It was introduced as an interceptor and fleet air superiority fighter. Like the F-4, it was supposed to defend carrier battle groups and perform interdiction missions over land. The latter role was mostly scrubbed once the F/A-18 came along.
30 years is a long time for an automobile. It’s not a long time for an airframe. The Boeing 707 was built - not was in service, but built - for 21 years. It’s still in limited service. The 747 entered service in 1970 or so and will still be in service for at least 20 more years. The DC-10 was introduced in 1971 (I think) and is still in common use.
Granted, the F-14 probably wasn’t a particularly good example.
You are using the first flight dates, which are anything from 5 to 15 years before the actual in-service date. By that standard, the F-22 is already 20 years old.
These things are only “threats” if you want to maintain a global empire. Otherwise they’re no threat to America at all, nobody is going to threaten a nuclear-armed nation and nobody could possibly invade America even if we had zero army. No economy in the world could possibly afford fighting an insurgency of 300 million united, heavily armed, pissed off people. And for what benefit to them?
You also have to look at how effectively anybody else could do any of the scenarios you’ve presented and what the costs would be to them. There’s actually very little benefit in using the military to achieving any strategic aims and plenty cost as our recent adventures clearly show. None of those countries have an economy that can afford long and costly military adventures and none of them really need to.
Hogwash. The US military spending levels were based on the ability to fight 1 1/2 wars at once, or winning a war against either Iraq or North Korea, the major perceived enemies, while conducting a holding action against the other until the first was defeated if the other tried to take advantage of a perceived opportunity while the US was busy. There was no overextension in Afghanistan, and the cause of the overextension in Iraq was a result of an utter failure to predict the obvious that occupation would be more painful than defeating the Iraqi military conventionally in the field, and Rumsfeld’s obsession with winning the conventional phase with the least amount of men possible in order to prove his pet ‘revolution in military affairs.’ Remember the 4th Infantry Division (Mech) floating around in the Med waiting for Turkish approval to enter their country to invade Iraq from the north which was in the end never forthcoming and how little it bothered Rumsfeld and his whizs-boys to lose 15,000 boots on the ground for occupation after the inevitable victory?
Nonsense. Hitler never cared if the US entered the war or not, he never appreciated what it would mean and declared war on the US in the most casual manner on Dec 8, 1941. The US was in his distorted view a non-factor.
Again, utter nonsense. When the Bf-109 was in action the US was flying aircraft such as the P-36, P-39, P-40, and Buffalo Brewster. Not equals to the 109, but a far, far cry from biplanes. The US quickly replaced the Springfield M1903 bolt-action rifle, it’s only major use was at Guadalcanal. The standard rifle of the German army throughout the entire war was the Mauser 98k Bolt-action rifle. In point of fact, the** only ** nation that didn’t use a bolt-action rifle as its standard infantry weapon in WW2 was the US which used the self-loading M-1 Garand.
I generally agree with you up to Vietnam. The US military that went into Vietnam in 1965 was well equipped, well trained, had good leadership but perhaps was not prepared for the kind of war it was asked to fight. Until 1991 it was probably the best peacetime army the US had ever possessed, it wasn’t the hollow shell that had to go into Korea in 1950 for example, and didn’t suffer the kinds of defeats that happened in Korea when under strength units were thrown into the fray, or faced defeats such as Kasserine Pass in WW2 in its first major action.
The military that went into Vietnam wasn’t the military that left Vietnam with severe problems in disciple, drug use, fragging officers, etc. Those problems arose during the course of fighting a seemingly unending war.
Which is exactly my point. I’m arguing against the notion that you don’t need to spend more on new aircraft because you’re already far ahead of the enemy. I’m saying that if you have a military that is prepared to handle future threats, then it’s going to look oversized pretty much all the time - until it’s needed. Then it’s just right. Lots of people thought the military downsizing in the 90’s wasn’t substantial enough. They thought the military should have been much, much smaller. After all, there weren’t any threats any more. Three years later, and the military was struggling for resources.
There was a time when America’s isolation could allow it to fall behind militarily and then catch up when needed in a burst of manufacturing output, like it did in the first two world wars. Back then, America was immune to serious attack. So if threatened, it could afford to spend two or three years ramping up for the fight. That strategy no longer works in an era where it takes 20 years to take an aircraft from initial design to deployment. It also no longer works because the U.S. IS vulnerable to attack. The world’s a much smaller place now.
