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

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 13:34:14 -0700, tankfixer
wrote:

In article , raymond-
says...

as it is, in 30 year manned planes will probably be obsolete.



IIRC that claim was made already.

Around 1960 or ther abouts...

And in 1971-72 when Teledyne Ryan was experimenting with the
Ryan Model 234 for defense suppression missions against SAM-2, (V-750-VK)
sites using LGBs and a short EO bomb called Stubby HOBO.

In the end, missiles with conventional EMP devices and airplanes able to
use their radars to HERFGUN the UAVs will keep the manned aircraft in
business for the most part.

--
"Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral
Elmo Zumwalt, USN.

"tankfixer" wrote in message
...
In article , raymond-
says...

"tankfixer" wrote in message
...
In article , raymond-
says...

"Typhoon502" wrote in message
...
On Jun 11, 6:51 am, "Roger Conroy"
wrote:
"Tiger" wrote in message

...





Raymond O'Hara wrote:
"Ian B MacLure" wrote in message
...

"Raymond O'Hara" wrote in
:

we are in two wars now{which we are losing} and you're worried
about
an
imaginary war against an imaginary opponent.
russia is not a credible threat. and it is decades away from
being
one.

Losing? Lose to whom? Current events don't seem be anywere close.
As
for
Russia? They have in the last year expanded their military
activity.
They
are flying Bears again, opposed our missile defence plans, and
Nato
expansions. Decades may be a bit much.

Russia is not the only possible future technologically advanced
enemy -
don't take your eyes of China, or a possible Arab alliance.- Hide
quoted
text -

Not to mention Venezuela...

we don't need F-22s to fight venezuela.

You are one of those who believe in fair fights ?



it still won't be a fair fight.

So ?

If technical superiority will allow my country to prevail with fewer
casualties then I vote for the fancy tech.


if the fancy tech results in bankruptcy and the cancelations of needed
things i'll pass on that tech for a while,

"tankfixer" wrote in message
...
In article , raymond-
says...

are they just going to magically appear in 10 years, full blown, armed to
the teeth with ultra-fighters?

Yes.

Example: German 1930 to 1940.


the germans didn't have the best stuff. and there was plenty of warning.
the french built the maginot linebefore the german threat was known.
you want to do the same today.
we started then too.
the u.s. built a tank factory and it was producing tanks in less than a
year.

"tankfixer" wrote in message
...
In article , raymond-
says...

as it is, in 30 year manned planes will probably be obsolete.



IIRC that claim was made already.

Around 1960 or ther abouts...


they also once claimed man would never fly and that people would die from
the physical strain if trains exceeded 30mph.
H.G.Wells was thought a bit weird too.and his ideas were seen as not
happening, {rockets too the moon? hah!}
technology moves on.

"Dan" wrote in message
...
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?

Certainly, with current budget constraints. That's a far cry from
O'Hara's theory of bankrupting the country. He's got his mind made up and
can't comprehend what is really going on around him. His personal biases
block this.

are you forgetting the trillion dollar war we are in that you wish to
continue for ego purposes?
if it were peace time, i'd be all for the F-22 but at the moment we have
more pressing concerns.

the chimpler has done one thing. he has made the war nothing to the home
frot. you thinkthings are just business as usual and that the war doesn't
cost. you are like a 17 yer old girl with a credit card.

In message , Zombywoof
writes
Now back to the original discussion; the fact that every MIG destroyed
in air-to-air combat (which was fairly lopsided), including the five
Soviet-made MiG-29 Fulcrums, were downed by F-15C's,

Weren't two taken down by F/A-18s?

Doesn't deny the need for capable aircraft, just don't get
platform-obsessed.

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


pauldotjdotadam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

Raymond O'Hara wrote:
"Dan" wrote in message
...
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?

Certainly, with current budget constraints. That's a far cry from
O'Hara's theory of bankrupting the country. He's got his mind made up and
can't comprehend what is really going on around him. His personal biases
block this.

are you forgetting the trillion dollar war we are in that you wish to
continue for ego purposes?

Who says I wish for the war to continue for "ego purposes?"

if it were peace time, i'd be all for the F-22 but at the moment we have
more pressing concerns.

