P.J. O'Rourke once remarked that the reason that the major media never covered cars very well was that most of the "national" media was in New York and that most people in New York thought that a car was something yellow with a light on top.

Today, the NYT weighs in with its prescription for a 21st century defense budget, clearly written by someone with a hazy idea of the differences between various kinds of airplanes and ships. And like any prescription written by an unqualified person, it would make you ill.

The first recommendation is to terminate the F-22 in favor of the F-35 "which comes into production in 2012". Sort of, as long as Congress doesn't wake up and realize that the JSF office wants to order 561 jets before the test program wraps up. Meanwhile, the NYT thinks the USAF "can use upgraded versions of the F-16, which can outperform anything now flown by any potential foe." F-16 versus Su-30MKK? Really?

Now, ships. The NYT knows boats, because of all its readers with yachts in the Hamptons. Cancel the DDG-1000, says the NYT. That's not a bad idea in itself, but not for the reason that the NYT thinks, because they call it " a stealthy blue water combat ship designed to fight... midocean battles." Right. That's why its main weapon is a land-bombardment gun.

Instead, the Navy should spend the money on a proven, reliable alternative: "the littoral combat ships that are really needed. Those ships can ... provide helicopter and other close-in support for far more likely ground combat operations." The LCS is currently an unproven corvette with a destroyer price tag, and the NYT's mission description sounds as if they have confused it with a 20000-ton helicopter dockship.

The Navy should also cancel further production of the Virginia-class submarine and instead "extend the operating lives of the existing fleet of Los Angeles class fast-attack nuclear submarines." The NYT doesn't mention that the Navy's current plan is to run the 688s for their full 33-year life;  that nobody has a clear idea whether the hulls will safely run longer than that (see this report, page 40); and that 20 of the 45 boats active today will hit that age by 2020.

On missile defense, just as some systems have been shown to work, the NYT advocates two actions: "Continued testing and research on more feasible approaches [and] serious discussions with the Russians about a possible joint missile defense program." The NYT estimates that this would cost $5 billion a year. I guess it would be up to our good ol' buddy Mr. Putin to decide whether that spending generates any operational capability at all.

Serious change is, indeed, needed. But it should be supported by serious thinking. Or at least some kind of thinking.

Edit:  Danger Room weighs in. Though I would call this more than just jets-versus-grunts - there is an issue of how to equip, deliver and support the grunts as well.