GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As

William Black wrote:
"Mike" wrote in message
...
Inside the Air Force
Next-gen bomber must be adequately funded
YOUNG: GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As

---------------------------------

Given current wars they'd be better off buying a load of Douglas A-1
Skyraiders and a few WWII twin engined bombers.

What they need is something very reliable that lugs a largish bombload
around and can absorb ground fire while dropping it in smallish
quantities
with great precision.

What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers
that are
designed to fight a major European war.


In other words."Why pay 2008 Corvette money to do a job your old 1988
F150 could do?" I'm sure there plenty of stuff in the boneyard that fits
the bill. A-10's, A6's, A-4's, Phantoms, A-7's. Old stuff, but to drop
bombs in zones with no Mig threats they work. I think the A-1 may be
pushing the concept a bit, but I hear you.....

On Jun 10, 5:32*pm, Tiger wrote:
William Black wrote:

* "Mike" wrote in message
....
* Inside the Air Force
* Next-gen bomber must be adequately funded
* YOUNG: GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
*
* ---------------------------------
*
* Given current wars they'd be better off buying a load of Douglas A-1
* Skyraiders and a few WWII twin engined bombers.
*
* What they need is something very reliable that lugs a largish bombload
* around and can absorb ground fire while dropping it in smallish
quantities
* with great precision.
*
* What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers
that are
* designed to fight a major European war.
*

In other words."Why pay 2008 Corvette money to do a job your old 1988
F150 could do?" I'm sure there plenty of stuff in the boneyard that fits
the bill. A-10's, A6's, A-4's, Phantoms, A-7's. Old stuff, but to drop
bombs in zones with no Mig threats they work. I think the A-1 may be
pushing the concept a bit, but I hear you.....

Until the run into the a battery on the latest SAMs , ot a Nex-Gen
Stealth fighter, which are design to handle the latest fighters. At
which point they become so much flying scrap metal. And remember, the
reason we have air conreol is because we have the best fighter to
knock the other sides fighter out before the get to shoot at our
troops.

Frankly what I read in the story reminds me of the old warning about
fighting the last war, and not planning for the next.

g lof2 wrote:
On Jun 10, 5:32 pm, Tiger wrote:

William Black wrote:

"Mike" wrote in message
...
Inside the Air Force
Next-gen bomber must be adequately funded
YOUNG: GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As

---------------------------------

Given current wars they'd be better off buying a load of Douglas A-1
Skyraiders and a few WWII twin engined bombers.

What they need is something very reliable that lugs a largish bombload
around and can absorb ground fire while dropping it in smallish
quantities
with great precision.

What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers
that are
designed to fight a major European war.


In other words."Why pay 2008 Corvette money to do a job your old 1988
F150 could do?" I'm sure there plenty of stuff in the boneyard that fits
the bill. A-10's, A6's, A-4's, Phantoms, A-7's. Old stuff, but to drop
bombs in zones with no Mig threats they work. I think the A-1 may be
pushing the concept a bit, but I hear you.....


Until the run into the a battery on the latest SAMs , ot a Nex-Gen
Stealth fighter, which are design to handle the latest fighters. At
which point they become so much flying scrap metal. And remember, the
reason we have air conreol is because we have the best fighter to
knock the other sides fighter out before the get to shoot at our
troops.

Frankly what I read in the story reminds me of the old warning about
fighting the last war, and not planning for the next.

The bad guys of late seem to prefer Ied's & rpg's to Radar guided SAm
sites... Nor does most of the world have the $$$ for next gen Stealth
fighters. Even our Allies can bearly put a decent force together. The
topic point was spending money on a F22 air superiorty fighter. A job it
does well but there is no air threat. That makes it useless when the
current need for the airforce is to supply CAS. The F35 which will do,
said mission is years away. If your planning for the next war, Nethier
plane is really what you want.

"Tiger" wrote in message
...
g lof2 wrote:
On Jun 10, 5:32 pm, Tiger wrote:

William Black wrote:

"Mike" wrote in message
...
Inside the Air Force
Next-gen bomber must be adequately funded
YOUNG: GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As

---------------------------------

Given current wars they'd be better off buying a load of Douglas A-1
Skyraiders and a few WWII twin engined bombers.

What they need is something very reliable that lugs a largish bombload
around and can absorb ground fire while dropping it in smallish
quantities
with great precision.

What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers
that are
designed to fight a major European war.


