Introducing Suzie Dershowitz Part 3

Still ‘Provoking Accountability’….Of the ‘Unaccountable’

POGO's Suzie Dershowittz, Source: POGO

Back to Part 2

Major Ploy Du Jour #2: “This Proves/Refutes Our POV/Their POV” (In this case both). Only.... it doesn't. Hint: You could lay all the economists in the world end to end and you still wouldn't be able to reach a conclusion.

Ms. Dershowitz’s cogitative effluence attempts to use the CATO ‘study’ as evidence (may I say ‘proof’?) that one particular defense industry economic impact study, which we shall refer to as the “Fuller study”, and one that points to destructive effects from an imminent and abrupt downturn in defense acquisition spending, is not to be trusted and is also out of the ‘mainstream’ of economic thought. Now, I have many problems with using the CATO ‘study’ in this manner (as I would for any study used in the same way). BUT… for this exercise we will focus on problematic areas of the CATO analysis (because as much as POGO might like to think it is a study-- it is not a study, but is merely an analysis that is critical of the Fuller study) where Ms. Dershowitz unwisely attempts to use in support of her assertion that ‘left, right, and center’ agree with POGO: that there will not be the kind of damage that the industry-sponsored study warns us will happen.

The key points that POGO is relying on and promoting in the Dershowitz piece are twofold:

1. Dershowitz/POGO relies on the CATO claims that the Fuller study overstates the adverse impact of lost defense acquisition programs because it does not take into account the impact of applying freed resources in the economy elsewhere.
2. Dershowitz/POGO relies on CATO claims (and claimed ‘evidence’) that the Fuller study overstates the net economic ‘multiplier’ of defense acquisition spending.

Fatally-Flawed POGO/CATO Point #1

The CATO claim of Fuller overstating the adverse impact of defense cuts by not taking into account the redirection of resources for other purposes is relayed to us by POGO/Dershowitz as follows:

What's more, Zycher explains that redirecting resources (such as labor and capital) to more productive uses can yield long-term benefits for the economy as a whole:
The process of allowing market forces to redirect resource use increases aggregate output and wealth, thus making virtually all individuals better off over time on net. The movement of resources from less to more profitable sectors increases the aggregate productivity of the economy.

The first problem with this complaint is how it is framed. What Dershowitz fails to mention is that the CATO author’s problem with the Fuller study is a ‘problem’ he has with all such studies. In the notes of the CATO analysis we find (pg 15): 

I criticize the Fuller analysis here not because it is necessarily more flawed than most such analyses, but instead because it is quite typical of that body of literature, and is the most recent that I have found. 

What exactly is the CATO author referring to? The CATO author’s complaint is that the Fuller study ONLY deals with the jobs and economic activity lost in the defense sector and NOT what the impact is when resources get reallocated as a result. The implication from the POGO piece is that this is a deficiency. In fact, it is a design OBJECTIVE.

Fuller’s methodology was designed to estimate the direct adverse economic impact of a rapid contraction in defense acquisition activity on the defense industry, and this was clearly expressed on Page 4 in Fuller’s report “The U.S. Economic Impact of Approved and Projected DOD Spending Reductions on Equipment in 2013: Summary of Research Findings”. –No more, no less.

Academic Slap Fight

That the author of the CATO paper found sufficient ‘fault’ with Fuller’s limiting the scope of his study to prompt CATO to in effect, pick a prissy academic ‘slap fight’ over Fuller conducting the study such that it is more relevant to current events and the population at large, rather than making it more relevant to ivory tower academics, is more indicative of contrivance on CATO’s part to promote their agenda than any by Fuller and the Aerospace Industries Association who sponsored the Fuller study. I believe I can state this without fear of cogent disagreement or recrimination because it can be shown that there are clearly sufficient reasons to NOT include speculation on downstream effects as advocated by the author of the CATO paper. Before we get to those reasons, it will be helpful to spend a paragraph or two on what really drives 1) any economic impact study, 2) what data is analyzed and 3) how it is interpreted when conducting and reporting the study.

Models Drive Studies and Ground Rules and Assumptions Shape the Models.

It must be remembered that economic impact studies are to varying extents “model-driven”. On some of my projects, I work with an Operations Research colleague (big ‘Shout Out’ to Doctor Dave) who is fond of opening any conference or meeting where we will be presenting study findings developed using model driven data on a cautionary note. Doctor Dave will begin by paraphrasing a quote attributed to statistician George Box. “Remember, ALL models are ‘wrong’, but some are useful.”.

For best illustrative purpose on our topic, I think one of Box’s more complete expressions of the point is even better:"Remember that all models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful." Given this ground truth, by extension we can safely observe:

Remember: All model-driven studies are wrong; the practical question is -- how wrong do the models have to be for the study to not be useful?

A study that would resemble what the CATO analysis advocates cannot be compared to the Fuller study. The CATO analysis advocates introducing additional assumptions and caveats and carries the analysis further than just determining the negative impact on the defense industry. Some examples:

…This shift of resources, including labor, across economic sectors is an example of what economists call “structural unemployment.” It is the result of changes in the underlying economic conditions of demand and supply that yield shifts in the relative price signals inducing resources to flow toward and away from various sectors. In other words, as demand and supply conditions change, the “structure” of the economy changes as well: some industries grow while others decline, either absolutely or in a relative sense. Structural unemployment is a fundamental feature of any dynamic economy driven by constant changes in individual preferences, individual choices, technological shifts, and a myriad other factors. Any owner of an input, including workers suffering from unemployment caused by a change in market conditions, is worse off, at least temporarily. But the process of allowing market forces to redirect resource use increases aggregate output and wealth, thus making virtually all individuals better off over time on net. The movement of resources from less to more profitable sectors increases the aggregate productivity of the economy...

…A change in the aggregate demand for defense services is more difficult to measure (or to perceive) than is the case for goods and services traded in the private sector—value in the public sector is a good deal murkier—and public decision makers may have weaker incentives to respond to such changes in demand conditions...

All true and interesting in an academic sense, but how much faith may one place in an academic exercise to confidently make major policy decisions? How well would such information benefit a decision maker with our current economic environment and problem? Both the Fuller and a CATOesque study would ‘inform’, but is a CATOesque study as ‘useful’ as the Fuller study, since a CATOesque study involves the modeling (how well done, i.e. realistic?) of a “dynamic economy driven by constant changes in individual preferences, individual choices, technological shifts, and a myriad other factors”? Would a CATOesque study effectively capture the inner workings and outcomes of a “process of allowing market forces to redirect resource use increases aggregate output and wealth” over the 10 year period affected by the looming sequestration debacle? How well would a CATOesque study quantify a relative value lost or gained, if “value in the public sector is a good deal murkier”? How long will it take for “virtually all individuals” to be “better off over time”, how bad will it be for them in the interim, and WHO exactly isn’t part of the ‘virtually all” in the picking of winners and losers?
Sidebar: I notice that the CATO analysis studiously refers to Defense Service costs and values instead of the Defense Acquisition costs that the Fuller study examines. What are the differences between the two definitions, if any? I suspect the CATO analysis is referring to services as well as acquisition of material defense products.

Coming Up: Part 4

I believe CATO understands the weakness of the argument that the Fuller study ‘doesn’t go far enough’ (and POGO doesn’t care: with POGO it is all about whether or not a vehicle can be used to peddle their noise). I believe CATO fully understands the notion of ‘usefulness’ and that it wasn’t enough to claim the sort of study they advocate would be more useful. At best it would be perhaps useful in a different way, and more likely it would be less than helpful through introduction of uncertainty via likely errors of assumption and deduction. This MAY be why CATO went to some lengths to employ (and POGO parroted) the additional complaint that the Fuller study somehow overstates the net economic ‘multiplier’ of defense acquisition spending in arriving at the results Fuller did find, and IMHO it used rather questionable methodology and tautology in attempting to ‘sell’ the idea that Fuller was out of the economics mainstream in employing the multiplier that he did.
By using CATO's own references, I will show how the Fuller multiplier is probably more appropriate than the Economic Aesthetes at CATO or the Progressive Proles at POGO would like us to believe. I will provide those arguments supporting my assertions on this point in the final part, Part 4, of “Introducing Suzie Dershowitz”.