So, you have to be prepared. And a military prepared to fight a major war will always look bigger than it needs to be when the war isn’t being fought. But the peril in shrinking the military is that it may help trigger the very war you’re trying to avoid.
I believe in the maxim, “If you wish peace, be prepared for war.” I do not believe the world is a lovable place. I believe it’s a large collection of countries, each of which has its own interests and each of which will fight to protect them.
You also have countries which feel that they are owed more than they have, and are always looking for an opportunity to expand their reach and power. Russia is clearly one of those. As are Iran and China. And many other countries. Britain and Argentina still argue over the Falklands. They already fought a war over it.
You also have countries whose values are inimical to each other, and are constantly threatening conflict over it.
In a world like that, the only way you ensure your own peace and safety is to make sure that you can fully deter any attempted aggression aimed at you, your allies, or your mutual interests. And that means stationing military resources in foreign countries.
If the U.S. withdraws forces from Okinawa, Germany, Afghanistan, Iraq, and all the other countries where it has bases, the world will instantly become a much more dangerous place. In addition, having those military bases cements allied relationships and creates economic bonds that help tie allies together. They also help the cultures mix. In most countries, the U.S. military is more than welcomed. Germany was not happy at the thought of a major withdrawal of American forces - it meant too much to the economy.
Take all that away and you move countries apart. That’s not a good thing. It’s a good thing that Vlad Putin has to stop and seriously consider the tens of thousands of Americans parked on or near the territory he’d like to control, and what they might do if he starts throwing his military weight around. It’s currently good for Iraq to have that many Americans parked in the middle of them, ready to knock heads if they start warring with each other.
You guys that want to always downsize the military don’t seem to really understand the value of America having a far-flung military presence. It’s a huge asset to the people of the USA. It keeps the peace, keeps trade moving, and keeps freedom from being squashed by dictators and despots. American soldiers are also its best ambassadors - professional, polite, young, and possessed with spending money.
If I can extrapolate from this comment, it sounds like many billions of dollars of military spending are needed to mitigate the blunders of people like Rumsfeld and Cheney. Perhaps this suggests a good answer for OP’s question: To avoid such unconscionable waste of federal funds, fix the political environment to keep idiots like Rove and Cheney out of the White House.
You’re applying commercial ideas to military lifespans.
For an accurate comparison, look at the lifespan of the M1 Abrams tank, a fighting machine like the planes in question.
ETA:
Actually, the US really was a non-factor. We surprised everyone, including ourselves, with our ability to kick ass and take names with an unprecedented industrialization and militarization.
This is isolationist nonsense. You honestly think that America can just withdraw from the world, let whatever happens happen, and just ignore it without consequence?
Let me ask you - would you have kept the U.S. out of WWII? The U.S. could have evacuated Hawaii and let the Japanese have it, after all. By your theory, the smart thing to do would have been to retreat to the mainland, comfortable in the knowledge that it couldn’t be invaded. There was no serious threat of invasion then, and probably isn’t now. Logistically it’s just not possible. So America has always had that opportunity. Just withdraw from the world, batten down the hatches, threaten any aggression with a nuclear retaliation, and let the world do whatever it will do.
What exactly do you think the likely result of that would be? I’m really curious to understand this mindset. Do you honestly think that the world would be a better place, that Americans would have better lives, and that the cause of peace would be served this way?
And do you honestly believe that America is an empire? If so, what exactly makes you believe that?
And would you really abandon America’s allies like that? Would you have told Britain, “Hey, have fun being Nazis, boys!”? Would you leave the Czechs and the Poles to the mercy of Russia today? Leave the Taiwanese to the mercy of the Chinese?
And do you not believe that a withdrawal of the U.S. from the world would result in a frenzy of nuclear weapon building as our previously-protected allies found themselves vulnerable?
Right… Oh, those silly militarists! If only they understood that you can never use the military for gain!
The only problem with your thesis is that military power HAS been used for gain, all through recorded history. You’ve got a lot of counter-examples to explain away if you really believe this.
Of course, ‘our recent adventure’ (presumably in Iraq) wouldn’t have cost nearly so much if we HAD gone in with the sole idea that were were going to simply exploit their oil for our own benefit, and then bolt when it was gone. A couple of FAE on the main population centers, selective bombing of their water and distribution infrastructure, seize the pipelines, seize the oil fields, build a series of forts and and observation and communications system, set up the logistics, blow the shit out of anything approaching it, and let the rest of Iraq do whatever the hell they like…no skin off our nose.
