In my opinion, US weapons have, and will have, a clear advantage over Europeans: they are proven in combat, which is capital for a military whose life depends on them.

This can be also applied to the Apache vs Tiger issue.

Rafale and Eurofighter programs have two major goals, one of them is industrial, that is to keep in the combat aircraft market the nations that participate.

I'm always amused to see high-end US weaponry sold to known fascists.

Despicable.

I should add that "arms sales" is a classic military-industial complex scam. The scam works as follows:

Step 1: Politicians scare the public into believing that America is losing its edge in military technology.

Step 2: Billions and billions of extorted taxpayer dollars are given to weapons contractors to develop new state of the art death machines.

Step 3: The billions of dollars are either wasted on the creation of useless junk, or spent creating a new terrifying weapon that no other nation could afford to develop. Regardless, the exact technical specifications of this new system are highly classified, and any who would reveal these secrets face huge fines, prison terms, are considered traitors, etc.

Step 4: If the weapon system is useless junk, more and more money is poured into attempting to fix it. Eventually it is abandoned. Taxpayers never get a refund from the contractors.

Step 5: If the weapon system is any good, it gets sold or given away to other nations, often of dubious political reliability. Thus the money spent on trying to get ahead in the technological arms race is wasted. Taxpayers get shafted, contractors get paid.

Step 6: Go to step 1.

Another interesting thing about this Singapore weapons deal. Recently the leader of Singapore was interviewed predicting the decline of Europe generally, and the US persistence at the economic pinnacle of the world's nations throughout this century. This purchase of american aircraft merely reinforces this prediction by the cream of overseas Chinese, of European decline and continued american ascendancy.

T.J. has a couple of things wrong here.

First, Singapore is not a democracy, but neither is it fascist. That would require a socialist component that is absent, as well as a politicist component that goes beyond law and order anto aims to control/ban/regulate private thought. Then again, to someone as libertarian as T.J., Clinton is probably a quasi-fascist too.

TJ also has problems with the cycle. Unlike TJ, I see it up close every day. In order:

Step 1: Sometimes this gap is true, and matters. Sometimes it's true, but doesn't matter so much. Sometimes it isn't true. Anyone who can't even get that right loses any credibility to comment.

Step 3: Total BS start to finish. There are very, very few weapons that belong in the "no-one else could afford to develop" category. And the vast majority of weapons work quite well for their intended purpose. Which remains necessary in the real world. If they're truly "useless junk," perhaps TJ would volunteer to face a few? Finally, the exact details are classified, but the broad specifications are usually well-known.

Step 5: Selling a weapon to others may or may not eliminate the superiority value of the weapon and create a treadmill problem. It's one possible outcome, but by no means a necessary one. Clearly, France selling Rafales to Singapore is not such a case. Or the USA selling F-35s to Italy. The USA selling F-15Es to China would be. The USA selling F-35s to Turkey (also a development partner) isn't a problem now but could become so. Hence the role of the Defense Cooperation Security Agency, which must notify Congress of such things (where review and blockage is possible).

Selling stuff abroad does help reduce unit costs, finance R&D, etc. The F-16's massive success and remarkable evolution is probably the best modern example.

Missing from this, which is surprising from someone who says he's all about free markets, is an understanding of this industry as having dynamics just like any other. The govenment role can be distorting at times, but fundamentally the same considerations of positioning, distribution, changing trends, operational issues et. al. apply.

My DID article explains some of those, in the context of the global fighter market over the next 15 years.

Calling Singapore's leader a fascist is a complete butchery of the term. Lee Kwan Yew certainly isn't a Western-style liberal democrat in any sense of the term, but nor is he what you would call a fascist or a despot.

>>If they're truly "useless junk," perhaps TJ would volunteer to face a few?

Well, I'm certainly not planning on riding in an Osprey anytime soon, nor do I expect the missile defense system to protect me from nuke-laden barges from North Korea. And while I would perish horribly in a Crusader barrage, its combat utility in the current environment is essentially zero.

>>Finally, the exact details are classified, but the broad specifications are usually well-known.

The devil isn't in the details. The devil IS the details.

>>The govenment role can be distorting at times, but fundamentally the same considerations of positioning, distribution, changing trends, operational issues et. al. apply.

The government's role in this is FULLY distorting at ALL times -- governments are the only customers for all the new high-tech death machines. When individuals and corporate entities can start buying these things with their own money, then maybe we can begin to talk about a market, much less a "free" market.

As for Singapore, why don't you go there and try one of the following:

Publicly speaking in favor of an opposition party.
Owning a satellite dish.
Chewing gum.
Being a homosexual.

The place is fascist in all the usual state-corporatist ways as well. The whole "culture and nation over the individual" thing is quite typically fascist as well. It's a different kind of hell than some place like Iraq.

TJ and I have found a point of agreement. The V-22 Osprey isn't useless - it's something worse.

It isn't junk, mind, in that it works. Much as I dislike 'em, I'd ride in one if it was necessary to do so. And it has certain performance advantages that I acknowledge. Especially for Special Ops.