Part 4

Kum-ba-frickin'-ya there CATO

I’m still working on part 3 of the POGO/Dershowitz takedown, but it requires actual reading that I don't think CATO or POGO actually bothered with. As a sidebar, I think it would be now helpful to note how well that CATO study seems to grasp the peaceful world we live in right now.

How about a taste of some of the actual goings on in the world?

We have the easing (not) of strain in China-Japan relations,

Israel not liking what it’s seeing in Egypt (we shouldn’teither)

and Iran’s building a target complex for the B-2.

Source: Voice of America

What could possibly go wrong?

Introducing Suzie Dershowitz Part 2

Today we will be ‘Provoking Accountability’….Of the ‘Unaccountable’



Smiling Suzie Dershowitz, with an incredibly hybris-ridden slogan. Source: POGO
(and why does this reminded me of a Jonah Goldberg book?)

POGO Major Ploy Du Jour #1: False Non-Political/Partisanship claims. Hint: Libertarian is NOT Conservative.

A Continuation From Part 1

Ms. Dershowitz opened her 'piece' (see part 1) by offering a title and a couple of paragraphs intimating POGO's position on reducing defense spending has broad support:

A recent study by Benjamin Zycher from the libertarian think tank the CATO Institute reaffirms what we've been saying all along: Cutting Pentagon spending will not cause the economic nightmare or job loss catastrophe the defense industry wants us to fear.

In addition to CATO, other right-leaning analysts, advocates, and politicians have also been vocally challenging the narrative that defense spending must not be decreased. Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, recently pledged to fight any efforts to divert tax reform revenues toward an increase in Pentagon spending or avoiding across-the-board budget cuts, known as sequestration. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.), a senior Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, has called for a national dialogue on sequestration, recognizing that "the average American out there, by big percentages, wants to cut defense by twice the sequester amount."

Got that? The 'spectrum' of support includes:

1. ‘Big L’ Libertarian CATO which thinks of terms of Republic OR Empire, and that if you're not all at home, well then you must be an Empire. 
2. A Cult of Personality ‘small government’ activist of the extreme self-serving more than tax-cut ilk, AKA Grover Norquist, and
3. ONE Republican Congressional dinosaur who just happens to be in a fight to keep his seat: the sole Republican House Seat in a district that has been redrawn to his disadvantage since the last election.

Who in that group would today be likely to place a priority on defense spending compared to their other interests?

Answer: None of them.

 

 About ‘Big L’ CATO and Defense  

‘Big L’ CATO has a Pollyanna view of world affairs that lives under the delusion that the US can afford to downsize the military because THEY don’t see the ‘threat’ which, combined with a somewhat more ‘passive isolationist’ vision of the United States’ role in world affairs versus the current (and faded under Obama) role as the benevolent and last remaining Superpower. This is perfectly acceptable, if CATO would then make statements that were qualified with the caveat “In CATO’s opinion, view, vision, we believe X”. But they don’t qualify. They flatly assert we need to reduce our defense spending and our involvement in the world’s affairs, that there is no ‘threat’ that warrants defense spending levels, etc (see this video which could have been the germ for the POGO regurgitation) . In doing so they look right past the point that if the United States does not ensure its interests are taken care of around the globe, someone else will take care of them for us in the manner of their choosing. The focus on visible ‘threats’ conveniently prevents them having to recognize: 

• The positive economic effects of close defense relationships with our allies, 
• The deterrent effects to those who would seek to cause us indirect as well as direct harm, economic or otherwise, 
• The advantages of having ‘friends’ and forces in place for any emergency (most likely unforeseen) no matter where on the globe that emergency might appear. 

 

As I’ve always said: I would be a Libertarian, if they had a frickin’ clue when it comes to defense, but then if they did, they would be good Conservatives. Here’s a tip for CATO.

If POGO and PDA are on your side—you are on the wrong side.

As it is, your defense ‘work’ just gives aid and comfort to the enemy. Sad.

BTW: Notice between the CATO ‘study’ and the CATO video, there is a conflation of the topics of ‘defense reductions’ in general and ‘defense sequestration’ specifically? This serves to abstract the issue and make it more ‘feely’ than ‘factual’. We’ll work on that later.
 

Part 3
Part 4

Introducing POGO's Suzie Dershowitz

Know Your Reformers: Training Wheels Edition

The left-wing 'reform' group (they claim to be non-partisan, but their funding stream, especially as it relates to defense topics, tell a different story) Project on Government Oversight, aka POGO, has a budding young 'Public Policy Expert' named Suzie Dershowitz. Ms Dershowitz seems to have been given the opportunity to editorialize on defense spending in the relatively safe harbor of the Huffington Post with an 'article' titled: Right, Left and Middle Agree: Reshaping the Pentagon Budget Won't Hurt the Economy. Now, the Beta and Omega PuffHo's that haunt the joint should be considered 'training wheels' for young Suzie: You can float 'defense' turds all day long in that fever swamp with nary a complaint.
The reason I'm pointing Dershowitz's piece is twofold. First, I'm going to use it as another example to illustrate the sort of ploys POGO et al are far too comfortable in thinking they can pass off as 'thoughtful' on the unsuspecting public. Second, I'm using this as a sort of test to see if a typical POGO pattern emerges: POGO drops the turd, and the 'usual suspect' pseudo-news sites picks it up and passes it around (Eewww --the Imagery!).

The Major Ploys Du Jour

I'll just list them tonight, and expand on them later (Hey,it's late and I'm tired!) but I'm sure the reader can explain them once they're pointed out as well as I can.
1. False Non-Political/Partisanship claims. Hint: Libertarian is NOT Conservative.
2. This Proves/Refutes Our POV/Their POV (In this case both). Only.... it doesn't. Hint: You could lay all the economists in the world end to end and you still wouldn't be able to reach a conclusion.

The Pattern

Let's see who (if anyone) picks the POGO piece up and promotes it. (I'm running a risk here of tipping my hand, but I'm counting on the major site's tendency to focus on cranking out the pre-written memes instead of producing original journalism.

Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Et Tu 'Flight Journal'?

I'm reading this month's Flight Journal, and you'll never guess who's penetrated the defensive positions of the editorial gatekeepers.This issue contains the rather nonsensically titled article 'Do We Really Need a Perfect Fighter?' (Talk about a question no one is asking).

I couldn't believe what I was reading, so I went to their website to get an e-mail contact, but found the opportunity to comment at the site itself. My comment as of this writing is awaiting moderation, but for the record, I posted:

Just picked up this issue at the Carswell BX, and thumbing through this article I saw the 'barf boxes' accompanying the photos. My first thought was: who wrote this (ahem) 'stuff'? By the time I got to the blurb claiming the F-35 has the lowest highest wing loading of any modern fighter, I knew who the author had to be.  

Odd thing though. The wing loading of the F-35 isn't public knowledge, and since the fuselage provides lift, you can't simply divide weight by wing area. And now having read the whole article, I'd say the wing loading trope is among the least of the offenses committed.

Can you guess who the author might be?
Would it help if I mentioned that within the article, among other delightful bits, he wrote "The latter underscores what Australian analyst Peter Goon terms the “BVR paradox”—the reality that modern BVR combat imposes higher performance demands on fighters than WVR combat does" as if Peter Goon was some disinterested party and not the long-time and close associate of the author that he is?

A portion of the article, with the authorship of same and opportunity to comment is to be found at the Flight Journal website here. 

F22 Oxygen System Hysteria: A Retrospective

Dave Majumdar at FlightGlobal brings news that the AF has nailed down the root cause of the F-22’s oxygen system woes. In one of his posts a short while ago, he indicated where the investigation was heading: right where the grapevine was whispering it was going. Key bits:

The USAF had earlier narrowed down the potential root cause to either contamination or an air quantity problem. "We have eliminated one of the hypotheses that the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board postulated as a potential root cause for the hypoxia-related incidents and that was contamination," says USAF chief of staff Gen Norton Schwartz. "We have the data that has confirmed that."…….  

