $184 billion, representing about 22.4% of the total defense budget. They get short shrift enough, so leave that alone.

But let's look at some of the big ticket items, as they are euphemistically called.

The US Navy has in it's arsenal, 11 nuclear-powered, Nimitz or Ford-class aircraft carriers in the fleet, with another 9 smaller helicopter carriers. The most any other power has, including Russia and China, is two. Here is the breakdown...

And, we have two more under construction and two others in the planning stages. You will notice that most of the others in the world are operated by our allies. A Ford-class carrier costs about $13 billion and we are looking at 4 more. This brings me to another quote from Admiral Hyman Rickover...

 "There are only two types of ships: submarines and targets." 

An aircraft carrier, even a modern one, is a vulnerable piece of hardware. That is why it ties up an enormous number of assets just to protect it...

Here's a more detailed breakdown of a Carrier Strike Group:

• Personnel: Approximately 7,500 sailors and Marines. 
• Aircraft Carrier: The flagship, a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. 
• Cruiser: At least one guided-missile cruiser, often a Ticonderoga-class cruiser, for air defense. 
• Destroyer Squadron: A destroyer squadron, typically consisting of 2-3 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers or frigates, for anti-submarine and surface warfare. 
• Carrier Air Wing: A carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft, including fighter jets, attack aircraft, electronic warfare aircraft, and helicopters. 
• Other ships: Some strike groups also include an amphibious assault ship, or an expeditionary strike group (ESG). 
• Submarine: Each carrier strike group is also assigned a submarine. 

And the reason why is that an enemy doesn't have to sink a carrier, merely put it out of action. The flight deck of a modern carrier is huge and frankly, an easy target. Hit it a few times and the carrier is a useless floating hunk of metal.

A modern attack sub costs, by the way, $2-3 billion, roughly one-fourth the cost of a carrier.

Hey, even our DUI pick for Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, said in the Economic Times...

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has raised alarms about China’s growing military capabilities. In particular, he pointed out the dangerous potential of China's hypersonic missiles, which could reportedly destroy U.S. aircraft carriers in just 20 minutes. This bold claim highlights the changing landscape of modern warfare and the serious threat posed by these advanced missiles.

So let's build 4 more?

As to Rickover's submarine force, again we lead the way in nuclear power. Oh, sure, the Russians and Chinese have a lot...

But when it comes to world-ranging, blue-water nuclear subs, it's no contest...

In most other countries the sub fleets are old-fashioned, WWII-type diesel/electric boats. They are mainly for coastal defense, and not to take on the US.

And then we come to aircraft. President Trump just announced the F-47 fighter, the country's first 6th-generation fighter. You know, 47th President, F-47, see what he did there. That's ass-kissing on a scale only matched by a Trump cabinet meeting.

Before we get into the shaky rationale for this plane, some numbers. In WWII, the fastest carrier fighter the US had was the Corsair...

My father's second job out of college as an electrical engineer was working on this bird at Chance-Vought in Fort Worth. During the war, it cost $70,000 1944 dollars to build one. Allowing for inflation, that is about $1.2 million now.

The latest F-35, that went into service in 2015 cost $102 million per plane. And it has problems. The stealth coating tends to wear off at supersonic speeds and the gun just can't hit anything. And according to the Project On Government Oversight...

"Overall, the F-35 failed to meet all but one of its availability, reliability, and maintainability requirements."

Now, I know. It's not fair to compare money spent for a WWII fighter to a sophisticated modern jet, even one that doesn't work very well. But our pilots are flying F-15's, F-16's and F-22's quite effectively now, so the need for yet another new fighter is questionable. And then there is Augustine's Law. Here's how the Center for International Strategic Studies described it...

"In 1979, Department of Defense (DOD) official Norman Augustine conducted a legendary study of U.S. fighter aircraft cost growth over time. He found that the unit cost of new-generation fighter aircraft has increased, on average, roughly an order of magnitude every 20 years since 1910. Augustine observed, “In the year 2054, the entire defense budget will purchase just one aircraft. The aircraft will have to be shared by the Air Force and Navy [three and a half days each per week except for leap year, when it will be made available to the Marines for the extra day.”