But... as a weapons PROGRAM not individual aircraft, I think it's a colossal screw-up.

The V-22 is an $70-80 million machine that gives the USA less total airlift capacity than buying helicopters with the same money (b/c of cost, you get far fewer). So airlift availability in high-intensity, high-demand situations is now an issue.

They're also inherently high crash loss like helicopters, not good at that price. Worse, their expense/rarity will give commanders pause before putting them too much at risk - they can't afford to lose very many or it will REALLY cut into their capabilities. So now the V-22's preciousness starts to influence mission profiles.

Oh, and they can't be escorted by anything the USA has (attack helicopters not fast enough, jets not slow enough, V-22s too costly to equip the needed attack force too)... so they're unprotected. Worst of all. F---ing brilliant.

Now throw in inadequate individual capacity, on top of it all (they can't even carry a Hummer).

I simply do not udersand why the USMC are so convinced the V-22 is a good idea. I keep thinking I must be missing something, but have yet to see a good answer.

It strikes me as a colossal f--k-up, and the many people (incl. Dick Cheney) who wanted to cancel this were right. Only repeated Congressional interference (that's what total political distortion looks like) kept it alive. And all for what?

All to create V-22s with a speed advantage whose tactical utility strikes me as dubious, and a range advatage that could have been solved as easily by using the vast monies spent to buy new-build CH-53Es instead, plus a bunch of H-60s made/refitted with "Pave Hawk" style external fuel tanks and refueling probes.

Or, if they were really smart, to buy "Pave Hawk" style H-60s and new CH-53X Skycranes that would have outstanding undersling capability and no dimensional limitations for vehicles, and could also transport troops in modified ISO container "battle boxes" that winch right up to the frame.

Bleah.

Lee Kwan Yew's conception of Singapore is far more based on Confucian ideas of order than on twentieth century ideas of fascism. Note the absence of both extreme nationalism and the cult of personality centered around the leader.

I'm not defending it or calling it an ideal system, but it's simply incorrect to call it fascist.

As far as my comment about Lee Kwan Yew not being a conventional despot, he's managed to keep a multi-ethnic society together without stigmatizing any minorities as well as maintain a high level of transparency that has helped Singapore to have one of the lowest corruption rates in the region and move from a Third to First World power. Simply put, he isn't the conventional despot for life who views the power of the executive as an excuse to loot for his own profit.

I would second Dan's comments and include one of my own...the Asian tigers do have a remarkable track record of democratic development over time. Taiwan, South Korea and (mutatis mutandis) Japan, all ultimately based their increasing liberal political culture on a similar economic foundation to Singapore's. Compare and contrast with Vietnam or Burma.

We cannot expect every political structure in the world to be Missouri (indeed, I would hope it be better) but, we need to be able to see 1) our natural allies, and 2) countries whose political and ecomonic systems are improving. The good should never be the enemy of the perfect.

Militarily, our alliance with Singapore, along with Australia, is becoming a key to stability in the Moluccas. Illustrated by the tsumani relief efforts, our militaries work well with one another, and represent a de facto NATO in the Pacific.

1.Publicly speaking in favor of an opposition party.

I can do that. And I won't have any fear whatsoever of getting into trouble. Conversely, if they put everyone into jail for criticising the govt, they'd have to put half the taxi driver population into jail, lol. (Taxi drivers in Singapore are notorious for criticising the govt - job boredom, subjects of retrenchment and being in the lower income group makes them such.) If you publicly criticise the Govt, however, then be prepared - in the sense that you better make sure you have proof of what you say. If you do, then you may safely do so.

2.Owning a satellite dish.

Is a problem cause we ban porn here. (If I'm not wrong you get access to that over the airways?)But we have access to cableTV which shows CNN, CNBC BBC and whatever have you. If we are not complaining about not being able to own a satellite dish, why are you?

3.Chewing gum.

Aha. Very common misconception here. We do not ban the act of chewing gum, and chewing gum won't get you into jail. The act of selling them, and bringing them into Singapore is. I had a friend who tried to smuggle one pack of gum into Singapore for his own consumption, and got caught at Customs. Sorry to disappoint you, but he didn't get thrown into jail. He did lose that pack of gum though. Again, I take losing the choice of chewing gum over having to suffer the indignity of pressing a gum-covered button in a lift. Trust me, most share my sentiments. (Yes, as a society, we are still not civic to the level of the west yet)

4.Being a homosexual.

No, being a homo won't get you thrown into jail. Being a gay in public would get you in trouble though. This is an ASIAN society - we do not accept gays as easily as the west. In essence, our society's cultural views require them to be closet gays - they can do what they want in their privacy, but they cannot make the rest of us suffer they behavior in public.

Finally, what I wish to say is - withhold judgement until you've actually lived in Singapore for a period of time. Granted Singapore may not be a democracy as it is in the western sense, but if we had the democracy as is so in America, I can say that we won't be where we are now, and our future prospects would not be as bright as it is. As a small country, we just cannot tolerate the kind of inefficiencies we observe in America's political system if we are to prosper. And the kind of 'pork' that is required to bribe the people to vote for you, I'd rather have none of that.