Based on tests conducted inside an altitude chamber and a centrifuge, the USAF has concluded that a combination of hardware defects with the pilot's life support gear contributed to the problem. ……. 

Asked why the problems with the Raptor's life support systems were not caught earlier during the jet's extensive developmental and operational test phases, Schwartz says that human physiology is not well understood at the combination of altitude and g-loadings that F-22 pilots routinely operate at. "This is a unique airplane," Schwartz says. "You can pull 6Gs at 50,000ft. Tell me what other airplane, ever, can do that?" There are aspects of the Raptor's performance at high altitude, which from the standpoint of human physiology, are not well understood. "In some respects, the testing did not reveal the shortcomings we have recently discovered."

I thought it would be interesting to contrast the real findings with some of the DoDBuzz/DefenseTech stories and speculative commentary that has rained down on their boards over the past year. Think about the following the next time you read the woe, doom, and outrage over future stories. Also keep in mind that the Combat Edge ensemble was NOT part of the F-22.

Here are some of my favorites from the past year (the good and the bad).  

F-16 Co-Designer Claims F-22’s Glues Causing Hypoxia
Special Award: Most Erroneous Article Title Evah!
“Best SARC ”  Award:
Pilgrimman • 4 weeks ago
...And in other news, fluoride in our water supply is actually a mind control agent planted by the government (which we all know are puppets of the Illuminati).
 
Audio of an F-22 Pilot Getting Hypoxia
“Something Must Be Done! – Hey! This is Something” Award (Most Disgusted category):
Black Owl • 9 weeks ago
We need to take these jets completely apart till we know what's up. Until then our air superiority will be done with our reliable 4th gen and 4.5 gen fighters. All of our malfunctioning fighters seem to come from Lockheed. They need to get their crap together.

F-22 Ground Crew Suffered Hypoxia-Like Symptoms
First 'Desponder' Award:
Black Owl • 11 weeks ago
I have now lost faith in the F-22. We should not deploy these fighters until we take them completely apart and dissect them till we find the problem.

Most Nicely Worded ‘Shut Up Kid’ Exchange Award:
Lance • 11 weeks ago
Time to fix the oxygen system on the plane get over it brass.
1 reply •  DGR • 11 weeks ago
They know this, they have known this, that is why they are spending millions trying to find out what part needs to be fixed. Nobody is denying its broken, they are trying to fix it and they are being very clear about that. But its plain stupid to just start replacing stuff without knowing what needs replaced. Is it a $5 nut and bolt, or a 5 million dollar system? Without knowing the root cause there is nothing that can be done to fix the issue.


AF: F-22’s Extreme Performance May Be Behind Oxygen Problems
Best Conspiracy Theory out of Left Field Award:
Lance • 11 weeks ago
This is more cover up by USAF brass to save there [sic] own pet fighter. A redesign is needed for the oxygen system and they have to admit it. The F-22 is way better than a crappy F-18. Well the F-15 can fly faster and climb higher and carry more missiles than a Raptor. OOOps the Generals are embarrassed again.


Virginia and Alaska F-22s Back in the Skies
Best Observation on Punk Culture Award:
Jock Williams • 39 weeks ago
The OBOGS system -onboard oyygen [sic] generating system -has been used successfully for over 30 years in the F18 and other types as well. The Air Force will research and eventually solve the problem. Problems crop up from time to time in all new systems -the difference today is the amount of publicity attached now to problems that earlier would have been dealt with quietly and discreetly -and out of the public eye! I am sure the military longs for that more "private" era when such glitches arise. To be honest I fail to see the benefit of public discussion of matters that may give "aid and comfort to our enemies". I am really glad to see "experts" who have never flown a fighter presenting such facile solutions as "The solution is unmanned fighter aircraft". "Absolutely" is equally as effective! I sure wish I had a 10 letter solution to this or many other problems!
Jock Williams
Yogi 13
30 year fighter pilot

F-22s Back in the Air (Updated)
Best Fanboy Use of Fake Crisis to Further an Agenda Award:
Black Owl • 43 weeks ago
Big deal that their back in the air. Super Hornets are out bombing the enemy and actually being used in war, but no one cheers for that as much they do for the Raptor. When the Raptor went on its first deployment to Japan people went ballistic. No where near the same reaction for the Super Hornet when it dropped twice as many bombs as all the Tomcat squadrons with 100% accuracy during the initial stages of the war in Iraq

AF: Alaska F-22 Crash Due to Pilot Error
Most Pointless Snark to Miss Mark Award:
BigRick • 31 weeks ago
The 4 star said to the 3 star, "this F-22 **** is hurting my chances at the CEO job at Lockhead when I retire."
the 3 start said to the 2 star "this F-22 issue is hurting may chances at making joint chiefs"
the 2 start said to the 1 one "damn, I wonder if I'm going to get my 3rd star?"
the 1 start said to the colonel "how I can blame someone else?"
the colonel said said to the LtCol "man, I'm never going to make general at this rate"
the LtCol said to the Col "don't worry colonel, we make sure you get selected, we'll say it's pilot error"
the LtCol said to the major "it's obviously pilot error-get your people trained major or I'll train them for you"
the major replied "yes sir and two bags full"
the major yelled at the captain "you worthless piece of ****, don't you know how to fly without oxygen, I'm writing you up"
the captain said (to himself) "3 months, 2 days and a wake up"

F-22 Raptor Fleet Grounded Indefinitely
Voice of Experience and Reason Award:
iused2fly • 52 weeks ago
As of May 17th, 2011 there are parallel investigations taking place into the OBOGS systems in the A-10, F-16, F-35 and T-6 aircraft." So a wide net is being cast to look for other problems with similar OBOGS installattions. Being around aviation for as long as I have, I expect an aircraft as complex as the F-22 to see some components than are less than fully robust. We all just have to wait until more information is available. Given the financial momentum of this very expensive program I expect the F-22 problem to be solved with a re-design and the F-22s back flying unrestricted some time late this year or early 2012.

Despite whistle-blowing pilots, AF is unmoved on F-22
Worst Extrapolation (AKA Kill them All!) Award:
Cha0stician • 11 weeks ago
There should absolutely be Congressional hearings. Our military culture has deteriorated to the point where we cannot trust anything officers say unless a report is made by independent government investigators with the power to subpoena witnesses who must tell the truth under the threat of jailtime for perjury. Look at what Maj Jeremy Gordon said during the interview about the F-22 when asked what makes the F-22 so special: "The ability to know what's going on all the way around you all the time." Capt Josh Wilson: "It is just a phenomenal, phenomenal machine." When our military members are so brainwashed that they will still repeat the F-22 marketing propaganda over and over again even when refusing to fly the systems we taxpayers have paid millions, billions, and trillions to train them on, then we need to FEAR for our country. Time to clean house. We need a new President every 4 years and a new Congress every 2 years until we get some serious reversal in trend indicators

F-22 Raptor “smoking gun” not found
Best Mocking Takedown Award:
Amicus Curiae • 21 weeks ago
"I can't imagine what they did to screw it up."
Sure you can. Educate us. It's too bad you weren't there when the paper was blank. You'd show 'em. But did it ever occur to you that they didn't screw it up? Everyone is so obsessed with rounding up the usual suspects, they can't find anything wrong. Do something...anything...Does it work? Who knows? Did you measure toxins? Yes/No...Maybe...Possibly...What was the question? Whew, I'm feeling a little light headed. I'm pulling the green ring.

AF: F-22s authorized to fly again
Best Summation on F-22 Woes Award:
This whole exchange (tie)
AmicusCuriae • 44 weeks ago
Well, I guess if it wasn't broke, they didn't fix it.
2 replies
pfcem • 44 weeks ago
After 4 months of TRYING to find a problem with it & not finding any, what is there to fix?
Thinking_ExUSAF 95p • 43 weeks ago
At least they did not fall into the trap of "fixing" an unbroken system for the sake of public relations! Sometimes it takes some serious cojones to just say, "We dont know!", but sometimes it is the only honest action.

