The northern border states however might benefit from UAVs because they can cover ground-based infiltration from the Canadian border a lot better than F-15s. Again that's just a cursory look at my best guess for now.

-DA 

If I could hazard a guess it would be less about politics and more about the F-15 being one of our most prestigious fighters.  Its the whole "this toy is shinier, SO I WANT IT NOW NOW NOW!!"

 

Of course, it stupid: I am with you in that our better interceptors and fighter aircraft should be deployed on the periphery in areas where they could do the most good.  Yeah, the Russians arent coming anytime in the forseeable future, but the point is to have them there already you know?

 

Both California and Montana should have specialized Air Superiority aircraft. California's naval and military bases are critical to the nation's defense, the industrial centers are a net drag on the US economy, and I suppose the population centers are worth protecting too. Montana sits astride the nothern frontier and although we aren't at war with Russia anymore we aren't at peace with them either. The threat from Blackjacks is real as is the threat of an airliner with extended range tanks and packed with an explosive cargo heading into the heartland. That kind of suicide mission would be a very real possibility even in a "low intensity" conflict like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea you name the conspirator (note: the airliner does not have to originate from the offending nation and it can follow a civilian flight plan until it disappears above the arctic circle).

 

What this topic points out is that we have a shortage of air superiority aircraft. In this case have two Congressmen bickering about a single wing of 35 year old airframes (which have been litterally falling apart!). The curious point is that we have a perfectly good program under way that could feed new aircraft into the system to buck up the shortage, by delivering other F15s into the national guard, in the F22. Instead of building them, like the USAF asked for, we are waiting on another platform the F35. Which may or may not be properly funded (hint: it probably won't under this administration).

 

Politics, you gotta hate it but you have to participate.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

The nation either has enough air superiority fighters or it does not.  If the nation does not wish to purchase more F-22s than it can either purchase another aircraft (new build F-15s) or let it's elected officials fight over which part of the country gets to be defended.

 

The F-35 is not an air superiority fighter nor can it be made into one.  Nor is there any evidence it will eventually be cheaper than the present F-22 whose mission it can not perform.  Frankly the nation should either buy more F-15s, more F-22s, or join Israel's program for a future air superiority fighter.  What we are actually doing is buying nothing and watching our F-15s fall apart and imagining less than 400 F-22s and upgraded F-15Cs, with questionable remaining service life, is enough to perform all air superiority missions for the United States of America.

 

DA, what you said makes sense except for three problems:

 

1) Montana already has a dedicated Border Patrol unit equipped with UAVs, along with Blackhawks and PC-12s.  The UAV squadron assigned to North Dakota's ANG unit operates over Afghanistan.

 

2) You would need a huge number of UAVs to patrol the northern border of Montana, which is the largest of all northern tier states, save Alaska.

 

3) The unit up here just spent millions of dollars converting from the F-16 to the F-15, and moving from multirole back to air defense.

 

I think another poster was right: this is Feinstein wanting a shiny toy to show off to her taxpayers.  Why not convert one of California's four or five ANG units to UAVs?  They have a hell of a lot worse of a problem with border infiltration than we do.  The last time we had a border infiltration problem in Montana, it was someone trying to smuggle 90 puppy-mill collies across the border.

 

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

 

It makes all the sense in the world, but it depends upon how you look at it.  From a military standpoint it doesn't make a lot of sense, especially when you consider the defense of our northern border.  DA gives it the old college try, but he is reflecting a commonly held view on the East and West coasts in that the only real plausible targets, terrorist or otherwise, are in places like Los Angeles, New York, Seattle, and Boston.  In their mind the folks in "flyover country" aren't in any real danger, so to spend a lot of federal money in places like Kansas, Iowa, Ohio, or Montana seems like a waste of money. 

 

We saw a lot of this after 9/11, when the government started handing out Homeland Security money to the cities and states.  The biggest cities, such as New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago received a good chunk of the money and justifiably so, but a lot of smaller cities, such as Des Moines, Boise, and St. Louis also received millions of dollars in federal aid to train and equip its first responders to handle another terrorist attack, particularly one involving a WMD.  Senators and congressmen from places California and New York sneered about Homeland Security grants going places like Springfield, MO so that it could equip and train its firefighter to respond to a WMD attack.  Some politicians even listed this kind of thing as an example of government waste, since they found it laughable that terrorists would attack smaller cities and towns in the heartland of American.  What they fail to recognize or consider is that unless you live within a hundred miles or less of a major metropolitan city, most communities would be forced to deal with a chemical, biological, or nuclear attack on their own for several hours until they could count on any relief from the federal government.  A chemical weapons attack in a place like Tulsa, Oklahoma may seem unlikely, but prior to 9/11 few people thought it likely that terrorists would take over four planes and fly them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.  In fact, I think it would make a lot sense for terrorists to attack smaller towns and cities, but I won't get into that right now. 

 

Personally I think Feinstein's motives have much less to do with defense and security than it does with simple pork barrel politics.  More fighter plane units in California means more jobs and more votes.   The economy is in bad shape all around, but the economy in California is in shambles.  Feinstein needs to show her constituents that she is doing everything she can help California, and if that means that Montana is hurt in the process, then so be it.  To hell with 'em.  If the Democrats lose a few thousand votes in Montana the only people that would lose any sleep over it would be the Democrat politicians in Montana.  It's not like they have a lot of electoral college votes or members of Congress.