F-22 Raptor
by James Norton
"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."
-George Orwell, 1984
"The F-22 is being called the 'anti-war plane' because its lethal capabilities, superior stealth and maneuverability make it a formidable opponent
for any contingent threat."
-F-22 Raptor home page
How about this for a thought: perhaps the solution to finding world peace doesn't lie with the United Nations. Perhaps it doesn't lie with the
development of a fully integrated world economy, increasingly sophisticated international communication or skillful diplomacy. Perhaps peace is actually
obtainable through the construction of really kickass warplanes that bomb the crap out of targets so quickly and thoroughly that the targets, if they had
any sense, would never have started the conflict in the first place.
"The revolutionary F-22 will give America uncompromised air dominance. And it will give potential adversaries a single option: Peace," says the ad
copy touting the Raptor to the well-heeled readers of the National Journal. Seemingly oblivious to the
chutzpah required to build an ad campaign hyping a lethal, hegemony-reinforcing instrument of war as a cure for conflict, Lockheed Martin and company
have embarked on a PR blitz to shore up support for their comically expensive flying death buggies.
This is part of a longstanding trend in military purchasing. For many years, the United States military has drifted away from affordable weapons that
work quite reliably, shifting over to amazingly pricey bundles of high technology and Swedish design that tend to clog up and conk out once the going
gets even slightly tough. The result, of course, is best exemplified by the Apache helicopter, a frightfully expensive piece of war materiel that is so
dainty that no one actually wants to see it used in
combat. The Apache is the air-to-ground replacement for the A-10 Warthog, one of the most reliable and cost-effective warplanes to ever spray doom from
the sky.
At 96.7 million dollars, the Raptors (we're slated to buy 341 of them) are not exactly economical. Think about it this way: how much money, in bribes
and direct incentives, would it take to buy off the hostile government of a small, angry 3rd-world nation? $2 million for each minister, and $10 million
for the chief of state? Another $10 million worth of slush money to lather around on secondary officials and problematic media types? Is it possible that
we could use far less than $96.7 million to buy our way out of a nasty conflict in a remote part of the world, and create a constructive alliance with
the folks in power? It could be argued that if America spent just a tiny fraction of its military budget on creative diplomatic and economic initiatives,
many hugely expensive and unpopular conflicts could be avoided.
On the other hand, the Raptor does, however, feature delicious design, first shot/first kill credentials, and is the first aircraft to possess
supercruise capability - the ability to cruise at supersonic speeds without relying on afterburners. In addition, the planes possess the distinct quality
of being able to dispense many different sorts of death-dealing kill-units at the twitch of a trigger finger. Additionally, it's hard not to like jet
fighters after the amazing success of Tom Cruise's homoerotic tour de force in Top Gun.
What’s the verdict? As usual, we've got better things to spend our money on, even if we're keeping that money locked up within the military sector of
our budget. But kudos to the ad guys; it's funny, funny stuff.
E-mail James Norton at jrnorton@flakmag.com.