In other words."Why pay 2008 Corvette money to do a job your old 1988
F150 could do?" I'm sure there plenty of stuff in the boneyard that fits
the bill. A-10's, A6's, A-4's, Phantoms, A-7's. Old stuff, but to drop
bombs in zones with no Mig threats they work. I think the A-1 may be
pushing the concept a bit, but I hear you.....


Until the run into the a battery on the latest SAMs , ot a Nex-Gen
Stealth fighter, which are design to handle the latest fighters. At
which point they become so much flying scrap metal. And remember, the
reason we have air conreol is because we have the best fighter to
knock the other sides fighter out before the get to shoot at our
troops.

Frankly what I read in the story reminds me of the old warning about
fighting the last war, and not planning for the next.

The bad guys of late seem to prefer Ied's & rpg's to Radar guided SAm
sites... Nor does most of the world have the $$$ for next gen Stealth
fighters. Even our Allies can bearly put a decent force together. The
topic point was spending money on a F22 air superiorty fighter. A job it
does well but there is no air threat. That makes it useless when the
current need for the airforce is to supply CAS. The F35 which will do,
said mission is years away. If your planning for the next war, Nethier
plane is really what you want.


Can you ABSOLUTELY, GUARANTEE that no possible future enemy could
aquire/develop such technology within the next 30 or so years?

On Jun 10, 10:03*pm, Tiger wrote:
g lof2 wrote:
On Jun 10, 5:32 pm, Tiger wrote:

William Black wrote:

"Mike" wrote in message
....
Inside the Air Force
Next-gen bomber must be adequately funded
YOUNG: GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As

---------------------------------

Given current wars they'd be better off buying a load of Douglas A-1
Skyraiders and a few WWII twin engined bombers.

What they need is something very reliable that lugs a largish bombload
around and can absorb ground fire while dropping it in smallish
quantities
with great precision.

What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers
that are
designed to fight a major European war.

In other words."Why pay 2008 Corvette money to do a job your old 1988
F150 could do?" I'm sure there plenty of stuff in the boneyard that fits
the bill. A-10's, A6's, A-4's, Phantoms, A-7's. Old stuff, but to drop
bombs in zones with no Mig threats they work. I think the A-1 may be
pushing the concept a bit, but I hear you.....

Until the run into the a battery on the latest SAMs , ot a Nex-Gen
Stealth fighter, which are design to handle the latest fighters. At
which point they become so much flying scrap metal. And remember, the
reason we have air conreol is because we have the best fighter to
knock the other sides fighter out before the get to shoot at our
troops.

Frankly what I read in the story reminds me of the old warning about
fighting the last war, and not planning for the next.

The bad guys of late seem to prefer Ied's & rpg's to Radar guided SAm
sites... Nor does most of the world *have the $$$ for next gen Stealth
fighters. Even our Allies can bearly put a decent force together. The
topic point was spending money on a F22 air superiorty fighter. A job it
does well but there is no air threat. That makes it useless when the
current need for the airforce is to supply CAS. The F35 which will do,
said mission is years away. If your planning for the next war, Nethier
plane is *really what you want.- Hide quoted text -


The problem with your argument is your assumion that there cannot be
future threat to US air superiority. The key to US military power over
the last sixty years was your control of the air. It is important for
us to maintain that superiority if we are to remain the top military
power. Therefore we must build enough F-22 to assure we retain that
power while the production lines are still open, else it will become
far more expensive to re open the production lines later when it
becomes necessary.

- Show quoted text -

"g lof2" wrote in message
...
On Jun 10, 5:32 pm, Tiger wrote:
William Black wrote:

"Mike" wrote in message
...
Inside the Air Force
Next-gen bomber must be adequately funded
YOUNG: GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As

---------------------------------

Given current wars they'd be better off buying a load of Douglas A-1
Skyraiders and a few WWII twin engined bombers.

What they need is something very reliable that lugs a largish bombload
around and can absorb ground fire while dropping it in smallish
quantities
with great precision.

What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers
that are
designed to fight a major European war.


In other words."Why pay 2008 Corvette money to do a job your old 1988
F150 could do?" I'm sure there plenty of stuff in the boneyard that fits
the bill. A-10's, A6's, A-4's, Phantoms, A-7's. Old stuff, but to drop
bombs in zones with no Mig threats they work. I think the A-1 may be
pushing the concept a bit, but I hear you.....

