More Perfidious Goodness...

The Comanche’s stealth and noise suppression technology would have allowed it to penetrate enemy or contested airspace with much greater ease than the current models.  Its greater range means easier logistical support and greater strike radius.  And the fact that all the modern avionics are designed in from the start means easier maintenance and greater effectiveness.  Even if we had not gone ahead with the initial plan to purchase thousands of Comanches, several hundred would increase the effectiveness of units equipped with both Comanches and older attack and reconnaissance helicopters.

To be sure, the Comanche is expensive – over $50 million each.  But cost is not the only consideration when deciding whether to continue with a weapons program.  These are expensive projects, whether we cancel them or not.  Does the system increase the lethality of our forces?  Will its presence on the battlefield reduce the likelihood of American casualties?  What threat is the program meant to address?  We have to think carefully about what we cancel.  As the vastly increased operational tempo of our military eats into funding, we have to ensure that R&D, training and procurement budgets are not savaged as we fight the war on terror.  I think, from what I have read, that the Comanche would be a worthwhile addition to our armamentarium.  It will increase our ability to fight enemies on any battlefield, regardless of their technological sophistication.  And that will save lives. 

Other military projects are potentially on the block, waiting for the ax.  The Air Force’s F-22 Raptor has narrowly averted execution several times, as has the Marine V-22 Osprey.  We need to look at these and other programs in the same way. 

• The Crusader designed to deal with heavy armored forces, is no longer relevant, and it made sense to cancel it.
• The F-22 is an incredible fighter – it is stealthy, agile, heavily armed and can cruise at supersonic speeds.  There is no fighter in any Air Force that could defeat it.  But that is also true of the fighters we already have.  It would only be an incremental increase in our effectiveness against any likely opponent, who are unlikely to be any serious threat to our air superiority.  Build a squadron for when it absolutely, positively has to be destroyed overnight, and spend the money on the much cheaper (but still better than anything except the F-22) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.  Which also has a real ground attack capability.
• The V-22 Osprey, the tilt-rotor troop transport, is a great idea.  The Osprey takes off like a helicopter, and then its twin rotors rotate forward, allowing it to fly like an airplane.  Thus, it combines the helicopter’s ability to land and takeoff anywhere, with the airplane’s speed, payload capacity and range.  There have been four crashes in ten years, raising concerns about its safety, but many have argued that this is to be expected in a completely new type of aircraft.  If accepted, the Osprey would allow the Marines to deploy faster and further than ever before, and ease logistical support as well.  Adding this capability makes sense.  Thumbs up.

Its all a matter of looking at where the project in question would fit into the battlefield, and determining whether its worth the money.  (Including the opportunity cost - could we develop some other weapons system that is even more effective with the money?) Too Goddamn Much Perfidy...