F-22 pilots try to keep their edge during grounding
Most Unsupported Declarative Statements in a Post Award (extra credit for randomness):
Puken Dog 01 VF-143 • 53 weeks ago
The F-22 Program along with JSF, and NGB should be Cancelled NOW!!! Stealth is Dead and so are these Programs. Google SA-21 and S-400. A total Waste of Funding. Lies by Lockheed Martin and Senior Pentagon Leadership. The F-117, last real Stealth Platform, was retired by the USAF in November 2008. All these platforms do is increase share Price for LMCO and the steer ropers and bush in Texas. Here we go again. Nothing more Than wall street running the entire DOD. The same rational why bush did not go after UBL after 911….. Money…..
 
AF: No word when F-22s could fly again (only one comment?)

AF: No word when F-22s could fly again (Oh. There they are!)
Most Succinct 'And We Could Have Just Stopped There' Award:
AmicusCuriae • 54 weeks ago
Obviously, no one knows what is wrong with the F-22 oxygen system...if anything.

Report: Investigation widens as F-22s stay grounded
J. R. Pierce Award (Old JR once noted: "Novices in mathematics, science, or engineering are forever demanding infallible, universal, mechanical methods for solving problems")
Engineer Economist • 57 weeks ago
"More than six weeks later, the Air Force’s F-22 fleet is still grounded" "We are still working to pinpoint the exact nature of the problem,” the ACC said.. "USAF investigation is also comparing the F-22’s life support system with other strike aircraft in its fleet" SO.. what the heck is going on here... do we have a design/system integration problem and now we have to go back to proven designs to figure out how to do it right? So far the billions in cost overruns and the years behind schedule we end up with defective designs that require ANOTHER unfunded requirement to fix? The acquisition strategy that gives us F-22 & F-35 results has got to go. For the same amount of money, we could have incremental improvements to F-15 & F-16, recapitalized the rest of the fleet, and made better investments with better payoffs. DoD & USAF has got to stop screwing the pooch, and expecting taxpayer bailouts over and over again

The Air Force sings the Raptor blues
Most Prophetic First Post Award:
Lightndattic • 63 weeks ago
Que up the trolls in 3...2...1...

Double-0 POGO and the F-35: Update 2

Mr. Smallwood (Eventually) Responded

Lt. Col. Eric Smith (left) congratulates Lt. Col. Lee Kloos on becoming the latest qualified joint strike fighter pilot and DOD’s first non-developmental test pilot to qualify, May 31 at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. After completing his flight, is now a qualified instructor pilot for the F-35 Lightning II. Smith, the director of operations with the 58th FS and the first Air Force qualified pilot, served as Kloos' flight evaluator. (U.S. Air Force photo/Maj. Karen Roganov)

And the response was pretty much as expected:

“Your comments seem to suggest the F-35 has actually been completely tested and is fully ready for combat. Since it isn’t even halfway there, I’ll take your comments — barely legible as they were — with a healthy dose of skepticism. Further, since you have openly suggested on your website that I’m working for POGO itself I will go ahead and play turnabout: You strike me as nothing more than a front for the defense industry — the kind of guy paid-off to act like an independent and fill the debate with tripe to make people think twice about what is obvious. What is obvious: the plane is an overpriced piece of crap, and will never be a staple of the American Air Force. Your boys at Lockheed are on borrowed time using the Pentagon as a marketer and purchaser all at once because America is broke. Best invest that money elsewhere.” (screen capture to left)

Notice the lack of any real attempt to engage on the validity of the ‘debunking’ itself? I must say I find the notion that I’m a sort of paid secret ‘front’ for the defense industry (I’m a ‘highly-compensated’ engineer/analyst, bucko!) scouring the web for evil-doers on the behalf of the F-35 for bounty….hilariously conspiratorial.  I do the scouring for free! I suspect Mr. Smallwood probably also operates under the delusion that there actually IS a ‘Military-Industrial Complex’.

My comments “seem to suggest the F-35 “has actually been completely tested”? No. I cited an expert operator from outside the acquisition/development program who is now fully qualified to fly and instruct other pilots in the F-35. HE says the F-35 is as maneuverable as an F-16 (or better). HIS  statements are an overmatching counter-weight to the tired old claims made by ignorant activist ‘reformers'.
Alas, I fear Mr. Smallwood’s insufficient language skills may be a barrier to meaningful communication, as he also asserts that I “ have openly suggested on" (my) "website that I’m working for POGO itself”.
No Mr. Smallwood. Perhaps you missed the part in my initial post where I wrote: “I’ve noticed a marked uptick in the foreign blog and online alternative newspapers containing references to POGO’s pet ‘expert’ commentators. POGO ‘special operators/fellow travelers’ seem to be most active in F-35 Partner nations where economic conditions are tightest and in countries that represent existing or emerging markets for F-35 Foreign Military Sales (FMS).” What I openly asserted is that Mr. Smallwood was spoon-fed the drivel he regurgitated, and I also suggested that Mr. Smallwood was furthering POGO’s aims: a 'de facto' agent at the very least. I left open the issue as to whether or not they also further his own interests until now. Hence the “a special operator/fellow traveler” reference.
Mr. Smallwood then uses this mischaracterization to then postulate he could also view me “as nothing more than a front for the defense industry — the kind of guy paid-off to act like an independent and fill the debate with tripe to make people think twice about what is obvious” ?
Assuming Mr. Smallwood is a principled man (why not?), I can only conclude from this statement that he has never been exposed to disciplines that are based upon consequential knowledge and the application thereof. Otherwise, would he not have been able to attach proper value to claims made by competent experts in their field (forget nameless ‘me’, what about Lt Col. Kloos)? And could he then not shrug off the political machinations of agent provocateurs who are paid by an anti-defense Non-State Actor that is funded largely by left-wing foundations and aging hippies--however sympathetic he might be to their flawed ideologies?
Sigh~I suppose for some, it would be far easier to shrug off the fact that the ever-increasingly larger circle of people with ACTUAL F-35 experience typically speak very highly of it than change any preconceived or ill-informed decision. 'They' would rather cling to the shrill prevarications of outside critics with no relevant or insufficient expertise and experience, all in order to preserve some philosophical blind spot.

Kudos to ‘SpudmanWP’,  a visitor who is also a “SNAFU!” regular, for attempting to reach out further to Smallwood in the comment thread...and for engaging on behalf of evidence and logic. I’d take more of an interest myself, if I thought there was any hope. As I see it, Smallwood’s just an outlet for the real troublemakers. I want to keep my 'eyes on the prize'.

In Closing: By "barely legible", should we assume he meant my debunking was ‘barely intelligible’? Aside from an "it's/its" typo that got by me I didn't find anything too egregious. I ask, because I thought ‘dumbed it down’ as far as I dared without doing violence to the meaning within:

POGO Wrongly Cries “Foul!”... While Sniping in a Ghillie Suit

Guerrilla Reformers Falsely Accuse Defense Industry of Guerrilla Tactics 

UPDATED AND BUMPED 9 July 2012 (UPDATE BELOW: Look for the RED) 

Last week, POGO’s Ben Freeman posted another fact-free and ideologically-driven screed, this time at the ‘Puffington Host’ (You know where I mean. I try not to ever link to that swamp) titled “The Guerrilla Warfare of Pentagon Contractors”. To give you the flavor of the misdirection he peddles within, here’s a clip that gives a pretty good summation [emphasis mine]:

Last week Politico reported that defense contractor's new plan is to "threaten to send out layoff notices -- hundreds of thousands of them, right before Election Day." This threat is intended to frighten incumbents into rolling back the impending Budget Control Act sequestration, which would reduce Pentagon spending by roughly ten percent per year for the next ten years.