OK, he put it humorously, but it's not wrong. The F-47 will dwarf the cost of the others by a factor of WTF!

And honestly, will we need what is termed, an Air Superiority Fighter in the future? We just don't see the classic dogfight, like in WWII, anymore. The Smithsonian Magazine says the last documented dogfight, involving aircraft shooting each other down in close-range combat, was in 1969 during the Football War between Honduras and El Salvador in Central America. These dogfights were fought using U.S.-built Corsairs and Mustangs. 

The Battle of Britain will not look like this again.

The F-47 is meant to do that, although the F-22 is currently the best in the world at the task. But it's a task that simply doesn't happen in a world with long range, stand off weapons. Most shoot downs occur between pilots who never see each other. The modern fighter has become essentially a missile truck. So these are immense amounts of money to be spent for, what?

Then there are bombers. The idea of a manned, penetration bomber is becoming completely antiquated. If you are fighting a first world power like Russia or China, with the kinds of sophisticated air defenses available now, the concept of a bomber overflying Moscow or Beijing and dropping a payload is nonsense, and suicidal nonsense at that. Yes stealth helps, but it is still an unnecessary risk.

If it's a third world power, use the old dependable B-52 and drop a boatload of bombs.

Back in the late 70's, the B-1 bomber program, which had begun in the late 60's, was well under way. President Carter knew that cruise missiles and stealth bombers like the F-117 were in the works, so he cancelled it. Why risk a multi-billion dollar plane and its crew if you can fly up to a country's border, launch a salvo of cruise missiles and fly home. You don't need a sophisticated aircraft for that, as a C-5 cargo plane or even a 747 would carry a lot of payload. Again, they are just missile trucks.

But, President Reagan revived the B-1 program by farming out components to enough states that many Senators had a financial stake in it. That was explained in a great book called Wild Blue Yonder.

Then came the B-2 flying wing, and now a successor, the B-21. Why a successor? Beats me. The B-2 cost $2.5 billion versus $750 million for the B-21. A good friend of mine in the Commemorative Air Force, which restores and flies classic warbirds, has a son who flies a B-52, which came into service in 1953!!

I asked if his son would like to fly the B-2 and he said no. If you crash one, you'll spend the rest of your career filling out paperwork to explain the monetary loss.

When the B-2 is finally retired and flown to the Air Force boneyard in Arizona, the crew will probably be flown back in a B-52.

Of course the WWII workhorse B-17 would cost $2.5 million in today's dollars which reminds us of Augustine's Law of increasing aircraft cost.

But the mission of the B-17 and the B-2 are the same, and I understand things cost more, but that mission makes much less sense in the age of cruise missiles, which are a fraction of the cost of an aircraft.

Then there is this. And I hate to mention it as I am as nostalgic as the next guy, but in the era of unmanned aircraft, is any of this necessary? The concept of the F-47 involves the inclusion of what is called a Collaborative Combat Aircraft or CCA. That is an unmanned wingman to fly with the manned fighter. We already have one in the test stages now...

CCAs are intended to operate in collaborative teams with the next generation of manned combat aircraft, including sixth-generation fighters and bombers. Former Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall estimated that one CCA would cost $25 million–$30 million. This is roughly 10 times cheaper than the original estimate for the unit cost of a manned 6th-generation fighter.

So, that begs the obvious question, why not just build a bunch of these and save the money? This is the XQ-58A Valkyrie and it's known colloquially as the "Loyal Wingman."

The loyal wingman is a military drone with an onboard AI control system and capability to carry and deliver a significant military weapons load. The AI system is envisaged as being significantly lighter and lower-cost than a human pilot with their associated life support systems, but to offer comparable capability in flying the aircraft and in mission execution. Again, an observation from Admiral Rickover...

So, these are the choices. Do we hurt actual American citizens with cuts to essential programs, or rationally look at the technology and the mission and pare back some cool but perhaps unnecessary defense spending?

Come on people. You know what they'll choose.