It costs so much because we didn’t do it that way.
Now, a further question, is “tank” technology a mature technology, or is it still a developing technology?
Are “fighter plane” and “bomber plane” technology mature technologies, or are they still developing technologies?
While the M1 has a long expected lifespan, it’s a relatively mature technology, and even it is being constantly retrofitted with better equipment, planes can’t have the same done.
Or we could just legalize all drugs and tax the hell out of them. If we allow everyone to grow their own pot, it immediately breaks the economic back of the Mexican drug cartels. (And saves the money we throw down the toilet we call the ‘War on Drugs’) If the cartels have no economic reason to come across the border, this leaves the border crossings mostly to people looking for work and willing to perform jobs most Americans don’t want to do anyway.
Put the troops on the border to control leaks, but create a registration systen for job seekers with the possibility of citizenship after … say … 20 years of having a job and paying taxes. If people really just want to come in and work (and I assume most illegals really just want to work and send money back home), let them, but make sure they pay out of their incomes every tax (Social Security, Medicare, Income, etc. that we have to pay, plus a 5% immigration tax.)
Make a law that everyone who comes in to work has to be enrolled in English language classes in order to keep their work visas.
(If I worked in a foreign country, I think it would be a reasonable expectation that I learn that country’s language…)
Now that we’re in the nuclear age there’s no reason at all for us to have huge armies and bases all over the world to prevent anything. Contemporary history shows us that any country using the military to further territorial or resource aims doesn’t fare too well in the age of the AK-47 and widely available high explosives. Why worry if Russia wants to invade a neighboring country to enforce regional hegemony, it’s only going to bleed them and leave them worse off in the end. Look how well invading Afghanistan worked out for them for instance. Why would they want to invade the Czech Republic or Poland after that experience and for exactly what benefit to them? Why would China invade Taiwan when they can carry on with their current strategy of economically dominating it and gradually reabsorbing it? They patiently waited a hundred years for the Brits to hand them Hong Kong, they’ll happily wait just as long or twice as long to get Taiwan back. We can be fully engaged with the world diplomatically, use soft power like economic and technical aid to achieve far more than we can with military power.
And yes, I do think we’re an empire. If you want to debate that you can answer this post from the last time we were talking about whether we’re an empire or not, you never got back to me. Here it is:
Britain held Hong Kong under the terms of a written lease. The Chinese were happy to wait because they knew that once the lease expired Britain would have to give up control of Hong Kong peacefully.
I’m aware of the history of Hong Kong and Taiwan. I lived in Hong Kong when it was still governed by the Brits. Been to Taiwan too. Taiwan will eventually be reabsorbed by China and even the Taiwanese (99% of whom are Han Chinese) will tell you that. And that’s the bits the Chinese won’t already own. Ten years ago there was one flight a week from Beijing to Taoyuan International. Now there are getting on for 300 flights a week from all over China packed full of businessmen and salesmen. And you know what, we couldn’t really care less about Taiwan. We’ve only ever used Taiwan as a handy stick to poke the Chinese with and occasionally drum up a bit of fear at home to keep enough Americans wetting the bed over all those foreign “threats” we face. We supported them when they were a military dictatorship and we’ll support them as long as the degree of our support can be used as an effective bargaining chip when we’re negotiating stuff with the Chinese. Because that’s all they effectively are to us.
Of the two places Hong Kong is the best night out by far. I wouldn’t mind going back there sometime.
The Vietnam War was micromanaged by incompetents Lyndon Baines Johnson and Robert McNamara.
LBJ forbade American forces from entering Cambodia or Laos, which gave the communists almost exclusive access to the Ho Chi Minh Trail. Had the Democrat idiot not interfered as he did, we could have no doubt ended the war in a few months.
Secretary of Defense McNamara was so vile he published a book just a few years ago in which he claimed we “couldn’t win.” So McNamara was knowingly sending thousands of men to their deaths, under plans he knew to be faulty.
Richard Nixon negotiated the Paris Peace Accord ending the war, and bringing home our troops.
Then John Kerry betrayed his comrades in arms and gave aid and comfort to the enemy, encouraging General Giap to launch a final assault, in violation of the Peace Treaty.
Nixon was impeached and resigned from office, and could not keep his promise to resume bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong with B-52s.
The cowardly congress, led by Democrats, betrayed the South Vietnamese by breaking its promise to resupply them with military hardware, munitions, and food.
Hence the Democrats’ claim that we “lost” in Vietnam.