F-22s Or More Robots: Choices for Obama's First Budget

February 23, 2009

By Joe Rothstein
Editor, EINNEWS.COM

President Obama intends to cut the deficit in half during his four year term. He can't do that without hitting the brakes on the fastest runaway spending of the past eight years----the military budget. The U.S. spends 50% more on defense and security now than it did when George Bush became president in 2001.

The decision on how to rein in defense spending is more than a numbers crunching game. The traditional doctrines of how we fight wars, and the weapons and manpower needed to fight them are in the crosshairs.

A few days ago I wrote about Dr. Peter Singer's new book, Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict In the 21st Century. That “revolution” will get a test with President Obama's budget.

For example:

The Air Force has been on track to buy more than 500 F-22 fighter airplanes. These are the most expensive fighters ever built---$140 million each. They were designed in the 1980s to fight Russian MiGs, a scenario that no longer seems likely, or even probable. Many argue that the F-22, which has never seen action in Iraq or Afghanistan, should be limited to the 183 already in service or in production.

It's a tough call for the White House, since parts of the F-22 are built in each of 44 states. That's a powerful constituency, particularly when the administration is working so hard to create jobs, not cut them. But to continue building and deploying F-22s would cost tens of billions of dollars, and require cuts elsewhere in the defense budget.

One of those elsewheres is the army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) program. FCS is a revolutionary war-fighting concept made possible by new robotic and computer technologies. It involves new generations of unmanned ground vehicles linked together by sophisticated computer controlled communications. It also means giving each army brigade its own unmanned air force of more than 100 unmanned drones. FCS also includes small, dart like drones that can be dropped behind enemy lines to provide intelligence on enemy movements. This would be an expensive transformation of the military and speed the migration from human warfighters to humanoid-like robots.

Throughout the Pentagon budget wish list are plans for development of robots far more intelligent than the ones already at work in Iraq and Afghanistan---even unmanned intelligent weapons of nanoscale (less than the width of a human hair) size.

Because of financial constraints, the Obama budgets likely will have to choose between paying for all of the the more conventional types of air, ground and naval forces we field today, and the techo-driven, robotic weaponry whose first generation is currently being deployed into war zones.

Behind all of this is the struggle pitting traditionalist military leaders who believe the U.S. must be ready to combat conventional warfare threats from potential adversaries such as Russia or China, against those who see the greatest threats coming from non-state enemies such as we face in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Currently, the U.S. spends more for defense and security than all the nations of the world combined. In 2008, world military spending was about $1.5 trillion. Of that amount, more than $1 trillion was spent by NATO countries, including the U.S.

As Dr. Singer points out in Wired for War, military robotics and other technological wonders can be developed much more quickly and cheaply than the airplanes, aircraft carriers and other modern weapons of warfare that have given dominance to the U.S. and other richer nations. In fact, Singer says, 44 nations currently have active robotics programs. Unmanned drones can be built for $1000, essentially putting them within reach of anyone or any group intent on doing us harm.

During the Iraq and Afghan conflicts, our most expensive fighter, the F-22, has seen no action. Our fleet of nuclear submarines have been of no help. Our aircraft carriers have provided a platform for launching some aircraft but have hardly been critical to winning the streets and villages of either Iraq or Afghanistan.

Where do the next threats lie? What weapons do we need to combat them? And how do we establish priorities within spending budgets that no longer can be put together with a whatever-it-takes attitude?

These are all tough questions, particularly given that slowing or cutting big weapons systems means cutting jobs in the midst of a severe recession.

The Obama White House is about to take its first swing at dealing with these questions. Inside the budget we see this week will be clues as to how the new president sees the future of U.S. military security----and the future of warfare itself.

Joe Rothstein is a veteran national political strategist and media producer, former daily newspaper editor, and currently Washington bureau chief for EINNEWS.com and editor of USPoliticstoday.com. He can be contacted at joe@einnews.com