Raptor vs Eagle

Carl Orton wrote:

What are you going to do - fire everyone for awhile then
try to hire them back?

Congress used to try that at the nuke plants at Oak Ridge every election. My
father was an atomic health physicist there. We almost wound up moving to
California just before one election and to Brazil during another. Union Carbide
(the contractor there) would try to have very public layoffs at one of the
plants and very private rehires at others to let the congresscritters get their
points for cost control and keep their people at the same time.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

Jay Honeck wrote:

I just hope it isn't the last manned fighter aircraft...

Back in the 60s, Bill Mauldin did a lovely cartoon. A jet pilot is sitting on
the wheel of his F-104 despondently reading an article claiming that fighter
aircraft will soon be automated. Joe (one of Mauldin's WW II characters - an
infantryman) walks up and say "Don't let it get to ya, bub. I been obsolete fer
20 years."

I think that cartoon still applies.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

Martin Hotze wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 12:54:58 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:


Looks like Lockheed's got another winner. (I just hope it isn't the last
manned fighter aircraft...)


well, for me this stuff is more a weapon than a plane. I don't like
weapons. And I don't like armed planes at all, doesn't matter if they are
old or new or historic.

Why?

Matt

Martin Hotze opined

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 12:54:04 GMT, Doug Carter wrote:

I suppose the response will be that the peaceful Chinese are just
defending themselves against the U.S. imperialist running dogs

I won't say that the Chinese are the best people on the world, but I also
won't say this about Americans. And we here aren't Saints, too.

hm, they (China) spend only 1% more than the USA.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/.../2034rank.html

China as seen in the CIA Factbook:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/ch.html

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/.../2067rank.html
Rank Order - Military expenditures - dollar figure
Rank 1 United States $ 370,700,000,000 date: March 2003
Rank 2 China $ 67,490,000,000 date: 2004

compared to a per capita expense .. well :-)
you must be afraid of something.

China is getting rapidly wealthier. Chinese military spending is rising
rapidly. The quality of the Chinese military is rising even faster.

China is pursuing a noisy and aggresively expansive foreign policy.

In a generation the Pacific rim will be a very dangerous place.

The money is better spent on other items in your household.

Like, say, defending Europe?


-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

Martin Hotze wrote in
:

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 07:29:48 -0400, Bob Noel wrote:

and what are you (the USA) going to do with it?

Advance/upgrade. Status quo leads to stagnation. Plus, this
aircraft will allow for better survivability of the pilot. I don't
know about you, but I like the idea of the pilot having improved
odds of surviving a mission.


almost nobody else invest this huge pile of money into such new
developments. So you and your pilots will still stay as safe as you are
now.

you already can have world domination with the military arsenal
you currently have.

World domination isn't the purpose/mssion of the US military.

no, not of your military.

There is no logic reason for even more military power.

see above.

my point stays: there is no LOGIC reason. are your F22 (?) pilots
falling out of the sky without any good reason? Or are they losing air
combats (too often)?

IMHO it is useless waste of money. but this is your money, not mine.

#m


When you become an American citizen then you can have the right
to bitch about how we spend our money.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

AMEN!!!

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Skywise" wrote in message
...

When you become an American citizen then you can have the right
to bitch about how we spend our money.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Lyndon Johnson tried to have both "guns and butter" (Viet Nam and
Apollo) -- and started our long, death spiral of deficit spending.

NASA's budget is rather insignificant compared with *any* military
spending. Why concentrate on the pennies while wasting the megabucks?

Guess you weren't around during the heady Apollo days, eh? NASA's budget
was hardly insignificant when we were building moonships.

Nowadays, of course, you are correct.

L.B.Johnson tried to do all sorts of things besides NASA on the "butter"
side of the budget, including "The War On Poverty" and "The Great
Society" -- both of which squandered trillions and failed to do anything but
make entire segments of our society utterly dependent upon the government
teat.

Which was, of course, the ultimate goal -- but that's another thread.

Of course, when he tried to do all these things AND Apollo AND Viet Nam,
something had to give.

In the end, we lost Mars, and possibly the future of the human race. It's
very sad, and future generations will probably look back on the time
immediately following the moon landings as a bizarre, anti-exploration
backlash, not unlike what the Islamo-Fascists are trying to impose on the
world today.

Jay... "they" are "us". We middle-aged citizens are the ones in the
driver's seat. And, from what I can see, we're not doing so hot at
driving. Or even thinking about what direction we should be driving. So,
instead, we run in circles like chickens missing our heads, enacting piles
of pointless legislation and hoping that no one with any power objects.