Until the run into the a battery on the latest SAMs , ot a Nex-Gen
Stealth fighter, which are design to handle the latest fighters. At
which point they become so much flying scrap metal. And remember, the
reason we have air conreol is because we have the best fighter to
knock the other sides fighter out before the get to shoot at our
troops.

------------------------

Youi mean the vast Tabilan air threat that was sucessfully neutralised after
a hard fight?

I don't remember that one, perhaps you'll enlighten us...

--------------------------

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:42:02 -0700 (PDT), g lof2 wrote:

And remember, the reason we have air conreol is because we have the best
fighter to knock the other sides fighter out before the get to shoot at
our troops.

It's actually a combined effort. AWACS, Rivet Joint, ground radar assets,
ground-based intelligence assets, sea-based radar assets... you get the
idea. It all goes back to the concept of "First Look, First Kill". If I
see you before you see me, the odds favor the fact that you'll be walking
home.

Modern doctrine isn't to go in and mix it up with the enemy fighters,
today's doctrine is to snipe the hostile aircraft out of the sky. If you
end up in a furball then you screwed up somewhere along the way. Granted,
sometimes you can't anticipate that happening but it's a good
rule-of-thumb.

Current fighters are snipers, and if I see the enemy first, betting odds
say that I win the fight.

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail fm

On Jun 12, 5:16*am, Yeff wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:42:02 -0700 (PDT), g lof2 wrote:
And remember, the reason we have air conreol is because we have the best
fighter to knock the other sides fighter out before the get to shoot at
our troops.

It's actually a combined effort. *AWACS, Rivet Joint, ground radar assets,
ground-based intelligence assets, sea-based radar assets... you get the
idea. *It all goes back to the concept of "First Look, First Kill". *If I
see you before you see me, the odds favor the fact that you'll be walking
home.

Modern doctrine isn't to go in and mix it up with the enemy fighters,
today's doctrine is to snipe the hostile aircraft out of the sky. *If you
end up in a furball then you screwed up somewhere along the way. *Granted,
sometimes you can't anticipate that happening but it's a good
rule-of-thumb.

Current fighters are snipers, and if I see the enemy first, betting odds
say that I win the fight.

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail fm

Your absolutly right, but you still need the fighter to take the shot.
It does you no good to know were the enemy is when you can't do
anything about it. The is a limit to manuver warfare, amd avoiding
contact only good when your on offense. I your the defence you are
force to react to an attack, and that means sending fighters out to
protect yourself.

"Tiger" wrote in message
...
William Black wrote:
"Mike" wrote in message
...
Inside the Air Force
Next-gen bomber must be adequately funded
YOUNG: GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As

---------------------------------

Given current wars they'd be better off buying a load of Douglas A-1
Skyraiders and a few WWII twin engined bombers.

What they need is something very reliable that lugs a largish bombload
around and can absorb ground fire while dropping it in smallish
quantities
with great precision.

What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers
that are
designed to fight a major European war.


In other words."Why pay 2008 Corvette money to do a job your old 1988 F150
could do?" I'm sure there plenty of stuff in the boneyard that fits the
bill. A-10's, A6's, A-4's, Phantoms, A-7's. Old stuff, but to drop bombs
in zones with no Mig threats they work. I think the A-1 may be pushing the
concept a bit, but I hear you.....

I haven't gotten the impression that the A-10 is going away any time soon...

AHS

On Jun 11, 1:34 am, "Arved Sandstrom"
wrote:
"Tiger" wrote in message

...



William Black wrote:
"Mike" wrote in message
...
Inside the Air Force
Next-gen bomber must be adequately funded
YOUNG: GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As

---------------------------------

Given current wars they'd be better off buying a load of Douglas A-1
Skyraiders and a few WWII twin engined bombers.

What they need is something very reliable that lugs a largish bombload
around and can absorb ground fire while dropping it in smallish
quantities
with great precision.

What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers
that are
designed to fight a major European war.

In other words."Why pay 2008 Corvette money to do a job your old 1988 F150
could do?" I'm sure there plenty of stuff in the boneyard that fits the
bill. A-10's, A6's, A-4's, Phantoms, A-7's. Old stuff, but to drop bombs
in zones with no Mig threats they work. I think the A-1 may be pushing the
concept a bit, but I hear you.....

I haven't gotten the impression that the A-10 is going away any time soon...

AHS

I went through a long discussion on this newsgroup advocating a
carrier-able version of the A-10 or a new design.