"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 09:29:42 -0400, Tiger
wrote:

Dan wrote:
Zombywoof wrote:

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:43:48 -0500, Dan wrote:

Raymond O'Hara wrote:
snip

Well, the 33rd TFW took out 16 Iraqi MiGs that weren't rolling over or
fleeing. They may not have been anywhere near top notch, but those 16 at
least did put up a fight.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


While not on the O'hara side of the fence, can we aggree more spending
on a f22 means a delay in the F35 program? Also that increasing the
number beyond 183 in the current budget environment means other Air
force programs will robbed to pay for them?

Actually no, we can't agree on that. It is apples/oranges. The F-22
progam is in production with almost 20 years of development and
evolution already as sunk costs. The F-35 program is where F-22 was in
1992.

The incremental unit cost for additional F-22s (which are
multi-mission capable now) is not a trade-off against F-35 development
funding and purchase of an aircraft that won't reach full scale
production and deployment for at least five years.

The only thing being "robbed" in these scenarios is increased social
program spending, the result of political pandering, pork-barreling
and earmarking.


Actually I think 432 F-22's was about right. What robbed USAF of 250 of
them was the 500 billion dollar adventure in Iraq and not increased social
program spending.

Think carefully next time you want to remove a despicable dictator in a
country ripe for insurgency. The present situation in Iraq was very
predictable.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
www.thunderchief.org