F-22 production termination is premature
F-22 production termination is premature
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... line=China Close To Testing Next-Gen Fighter
I object!The money is needed for social programs.
I think it is actually spent on UAVs and the war in Iraq. The war in Iraq costs what? 250 billion a year? Something like that, right?
What wars is China fighting right now?
Anyway, UAVs are much better suited for a war against terror as the US is fighting right now than F22s are.
So I totally see the point of that.
We kinda need both. The F22 gives the North Koreans the willies. The reaper UAV keeps Osama duck walking so he looks like he's 5'5" from the air. Were it not for Chuck Berry, we'd have had him by now. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3rG73VOqyoAnyway, UAVs are much better suited for a war against terror as the US is fighting right now than F22s are.
So I totally see the point of that.
Well, I honestly think that it is your Tridents that give the North Koreans the willies more than your F22sThe F22 gives the North Koreans the willies.
I am pretty sure that this is what it would come down to anyway.
The F22s are not really a deterrent. I think that even your F16s or F18s would be doing just fine against anything that the North Koreans have.
Our new President is a man of the people. He grew up disadvantaged, abandoned by his father, in a racist society. I resent your insinuations.UncleMatt wrote:I think you meant to say the money is needed to bail out the wealthiest, greediest people in our economy. You know, the ones that caused our current economic mess?MSimon wrote:The money is needed for social programs.
The fact that the white grandma who actually raised him was a banker has nothing at all to do with it. Nothing at all.
And re: the greediest people in our economy were you referring to Congress? The only people in the country with a license to steal? Of course they only do it to help their friends. Friends helping friends to other people's money. And they swear they are only going to steal from the rich. And I believe them. Totally.
====
Iraq cost us about $100 bn to $160 bn a year over regular DoD spending. Not large by American standards and % wise considerably below Cold War peaks.
If Iraq continues to improve its economy in 20 years it will look like a very wise decision. Just as South Korea was a debacle for Truman and is now considered a success story that helped the whole Asian region.
The pull out in Afghanistan (it is coming) will have an effect similar to our first pull out - dark forces will take over once we leave and new problems will emerge from that region. Possibly leading to the fall of Pakistan and nuclear weapons in the hands of the most crazy.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Depends on whether China enters the fray like it did last time.Skipjack wrote:Well, I honestly think that it is your Tridents that give the North Koreans the willies more than your F22s ;)The F22 gives the North Koreans the willies.
I am pretty sure that this is what it would come down to anyway.
The F22s are not really a deterrent. I think that even your F16s or F18s would be doing just fine against anything that the North Koreans have.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Well yes. And F-22s are a deterrent to the other kind of war. Balance is not leaping continually from one extreme to another.Skipjack wrote:I object!The money is needed for social programs.
I think it is actually spent on UAVs and the war in Iraq. The war in Iraq costs what? 250 billion a year? Something like that, right?
What wars is China fighting right now?
Anyway, UAVs are much better suited for a war against terror as the US is fighting right now than F22s are.
So I totally see the point of that.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Hmm, from what I understand the current administration actually wants to put more troops into Afghanistan and pull out of Iraq (also leaving nothing but chaos behind there, then). I do agree though, that you need to focus your politics on Afghanistan and Pakistan. Pakistan in particular worries me. It always worried me waaaay more than Iraq, even Iran. Pakistan, after all, is already a nuclear power and has been for quite a while now.The pull out in Afghanistan (it is coming) will have an effect similar to our first pull out - dark forces will take over once we leave and new problems will emerge from that region.
That country has also always been on the verge of tipping over to the dark side. If you ask me democracy in a country like that is a dangerous thing. What would you do, if a party wins that does not have your best interests in mind (e.g. an islamic party)? Heck even Turkey is getting more and more dominated by their religious right.
You mean the pull out of the Russiansto our first pull out
Those dark forces were already at work there before they pulled out, you know...
IMHO the US should be more careful with who they choose as their allies (something the US has historically never been very good at).
Who are you so eager again to start a war against?Well yes. And F-22s are a deterrent to the other kind of war.
Iran, North Korea, both?
You think you can afford that?
The cold war is luckily over and it almost ruined the US before. The war in Iraq is certainly one reason for the financial crisis.
So far, you have spent almost the same amount than the bailout plan there. I also dont see any chance of you ever getting your money back from that.
The F22 is outside the battlefield, supersonic, and very stealthy. They would be completing their first sorties in the first hours of the war. The problem is, is that one of the worlds major centers of advanced civilization is within artillery range of the most backward civilizations, and under extortionary threat. The F22 diminishes that threat by it's ability to begin to remove the artillery positions soon after the North Koreans start firing on Seoul. F18s would be much less effective since they would have more difficulty dealing with North Koreans antiaircraft capabilities. The F22 might be central in rescuing Seoul from complete annihilation....The F22s are not really a deterrent. I think that even your F16s or F18s would be doing just fine against anything that the North Koreans have.
Deterrents are an attempt to prevent new wars.Who are you so eager again to start a war against?Well yes. And F-22s are a deterrent to the other kind of war.
I have to agree with you though, we'd be *much* better off resourcing one *new* quadrillion BTU/year energy source, or two, or three, rather than spending so much ensuring the continuance of established but 100 year old declining energy technologies, which was much of the point of the Iraq war. Oil & gas in the ground should be the cash cow to fund their own replacements, but we can't expect companies like Exxon/Mobile to finance their own demise.
What antiaircraft capabilities?F18s would be much less effective since they would have more difficulty dealing with North Koreans antiaircraft capabilities. The F22 might be central in rescuing Seoul from complete annihilation.
If you are concerned about stealth, then use the F117s...
Anyway, as we could see in Iraq, the current generation is still capable enough. Iraq had very little to show against the US' airforce.
I doubt that North Korea would fair that much better.
In their case, I would be much more concerned about the war on the ground. The open desert is much better for fighting from the air. The environment in North Korea might require much more ground forces. The war on the ground has traditionally been a weakness of US forces as one could see in Vietnam (though that war was also lost back at home). War gets a lot harder when you cant just drop a few bombs wherever something moves.
I think that in order to win in North Korea, you would need even better intel than anywhere else. To do that, you need lots of UAVs and more and more high res spy satellites (so they can see inbetween the trees) among other things.
The war in the air would only be a secondary problem compared to that.