Despite the doomsday rhetoric and contractor funded "studies" reporting grossly overinflated job losses they claim would result if the Pentagon's more than half a trillion dollar budget is cut, there is absolutely no reason these companies would need to have massive layoffs. This is nothing more than a political stunt.

One would think POGO should know a stunt when they see one, but they either fell short this time or are willfully prevaricating. Perhaps it is because they aren’t too familiar with parts of acquisition law concerning Government contracting and labor rules? I do suppose there’s no exposure to the workings of the current monopsony in POGO’s exclusive digs in the Ivory Tower end of Castle 'Non-Profit'?

Contrast POGO’s flippant dismissal with this excerpt from a recent Defense News article:

Panetta’s meetings come a week after the heads of Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Pratt & Whitney met with top Office of Management and Budget officials seeking greater clarity on the government’s plan for implementing nearly $500 billion in mandatory defense cuts over the next decade that are scheduled to start Jan. 2.

OMB told the executives it does not plan to issue sequestration implementation guidance until after the November elections, sources said. The meeting was requested by Aerospace Industries Association President Marion Blakey.

Although defense industry leaders have long said that planning for sequestration will be difficult given it is unclear what the specific impact of automatic cuts will be, they have become increasingly vocal that job losses would be unavoidable starting in January.

And they’ve stressed that federal guidelines require them to notify their workers of potential mass layoffs at least 60 days in advance — that would be on the eve on the election.

Source: AEI

Having been one of the many people in the industry long enough to have found themselves on the receiving end of one of those federal ‘60 day notices’ when just one Government program was cancelled or cut back, and having witnessed many others, POGO’s dismissive attitude speaks volumes as to their indifference and/or ignorance. Multiple programs being suddenly cut/cancelled/impacted for reasons other than cause can only cause chaos in the industry. Carrying out such pointless cuts every year over a period of years? Sounds like POGO/Leftard heaven and National Defense Hell. Ask anyone who’s been around Defense Aerospace ‘more than a minute’. They’ll tell you: POGO is full of Sh*t.
Freeman’s POGO puff piece is irritating, but it is more important to keep in mind what this whole sequestration gambit is really about: Democrats playing political games with National Defense.

-------------------------

 Quick Sidebar: Hey! I see from their website that not only has Winslow Wheeler moved his shingle under the POGO rubric, he seems to have brought not only the Strauss Military Reform Project but also the Center for Defense Information with him (link)! I suppose this tells us something about how Reformers are dealing with a diminishing donor base. As I noted earlier: I love it when targets bunch up. On the downside, it seems “the radical trust fund baby cum 'photographer’[ HASN’T] got tired of paying his salary”.

-------------------------

Well Lookee’ Here!  POGO’s got Their Own ‘Snake Eaters’ On Point  

So While POGO’s Freeman is claiming the Defense Industry is employing ‘Guerilla Tactics”, I’ve noticed a marked uptick in the foreign blog and online alternative newspapers containing references to POGO’s pet ‘expert’ commentators. POGO ‘special operators/fellow travelers’ seem to be most active in F-35 Partner nations where economic conditions are tightest and in countries that represent existing or emerging markets for F-35 Foreign Military Sales (FMS). What a surprise (Not!). The most recent one to catch my eye was an English-version of a Korean ‘alternative’ paper article by one delightfully named ‘Stuart Smallwood’ who also mirrored most of his piece at his own blog.
Smallwood’s entire post reads like a POGO press release, and it is quite obvious from his phrasing and the conclusions surrounding his commentary that Mr. Smallwood (a ‘grad student’ in "Asian Studies" out of Canada now mucking around in other people’s cultures, Eh?) that he hasn’t a freakin’ clue as to what he is writing about. In the comments thread of his ‘blog’ last night I posted a challenge:

Heh. If I demonstrate that your post is erroneous on at least one or more key points, will you promise to never again publicly opine on defense topics about which you are ill-informed and not equipped [to discuss*]? And if so, will you also give POGO back the spoon with which they have been feeding you this stuff?

*I have an oversensitive touchpad on my laptop (that I keep turning off and Microsoft keeps turning on whenever they push updates) that causes me no end of typo and edit problems. I didn’t catch two words had dropped until after I posted my comment.


When I went back today to see if my kind offer was accepted I find not only was it rejected, but it seems to have been deleted (shocker). Not much of a Snake Eater after all, eh?
In the last comment on the short Smallwood thread, a thread which had quickly devolved into fantastic familial allegations about ‘bullying allies’, you will see as of this posting a comment (from his Mom?/Sister?) proclaiming: “bullying is everywhere!”. Perhaps Ms. Smallwood, perhaps. But it appears to be not nearly so widespread as intellectual cowardice. It’s to be expected under the circumstances I suppose. I have found that among the professions, the thick thinness of the skin is inversely proportional to the intellectual rigor required of its practitioners. [/snark ]

**************************** 

Update/Correction: Seems Smallwood's Got Game (Good on Him)

My comment has 'reappeared' in the thread:

I take back half the things I've said already. If he chooses wisely...Well. we'll see about the rest later.
Which point will I select for debunking?  I'm leaning towards "the myth of stealth". Stay tuned.

(Special thanks to my reader who e-mailed me the "head's up" on this development)

************** END OF UPDATE**************  

On a More Serious Note

Catching POGO in their machinations could be simply left as a case of blaming others for what they are guilty of: akin to when a grifter gets caught in the 'act'. But in the war of words, POGOs moves are a cross between Rules For Radicals and at least one of the best military theorists.

“If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.” 

—Sun Tzu

Their biggest disadvantage is that they scurry like vermin when the light hits them. 

P.S. Anyone else about had it with Blogger's formatting quirks?

Democrats playing games with National Defense: Rowan Scarborough Crochets (or something)

Great. Rowan Scarborough at the Washington Times (of all papers) channels the Democrat’s cognitive dissonance without a twinge of irony. Does he even realize it?

Congress does not appear close to reaching a deal that would head off $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts, $600 billion of which would strike the Pentagon over the next 10 years, bringing total reductions to more than $1 trillion.  

For now, that prospect is the proverbial elephant in the room

 Hey Rowan, you Doofus! That’s a fake elephant you’re pointing at! The Democrats are holding the leash to the real one.  

Not the Real Elephant In the Room. Source

The BIG ELEPHANT in the room: Democrats are playing sick games (away from scrutiny) with the National Defense to achieve their tawdry and socialistic political ends.

Since Rowan fails to Grok the very piece he wrote, let’s translate it for him.

• Military ordered by the POTUS (D) via the SecDef (D) to not plan for sequestration to prevent ANY possibility, however faint, of a feasible plan to come forward. Not only that, the order prevents any chance of an ILLUSION of a feasible plan to come forward. Why?

• The SecDef(D) has “warned of a “hollow” force if the automatic cuts occur”, and has said there is no alternative long-range budget” . The Services also see “dire consequences of sequestration, which would require deeper troop cuts and missions left undone.” So everyone is agreed that sequestration is a ‘bad’ thing. Or is it if you are a (D)?

• The House of Representatives (Controlled by the Rs), the only entity that can actually authorize USG (and therefore DoD) spending is offering a budget that would ‘avoid’ sequestration.

• The SecDef (D) asserts “that he cannot accept the current Republican 2013 budget that avoids sequestration”. If, as he has asserted, sequestration will result in a “hollow force” if it occurs, then why CAN'T he “accept” the current 2013 House (controlled by R but still ‘House’) budget?

“I’m grateful to the House for recognizing the importance of stopping sequestration,” he said. “But by taking these funds from the poor, middle-class Americans, homeowners and other vulnerable parts of our American constituencies, the guaranteed results will be confrontation, gridlock and a greater likelihood of sequester....

The key is to work together. Each side can stake out its political position. I understand that. But the fact is that nothimg will happen without compromise from both sides"

We finally get to the real story:

Hoping Nobody Notices As Long as the Press Covers For Him? Source: Michael Ramirez/IBD

The difference between a SecDef and a SecDef(D).