True enough, but look at our choices! My God, we've got the conservatives
controlling the Federal Government, which should virtually assure a balanced
budget and fiscal restraint -- something I have supported my entire adult
life. Instead we've got unfettered pork-barrel spending, on an almost
universal scale. There isn't a county in America that isn't receiving some
sort of Federal payola in the current budget, and it's disgusting.

And the loyal opposition presents absolutely no alternative. If anything,
the situation would be frighteningly worse, if the tables were turned. I
can't imagine what the deficit would be if the Democrats were to ever
control both houses of congress, and the presidency. It boggles the mind.

No, I'm afraid we are screwed until the Libertarians figure out how to
present a politically viable candidate. It will be a race to see if that
will happen before the next revolution.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Ash Wyllie wrote:

In a generation the Pacific rim will be a very dangerous place.

The Atlantic carried a story a month or two back on this. One of our military
experts was quoted as saying "Getting into a war with China is easy. I can think
of several trigger points; Taiwan, for instance. The question is, how do get
yourself *out* of a war with China?"

Some points the article made -- 1) China is a nuclear power. 2) Their sub force
is increasing rapidly and could control most of the Pacific in ten years or so
if they maintain the current build rate. 3) They have a small carrier force and
are working hard at developing it. Carriers give you offensive capabilities that
nothing else will provide.

In short, in ten to twenty years, China will have offensive capacity which will
allow them to do pretty much anything they want in the Pacific and they will be
able to easily sink any surface forces we deploy against them. What they do with
this remains to be seen, of course.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:VLaOe.1126$N22.942@trndny07...
Ash Wyllie wrote:

In a generation the Pacific rim will be a very dangerous place.

The Atlantic carried a story a month or two back on this. One of our
military
experts was quoted as saying "Getting into a war with China is easy. I can
think
of several trigger points; Taiwan, for instance. The question is, how do
get
yourself *out* of a war with China?"


http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...3400-7322r.htm

Chinese military buildup reaches beyond Taiwan
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
July 20, 2005



China is rapidly building up its military forces and weapons systems to
project power beyond Taiwan, according to a Pentagon report made public
yesterday.
Chinese military leaders "have expressed the view that control of Taiwan
would enable the [People's Liberation Army's] Navy to move its maritime
defensive perimeter further seaward and improve Beijing's ability to
influence regional sea lines of communication," said the annual report,
required by Congress.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told reporters that China's economy
and defense spending are growing "and they have been purchasing substantial
numbers of modern weapons from a variety of countries, including Russia."
"They have been deploying additional capabilities," he said.
China's efforts, the report said, are shifting the balance of power
across the Taiwan Strait in Beijing's favor.
"The cross-Strait military balance appears to be shifting toward Beijing
as a result of China's sustained economic growth, growing diplomatic
leverage and improvements in the PLA's military capabilities," the report
said.
For the first time since the report was produced in 2000, the Pentagon
presented several assessments showing China may not evolve as a peaceful
international power.
China's growing nationalism, an expanding military that proliferates
arms to rogue states and a government that is still adapting to stronger
roles give it the potential to be a threatening power.
"In the future, as China's military power grows, China's leaders may be
tempted to resort to force or coercion more quickly to press diplomatic
advantage, advance security interests, or resolve disputes," the report
said.
The report stated that the U.S. intelligence community estimates it will
take China until 2010 to be ready to confront a medium-sized power.
However, the report noted that Chinese military secrecy has resulted in
"incomplete data" about its arms.
For example, U.S. intelligence agencies were taken by surprise by
China's development of the Yuan class of attack submarine that has new
underwater propulsion capabilities.




Some points the article made -- 1) China is a nuclear power. 2) Their sub
force
is increasing rapidly and could control most of the Pacific in ten years
or so
if they maintain the current build rate. 3) They have a small carrier
force and
are working hard at developing it. Carriers give you offensive
capabilities that
nothing else will provide.

In short, in ten to twenty years, China will have offensive capacity which
will
allow them to do pretty much anything they want in the Pacific and they
will be
able to easily sink any surface forces we deploy against them. What they
do with
this remains to be seen, of course.


China is NOT a benevolent power in any sense.

"George Patterson" wrote:

The Atlantic carried a story a month or two back on this. One of our
military experts was quoted as saying "Getting into a war with China
is easy. I can think of several trigger points; Taiwan, for instance.
The question is, how do get yourself *out* of a war with China?"

Indeed, the U. S. may be faced with the unsavory alternatives of war
with China or abandoning its closest allies in the region--Taiwan,
Japan, The Philippines, S. Korea--to Chinese domination.

China is the elephant in the room of American foreign policy. With its
Chamber of Commerce mentality, the Bush. administration, like the
Clinton administration before it, appears to believe that trade
entanglements will restrain Chinese aggression indefinitely. This
policy is helping China develop an economic engine powerful and
sophisticated enough to produce a military mega-power.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM