4 Comments
Apr 8, 2022Liked by Andrew Cockburn

In a bizarre way, the US Air Force is disarming itself. The F-35 can't fly and fight, and the KC-46 can't refuel it in flight.

The AF also wants to phase out the F-22. It's too expensive, too unreliable, and it's hamstrung by its short range.

I wrote about the F-35 here, Andrew, citing your work on "the Pentagon Syndrome." https://bracingviews.com/2019/09/16/trillions-for-warplanes-the-case-of-the-f-35/

Remember when Norman Augustine predicted the entire defense budget, I think in 2054, would go to a single plane shared among the AF, Navy, and Marines? Hard to share a plane that so rarely is able to fly! Irony of ironies, it's produced by his old company.

Expand full comment

I had a question related to the Spoils of War book, which I read a review of in Responsible Statecraft by Marc Martorell Juyent, linked here: https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/12/31/how-we-benefit-from-the-cockburns-spoils-of-war/.

Juyent notes that you wrote in the book on the wide manufacturing base and high price tag of the B1 -- and especially the F-35 -- as explanations for their replacing the A-10 in the Close Air Support role, even though the A-10 promises less risk of civilian casualties for its flying low and slow. What about the alternative explanation, though, that the military branch in charge of this mission (US Air Force) in fact thinks itself above the Close Air Support role and would prefer to spend money on strategic bombers and attack aircraft in line with its historical focus on bombing? Then it would make sense that the USAF boxed out the A-10 in favor of the B1 and the F-35, which are respectively a strategic bomber and an attack aircraft. For the USAF's favoring strategic bombing over CAS, I cite this recent book https://www.amazon.com/US-Defense-Politics-Origins-Security/dp/1138657646, pp. 104-7. Of course, I recognize (as you write here) that the F-35 is all too ineffectual and bogged down by flaws, but I am mainly concerned here with the "military" aspect of the military-industrial-congressional complex perhaps not factoring into the explanation enough.

Any insights are appreciated, thank you.

Expand full comment

Actually every 10 decibels represents a X10 increase in sound levels. But great story again.

Expand full comment