The SecDef(D) is willing to obey his Master and knowingly GUT the National Defense under the pretense of caring about the “poor, middle-class Americans, homeowners and other vulnerable parts of our American constituencies” while (and since 2009) the rest of the entire Obama Democratic machine has been working at gutting the economic engine that supports us all.

I ALMOST can’t tell which is more disturbing.

On the one hand we have The ‘Homicidal Democrat Uber Alles Clown Posse’ itself. On the other we have the fact that what made it all possible was the Republican Suckers getting PWND on the 2011 budget.

Ehhh,who am I kidding. Being Evil is worse than Stupid, even if by a nose. I call it for the Clown Posse. (But I still REALLY want to get rid of the Suckers).

Attention potential commenters: I added the Useful Idiot tag for anyone who might want to chime in and defend the sequestration lunacy or the train wreck created by Obama and his ilk.

Bob Cox Buries Lede in Recycled F-35 'News'

The real news is the excreble Winslow Wheeler is now at POGO. I guess the radical trust fund baby cum 'photographer' got tired of paying his salary.
Good.
It's always helpful when targets bunch up. Even metaphorical targets.

Giovanni de Briganti: Shillin' for Euros?

This is Giovanni de Brigante (with an 'e'):

Giovanni de Brigante. 1920s Air Racer Source: Corbis

He was one of the daring European air race pilots of his day. He probably understood his flying machine, how to extract the most performance from it, what was critical to the successful operation of the plane and where its technological standing was relative to the existing state of the aeronautical art in his time. He probably knew what he was talking about when it came to bleeding-edge technology of the day.  

This is Giovanni de Briganti (with an 'i'):

Giovanni de Briganti: Aero 'Jpournalist' (graphic by SMSgt Mac)

This Giovanni de Briganti is… none of the above.

This Giovanni de Briganti pens what is IMHO best described as Euro-propaganda with an aeronautics angle. He's written some incredibly stupid things about ‘some’ advanced aerospace projects. To this observer, it appears his targeted  ‘some’ projects are selected according to a ratio inverse to amount of advertising space purchased on his website. (Just Sayin'!)

His latest (perhaps even “Euro-sponsored”?) piece is a doozy.  We could take him to task for trying to pass off the simplistic logic he uses to redefine fighter generations, or how he relates a simplified (for simpletons?) narrative on the state of the F-35’s HMD (a better one here). among other things. He manages to repeat every Euro-canard program’s PR trope on sensor-fusion and interoperability in going down the list of ‘5th Gen’ capabilities as well.  

But to save time and really highlight that Mr. de Briganti knows NOTHING about the key technologies involved and which he feels empowered to write about, let us use his own words concerning Low Observability, aka ‘Stealth’.

Only part of two paragraphs are necessary to show Giovanni de Briganti is a complete tyro when it comes to modern fighter technology.

de Briganti's first revelatory failure:  

In any case, detection by radar matters less and less because by switching on its radar a fighter becomes as visible as someone turning on a flashlight in a dark room.

Which seems almost verbatim what the once-highly respected Thomas S. Amlie* tried to claim concerning the B-2’s ‘Low Probability of Intercept Radar’ (LPIR).  F-22 and F-35 AESA radars are of the very latest generation of Active Electronic Scanned Array (AESA) systems. AESA’s are such a good idea, ‘4^th Gen’ aircraft makers (including LM with the F-16) are scrambling to field AESAs on older aircraft. Installations on older designs can be problematic from a power/cooling perspective so there may tend to be more trade offs in radar performance to make the newer radars compatible with older systems, but that is beside the point. The point is, there is a tremendous effort going on to come up with ways that  would make AESAs more ‘detectable’ because finding them, tracking them, and locking on to them is for all practical purposes, nearly impossible to do reliably. And that my friends is NOT at all the same as becoming  “as visible as someone turning on a flashlight in a dark room”.

If Mr de Briganti had anything close to a clue concerning AESA radar technology, he seems to have lost it. Mr. Amlie was wrong because he didn’t know about new and then mostly classified technology. Mr. de Briganti apparently isn’t aware of twenty-year (plus!) old unclassified technology because....he's ignorant?    

de Briganti’s  second failure:  

So the preferred detection sensors are optical, like Infra-Red Scan and Track (IRST), and in this case the large and very hot exhaust plume of the F-35’s 45,000-lb thrust engine is as visible as a blowtorch in the same dark room.

Heh.  I’ll just repeat part of the observations I made over at Solomon’s SNAFU! blog a little while back (Typos corrected of course) :

IRST tracking is a short range capability. Just like for visible light digital detection systems, digital infrared detection requires at a minimum 1 pixel with detectable contrast to surrounding pixels. (Analog systems, such as the human eye require 1/2 arc-seconds 'width' contrasting against the field of view).These are clear-sky minimums. Any kind of moisture in the air between target and detector, or behind the target will reduce detection range. Typical operating altitudes commonly have a lot of this moisture equal or above them.

The total target contrast is attenuated by the physical properties of the atmosphere itself. The major constituent gases 'absorb' Medium IR frequencies, and those just happen to be the part of the bandwidth emitted by the jet exhaust. The Low IR and High IR bands aren't absorbed nearly as much, so the management of these emissions is accomplished by selection of outer mold line shaping, coating colors and surface textures. And then you get to F-35 formations, tactics and sensor fusion. Sneaking up on an F-35 with an IRST will be a very dangerous game for the attacker …

…. Just because you can see a LO asset doesn't mean you can engage it. If you can engage the LO asset, it doesn't mean you can actually hit it. Think about it -- there's a reason why we've [US have] never gone in big on IRSTs for air-to-air combat.

So much for the hyperbolic blowtorch.

He should read more. Suggested topic: Kill Chain. Then he couldn't help to write less drivel.

Now the only question is: are we prepared for the 'gems' he'll present in his "Part 2"?

*If you want to read where Amlie really ‘stepped in it’ (his failure was that his technical knowledge of radar was past its expiration date and he wrote his argument down for the world to see) get a copy of the book The "Pentagon Paradox" and read Appendix C (pp355-56) for his letter (with equations!) describing how a dish antenna system would always be detectable. Too bad a LPIR radar doesn't use a dish.  Mr.  Amlie passed away fairly recently, and I find it fitting that the obituaries seem to have overlooked this singular event, as it probably did not rise to be worthy of mention on the balance sheet of an otherwise outstanding career.

Vote Republican! It's like doubling your car mileage!

That should be a 2012 campaign slogan for the GOP. (Update Below)

I went down  to the Gulf coast and back yesterday for a memorial Mass and burial of my Aunt who was also my Godmother. That meant a lot of time on the road to think of many things related to the trip and life in general.

It also took two refills of the gas tank. On the second tank, it hit me that this trip would have been less than half the cost (~$50 instead of over $100) if President Obama's energy policies had never existed or if they are reversed. I don't care what his motives are, but the end result was the same.

From a consumer $ point of view, it's the same today as if my car was only getting 11-12 mpg in 2007.

From ThePeoplesCube

My line of thought was undoubtedly fed by conversations with relatives after the burial ceremony, three of whom have jobs with the oil and gas industry and another looking to get into the business.

P.S. In case someone is so inclined: Spare us the 'Peak Oil' BS.
Even so-called 'Ecologists' unreasonably fear the long term availability of oil.  Other energy sources will make sense when oil REALLY (vs. artificially) gets scarce. What scares 'Ecos' (smarter ones anyway) even more is the possibility that Western assumptions underlying oil production may not be correct.  Yet another science that is unsettled.

Update 5 May 12 for a commenter.

An Investor's Business Daily article briefly summing up the most cogent points here.

A nice graphic illustrating much of same from the Senate GOP:

If there is an unsupported assertion in these sources, prove it.

No 'Fox News' involved. I just ordered Jonah Goldberg's new book The Tyranny of Cliches . While  attempting to disparage information on the presumption that it comes from a certain source is Circumstantial Ad Hominem , the continued use of the logical fallacy should be considered rising to the 'Cliche' level. --I wonder if the 'Fox News' cliche made it into Goldberg's book?