You still don't get it, one has nothing to do with the other. Please
learn how the U.S. budget system works.

the chimpler has done one thing.

Your true agenda comes forth. It isn't the money that bothers you,
it's the man in charge.

he has made the war nothing to the home
frot.

Please translate that into a known language.

you thinkthings are just business as usual and that the war doesn't
cost.

You don't seem to have read a word I have written. I have never said
the war doesn't "cost." I have, however, said procurement for the war
isn't the only consideration at hand.

you are like a 17 yer old girl with a credit card.

And you are a stoopie num-num head, so neener to you too. Feel better
now?

Now that we have been reduced to name calling I am going to drop
this. Have a nice day.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Raymond O'Hara" wrote in
:


"Ian B MacLure" wrote in message
.. .

[ibm]

The French have an ancient tradition of preparing for the last
war.

IBM



that's hardly a french only trait.

Didn't say it was. They are just so very good at it.

IBM

"Dan" wrote in message
...
Raymond O'Hara wrote:
"Dan" wrote in message
...
Raymond O'Hara wrote:
"Roger Conroy" wrote in message
...
"Raymond O'Hara" wrote in message
...
"Tiger" wrote in message
...
Raymond O'Hara wrote:
"Tiger" wrote in message
...

Raymond O'Hara wrote:

"Roger Conroy" wrote in message
...
and they waited post war to build post war.


Why do I get the feeling When ever folk say the earth is round, you
will post it's flat???? What waiting? Dick Bong was killed testing
P-80's in Aug of 1945. Work on the A bomb never stopped. The race
for the Ebe river was a race gain zones of control postwar. Nobody
was waiting.....













we are currently engaged in two wars. we have a runaway deficit.
and you're advocating spending billions on a weapons system that will
not do anything for us.
it is a great plane and if it was the cold war sure. but times have
changed and we must too.
a big main force war isn't going to happen anytime in the next 50
years.
"Peace in our time" - the phrase seems vaguely familiar?

Well we can all go back to bed now, Mr. O'Hara has personally
guaranteed "World Peace".

we need to settle what we are involved in and get the budget under
control. then you can think about new toys for use against an
imaginary enemy.

If you ever stop thinking up "new toys for use against an imaginary
enemy" that is exactly the momemt the enemy ceaces to be imaginary.
Cite the Maginot Line as a prime example of such complacency.

again you and dan engage in strawman arguments.
you want us to turn into the UK, a bankrupt country.



I do? You really don't understand the current economy nor do you seem
to comprehend what is actually going on world wide. You don't seem to
have a grasp of potential threats.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

you just bring up fantasy scenarios.

you don't understand the economy.
we can't at the momen affor billions for a plane that does one thing and
one thing that is the least likely threat.
in 30 years most likely UMVs will rule.
Amazing, and you tell me I'm bringing up fantasy scenarios? I'm not
sure why you can tell us with a straight face how the U.S. won't be in
another major war in the next 50 years, UMVs will "rule" in 30 years,
ICBMs are a natural response to an attack against the U.S. and the like,
yet can't see threats can change in the same time frame.

As for the economy, the U.S. wastes more money on pork than it spends on
F-22. I'm not justifying the cost of F-22, but it simply isn't that big a
dent in the U.S. economy.

In any event I doubt you will ever understand what is going on now or
what is likely to occur in the future and I will never understand how you
think it's logical to not replace aging aircraft with newer ones.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


how can you with a straight face ignore the two wars we are in now and the
massive debt/deficit bush has created to pay it.

On Jun 14, 7:30 pm, "Paul J. Adam" wrote:
In message , Zombywoof
writes

Now back to the original discussion; the fact that every MIG destroyed
in air-to-air combat (which was fairly lopsided), including the five
Soviet-made MiG-29 Fulcrums, were downed by F-15C's,

Weren't two taken down by F/A-18s?

Doesn't deny the need for capable aircraft, just don't get
platform-obsessed.

I think you're right. And I also think that the Iraqis bagged at least
one US jet...didn't a MiG-25 get a kill on a Hornet?

And to make an aside on the Venezuelan threat scenario, I'm not
entirely confident that the F-15Cs would fight at a parity level with
Su-30s, especially with the latest Russian AAMs. The Eagle drivers
might just find themselves in a sticky situation.