"F-35 Test Flight Deemed a Success"

Listen to Ed, Ski, he has been there and done that. Read his books, and
you will understand why.

Ed makes valid points, but I think there's one point that cuts to the heart
of this. Are you willing to trade money for lives? Better planes will save
lives. You could win against any current, or future (10-20 year) opponent
with end of Gulf War technology (AMRAAM being critical). Absolutely no dire
need for F-22 or -35, no matter who says it. Period. Ain't no one in a
place to challenge the US military on conventional grounds. Not even close.
Not even a distant second. Not even China + Iran + North Korea (the latter
is a joke now). If the US took off its "kids gloves" and waged full
conventional warfare, perhaps only China, Russia, and India could stand for
more than a week. And each would most certainly fall. Versus all three at
once, maybe. Without counting specifics, you get the point.

So why keep building new planes? Well, I think the incredibly low casualty
figures for the USAF and USN in the last 15 years speak the reason. No,
those new jets aren't needed to get the job done. But yes, the extra money
will make improvements that save lives. And given the current political
climate, humanitarian reasons (and pilot preference!) aside, that seems to
make a lot of military sense. You can't win wars that the public doesn't
let you fight, so keep casualties down, improve accuracy to reduce
collatoral damage, and you get to do a lot more damage, with a lot less
"unwanted" death. That's the biggest reason I can think of for building
those planes.

TV

TV wrote:
Listen to Ed, Ski, he has been there and done that. Read his books, and
you will understand why.

Ed makes valid points, but I think there's one point that cuts to the heart
of this. Are you willing to trade money for lives? Better planes will save
lives. You could win against any current, or future (10-20 year) opponent
with end of Gulf War technology (AMRAAM being critical). Absolutely no dire
need for F-22 or -35, no matter who says it. Period.

Don't agree...and you even mentioned China. It doesn't have to be a
WWlll type scenario to 'need' stealthy A/C..How about when(not if)
China decides it wants Taiwan back? China has NOT sat still as they
design and buy Russian and Euro technology. Altho a sliver of the tech,
Euro-fighter, Rafale, Flanker/Fulcrum follow-ons are not to be sneared
at.


Ain't no one in a
place to challenge the US military on conventional grounds. Not even close.

Balderdash...4 years into an ill concieved 'war' with no end in sight.
Your thinking of large, massed armies going toe to toe is not
realistic.

Not even a distant second. Not even China + Iran + North Korea (the latter
is a joke now). If the US took off its "kids gloves" and waged full
conventional warfare, perhaps only China, Russia, and India could stand for
more than a week. And each would most certainly fall. Versus all three at
once, maybe. Without counting specifics, you get the point.

So why keep building new planes? Well, I think the incredibly low casualty
figures for the USAF and USN in the last 15 years speak the reason. No,
those new jets aren't needed to get the job done. But yes, the extra money
will make improvements that save lives. And given the current political
climate, humanitarian reasons (and pilot preference!) aside, that seems to
make a lot of military sense. You can't win wars that the public doesn't
let you fight, so keep casualties down, improve accuracy to reduce
collatoral damage, and you get to do a lot more damage, with a lot less
"unwanted" death. That's the biggest reason I can think of for building
those planes.

TV

On 21 Dec 2006 05:52:03 -0800, wrote:


TV wrote:
Listen to Ed, Ski, he has been there and done that. Read his books, and
you will understand why.

Ed makes valid points, but I think there's one point that cuts to the heart
of this. Are you willing to trade money for lives? Better planes will save
lives. You could win against any current, or future (10-20 year) opponent
with end of Gulf War technology (AMRAAM being critical). Absolutely no dire
need for F-22 or -35, no matter who says it. Period.

Don't agree...and you even mentioned China. It doesn't have to be a
WWlll type scenario to 'need' stealthy A/C..How about when(not if)
China decides it wants Taiwan back? China has NOT sat still as they
design and buy Russian and Euro technology. Altho a sliver of the tech,
Euro-fighter, Rafale, Flanker/Fulcrum follow-ons are not to be sneared
at.

You selectively edited TV's comment to imply the opposite of what he
said. He points out the dollar versus lives value of advanced
technology and the difference between long and short term planning. He
further notes that the value placed on warrior lives is both immediate
for the warrior and political for the government decision-makers. The
total argument concludes (as do you here) that while you could vote
short term retro-fit of teen-fighters, the better choice for beyond
current scenarios is the high-tech investment.


Ain't no one in a
place to challenge the US military on conventional grounds. Not even close.

Balderdash...4 years into an ill concieved 'war' with no end in sight.
Your thinking of large, massed armies going toe to toe is not
realistic.

The "war" was over when Baghdad fell. The reconstruction and
democratization which is being attempted is a considerably different
issue. We are not well served by the continued failure by the media to
ignore the distinction between the war and the current efforts at
establishing security against the sectarian violence.

Buying fighters based on what is going on in Iraq is a non-sequitur.

Not even a distant second. Not even China + Iran + North Korea (the latter
is a joke now). If the US took off its "kids gloves" and waged full
conventional warfare, perhaps only China, Russia, and India could stand for
more than a week. And each would most certainly fall. Versus all three at
once, maybe. Without counting specifics, you get the point.

So why keep building new planes? Well, I think the incredibly low casualty
figures for the USAF and USN in the last 15 years speak the reason. No,
those new jets aren't needed to get the job done. But yes, the extra money
will make improvements that save lives. And given the current political
climate, humanitarian reasons (and pilot preference!) aside, that seems to
make a lot of military sense. You can't win wars that the public doesn't
let you fight, so keep casualties down, improve accuracy to reduce
collatoral damage, and you get to do a lot more damage, with a lot less
"unwanted" death. That's the biggest reason I can think of for building
those planes.

While I could make a good, albeit emotional, argument regarding the
preference of tactical crewmembers for aircraft that are survivable,
you note very properly the reluctance of American's namby-pamby
generations to see combat through to a decisive conclusion when the
body-bags start appearing.

I watched Patton again last night and was really struck by the opening
speech in front of the giant flag--it was so true in the '40s and so
regretably gone today.



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