Footnote:  I'm not against careful use of cliches. Truth told too often can become cliche as well as falsehoods. They serve as a convenient shorthand in discussions as long as those discussions do not involve an argument. But one discovers over time that while a 'true' cliche can be adequately supported by additional explanation and detail, a falsehood hiding in a cliche will be destroyed by same.  

The F-35 and Pining For Simpler Times...That Weren’t

Edmonton Journal Fabulist Pens Unattributed Perversion of History to Pursue a Fatally Flawed Analogy – Misses Obviously Relevant Ones
Begging once again the question: Who the f#@* believes what is in the papers anymore?

My Spitfire

Minor Updates 31 March to add graphics, links and improved accuracy or readability

I almost passed on dissecting and documenting the Edmonton Journal’s drivel.. except, well… it’s just such a perfect example of the kind of pap the media pushes out in the public eye on technology topics in general and defense topics in particular. Mea Culpa I guess – I’m compelled to mentally capture the moment whenever the press just ‘phones it in’. Add to the mix a rushing-in to do so for the promotion of an obvious agenda either expecting or hoping no one will notice before the news cycle turns over? Well that just begs a smackdown.

I’m tempted to ‘begin at the beginning’ and do a complete ‘Fisking’ through to the end while disassembling this execrable output from the ‘Anemic Anonymous Aesop(s) of Edmonton’, but that would require me to put FAR more work into the effort of shaming the perpetrator(s) than I’m willing to, or have time to, put into the effort – and obviously many times more effort than they put into the original fable to begin with. Instead I’ve organized this simple, but lengthy critique to eviscerate the editorial’s lynchpin assertions.

The Edmonton Journal Describes a “Spitfire That Never Was”
In an effort to frame his analogy between the Supermarine Spitfire and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the (understandably) unnamed ‘editorialist(s)’ asserts more than a few ‘facts’ concerning the Spitfire that aren’t facts at all. Begin with this paragraph (emphasis mine):

Consider the history of the Second World War's Spitfire. Design began in 1931, an initial contract for 310 was issued by the British government in 1936, the first prototype flew the same years, by 1940 they were rolling off the line at one factory at a rate of almost 60 planes a week, and in 1948 - slightly more than 20,000 aircraft of various version having been produced - the Spitfire went out of production. Price varied, of course, but in 1939 one contract put the sticker at £12,600, or roughly $850,000 in today's terms.  

Think about that: in 17 years the Spitfire went from birth to out of production, for a total cost in the range of $17-$20 billion. And it helped win a world war in the meantime.

Compare that with the F-35. As it happens, 17 years has already passed since the first development contract was signed, the cost to the U.S. alone is already estimated at $325 billion,...

We’ll take on the highlighted claims in order. Some of them are fabrications, some are worse: half-truths and over simplifications presented without sufficient information to attain a proper perspective. Collectively, the above passage highlights how the entire editorial is factually poor, analytically weak, and analogically inept.

Design of the Spitfire Began in 1933, NOT 1931
Design of a Supermarine aircraft first referred to (internally by Supermarine) as a ‘Spitfire’ began in 1931, but it wasn’t THE legendary Spitfire. It was the monoplane design Supermarine 224, designed to compete for fulfillment of Britain’s F.7/30 requirement. It looked like this:

Supermarine Type 224

The design above was not selected and the Gloster Gladiator won the design competition. If the 224 design had been selected, it would have been just as obsolete as the Gladiator was before WW2 even began. 

The First Spitfire: Type 300 (Prototype K5054)

It was in 1933 that R.J. Mitchell, the Spitfire’s designer, began radically revising (to the point of being completely different) his earlier drawings. Engine/cooling ideas and metal structure design insights from the earlier effort were brought forward, but the wing, landing gear and fuselage were all different. Supermarine evolved this design on their own until in December 194333 (typo), when the Air Ministry placed an order for Supermarine to build one prototype. A year later in December 1934, Mitchell decided to modify the plane design to accept what would become famous as the Rolls-Royce ‘Merlin’ Engine. With that decision, almost all the critical elements of what would become the original Spitfire, aka the Type 300, would be brought together. By a very long stretch of the definition of when the design was ‘begun’ I suppose one could choose 1931, but that would require more stretching than would be required to say the Seversky P-35 was ‘begun’ when the SEV-3 design was first penned.

Seversky SEV-3

Seversky P-35

The use of 1931 is understandable only if the author had no knowledge of how the aircraft design came about and ignorance as to how Mitchell employed the ‘Type’ designation in the design documentation. It is NOT excusable to use 1931 to create a sham ‘parallel’ to a factoid concerning the F-35 in attempting to fabricate one-half of a faux cosmic ‘irony’ (the other half is the F-35 timeline addressed below). The Type 300 design was made real in what we know as the first Spitfire: the prototype ‘K5054’, built to meet special specification (F.37/34) and already incorporating aspects of an even more advanced specification being drafted at the time (F.10/35).

1940 Spitfire delivery rates 60 per week ….NOT!
The editorialist(s) obviously either don’t understand the difference between being contracted to deliver and actually delivering. Or maybe they didn’t even bother to read Wikipedia -- or if they did, they missed the important bits:

By May 1940, Castle Bromwich had not yet built its first Spitfire, in spite of promises that the factory would be producing 60 per week starting in April. On 17 May Lord Beaverbrook, Minister of Aircraft Production, telephoned Lord Nuffield and manoeuvered him into handing over control of the Castle Bromwich plant to Beaverbook's Ministry. Beaverbrook immediately sent in experienced management staff and experienced workers from Supermarine and gave over control of the factory to Vickers-Armstrong. Although it would take some time to resolve the problems, in June 1940, 10 Mk IIs were built; 23 rolled out in July, 37 in August, and 56 in September.

Castle Bromwich eventually would produce the overwhelming majority of Spitfires compared to any other site, but in 1940 it was still getting up to speed. Including production at the original facilities, the highest average weekly production rate of production seen in 1940 came in November:

Bringing up the Spitfire rate of production is some particularly delicious irony. The editorialist’s whole point seems to be “Hey! Spitfires were produced on the QT, What’s wrong with the F-35?” It will be informative to run with this topic a little and note what the differences are between the Spitfire and F-35 production ramp ups as case studies.
I’m in the (very large) camp that believes that in general the delays happened for a combination of reasons, most fell under the responsibility of the contractor, some not. The project was enormous in scale and the contractor relatively small. Production demands required a large outsourcing of work that involved (for that time) advanced complex, and specialized skills, processes and materials. One source notes that expeditiously redrawn engineering source drawings for subcontractors at first induced and then promoted the proliferation of errors. Coordination of the logistics to ensure materials were where they were needed and when they were needed was a task beyond the original contractor management team’s ability. In any case, it took the earnest efforts of both industry and government to get the initial order of 310 Spitfires fulfilled in time to make them available for the looming war.

Spitfire Schedule Slippage and Overruns
The contract for the first 310 aircraft would in the end deliver a few numbers shy of that figure about 8 ½ months (~30%) behind schedule and at higher unit cost (~18-19%). Given the scale of the project and then-advanced construction and metal-working methods involved, this was still a remarkable achievement. As noted above, the ‘shadow factory’ at Bromwich was also late coming on line producing (at first) the evolved Spitfire Mark IIs. Do we need to wonder why the Aesop of Edmonton didn’t mention the cost overrun-late schedule part of the early Spitfire history? There are only two reasons possible, ignorance (by far the most likely) and convenience: either one is pathetically unprofessional in its own way. By ‘unprofessional’ however, I do not mean at all ‘unexpected’.
The F-35’s production rate increases have been delayed by ‘customer’ decisions based upon a variety of reasons asserted (valid or not). The F-35’s contractors have consistently sought to ramp up production as rapidly as possible. Contrast the F-35 situation with that of the Spitfire’s, where the production ramp up was highly ‘encouraged’--without early success-- by the customer.

Spitfire Production Ends in 1948?
We’ll allow the claim that the Spitfire was in production through 1948, but qualification and clarification is required concerning the ‘relevance’ of production after 1945.
The editorialist is apparently omitting the Seafire variant of the theme based upon the use of the ‘slightly more than 20000’ production claim (Seafire production ended in early 1949). If so, then the last of the Mk22/24 Spitfires rolled off the assembly line ‘barely’ in 1948 - on February 24th. However, production between 1945 and 1948 served to keep the industrial base intact more than anything else until Supermarine’s (1944) jet project could get going.

From what I can extract from the records found in Spitfire: The History (pp486-482), there were ~204 Mk 22/24s built between April 1946 until the end of production 22 months later representing about 1% of the Spitfires built. This means the postwar average weekly production was about 90% lower than even the lowest production rate seen in 1940 (shown above). Between 1945 and 1948, the RAF was disposing/selling-off Spitfires due to obsolescence faster than they were being built. This meant many of the post 1945 aircraft never even saw service with the UK or any of the other Commonwealth countries. For example, one Spitfire (PK713) built in 1946 was flown once, modified once, and then put in storage until it was sold for scrap in 1956. It was not alone in this fate. Touting production run length is fine, as long as we realize the relevance of the statistic. In this case, I’d say it was ‘not much’.

A Spitfire ‘Costs’ WHAT in today's terms?
Try about $ 4.5 Million US…EACH
The assertion that £12,600 in 1939 is “roughly $850,000 in today's terms” is a curious one, as I can find no reliable inflation adjustment/currency conversion combination (US or CDN) and proper approach that comes any closer to than those figures shown in the table that follows, but simply the order of magnitude of the claim indicates the editorialist(s) committed a classic mistake made by non-professionals: They used the wrong calculation (probably CPI/ ‘Basket of Goods’).

1939-Present  CPI Value Adjustment

For the purposes of this comparison, using the “GDP Share” calculation approach IS appropriate, and for the same reasons that we speak of defense spending in general in terms of GDP percentages. We are interested in how important the Spitfire and F-35 is/are relative to the country economies involved. As noted at the excellent resource MeasuringWorth.com: 

In the past less material and labor existed that could be applied to all projects. So to measure the importance of this project (compares to other projects) use the share of GDP indicator.

Measuring Worth follows up with a good example of the point made:

In 1931, the Empire State building, a giant of a structure in its day, was built at a cost of $41 million. This may seem inexpensive in today's terms when we compare its cost using the GDP deflator and determine a contemporary cost of $491 million. As a share of the economy, however, an amount of $7.6 billion in 2009 dollars would be the number to use, showing how important this building was in its day.

If we’re trying to understand how economically important the Spitfire was in the economy of 1939 and compare that to the same for the F-35 today, and using the VERY** conservative figure of £12,600 (in 1939) the Spitfire would cost £3,110,000.00 in 2010 (latest year data available at Measuring Worth). 

**The engine and airframe costs alone for the last Spitfires were ~30% higher than the earliest models. Add to that the increased complexity of the control systems as higher speed models required power boosting and there was a lot more ‘content’ and cost in the last Spitfires.

Last of the Spitfires: The Mk24

Using the above 2010 GDP Share value and the June 2010 UK-US exchange rate of 1 = 1.4566 we get the USD value of $4,526,916 in June 2010 dollars.

1939-Present GDP Share Value Adjustment

I submit, that given the relative differences in actual and expected effective operational life expectancy as well as actual technical content and capabilities embodied within both weapon systems, and even if using the highest projected F-35 unit cost estimates, that the F-35 is easily “worth” the difference.
 
Now, about that ‘total cost’ for the Spitfire... “$17-$20 billion”?
They obviously got the lower number by simply multiplying the 20,000 Spitfires times their incorrectly applied inflation adjusted number of $850,000 (20,000 x $850,000 = $17B) . The correct low number of the range in today’s dollars using the appropriate calculations is ~$90.54B! Would it be putting too fine a point on things for me to note that the Edmonton’s estimate is only about*** ‘82% off’ on the LOW side?

***I’m using the ‘about’ and approximate numbers because it is not at all clear whether the Journal is speaking of Canadian or US dollars but either one would yield roughly the same magnitude.

Edmonton Journal: Spitfire Apples < F-35 Oranges
The second Cardinal Sin in the Edmonton Journal’s cost accounting has to be what occurs when they then compare the under-estimated Spitfire ‘costs’ with the improper AND inflated (not to mention estimated and not yet ‘true’)“$325B” figure claimed as being the F-35 ‘cost’. The $325B number that is bandied about comes from the Air Force (see here) and Navy (pgs 129 & 143) Feb 2012 budget books (see USAF and USN ‘P-40’ Exhibits). Phrasing the assertion “cost to the U.S. alone is already estimated at $325 billion” carries the implication that there is some consensus on the basis for the ‘estimate’--there isn’t—but also leads one to believe the same accounting basis applies to the F-35 numbers as to the Spitfire’s when it doesn’t. The $325B ‘estimate’ includes ALL F-35 costs. The Spitfire’s numbers do not, and there is no way I am aware of to recreate what the missing Spitfire costs actually were. But we can get an idea from observing that the Castle Bromwich factory cost the British government £7M to put in place (BTW: Interesting article used as the source of the £7M figure) . Converting that number from 1939 currency to 2010 and we find it was the equivalent to £1.7B, or (using the June 2010 exchange rate as above) about $2.5B US just to build the factory that built just over half of all Spitfires. What other ‘Billions’ in Spitfire costs are unaccounted for?
 
The Edmonton Journal’s ‘17 Year’ Straw man Fails in the F-35’s Case As Well
As we have shown that the Spitfire went fewer than 17 years between fielding and production end/obsolescence, so too it can be shown that the F-35 has not been in development for ‘17 years’. No doubt the Journal used the start date of the award to Boeing and Lockheed to build the X-32 and X-35 Technology Demonstrators in late 1996. Unlike the generation-earlier Lightweight Fighter Competition that produced the YF-16 and YF-17, prototypes for what would become the F-16A/B and F/A-18A/B, the X-32 and X-35 were pursued to ensure the critical technologies were sufficiently matured prior to the pursuit of the actual combat aircraft program. That the X-35 demonstrated greater technical maturity was the key to Lockheed Martin being selected to build the F-35. That the X-32’s technology was NOT as mature, to the point that Boeing discovered in the building and flying of the X-32 that their fundamental manufacturing processes and aircraft design would have to be radically changed if their technology was to be subsequently fielded in a combat aircraft, illustrates the reasons for the X-plane designations for both aircraft far better than the X-35 basic design that did not need such radical changes.
The award of the contract to design and build the F-35 in SDD marks the proper start date to use in defining the F-35 timeline for comparison to the Spitfire. That start date was October 26, 2001, when the SDD contracts were awarded to Lockheed and Pratt and Whitney. For the mathematically challenged in journalism, that was about 10.5 years and not 17 years ago.

Additional Data: Preliminary Design Review (PDR) for the F-35 program was in April of 2003, and the Critical Design Reviews (CDRs) were held for the F-35A and F-35B were in February 2006. Given the configuration changes between the first aircraft assembled and the post-weight reduction aircraft and the timing of the design reviews, this makes AA-1 (the first F-35A to fly in December of 2006) a de facto ‘prototype’. 

Finally
“And it helped win a world war in the meantime”…
That snarky little throwaway line is precious. As noted above, the editorialist(s) selectively sidestepped the reasons the Spitfire was in the position it was to be developed and produced for a very long time (in the WW2 sense). It’s longevity, and rightful place in history is owed to the twin facts of:

• The design was most suitable for adaptation to the changing battlespace (higher and faster as the war progressed)
• The urgency for planes was seen before the actual need materialized.

These are more important points than its famous record in the Battles of France and Britain (where the Hurricane was the workhorse).

Now I ask the reader: If there was a global conflagration expected in the next 24 months, would there be any doubt that we would be pushing the F-35s into the hands of the aircrews in a manner similar to Britain in the run up to WWII?

No.