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

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 02:56:13 -0700, William Black
wrote:


"Michael Shirley" wrote in message
newsp.uctgnu05ra3qj7@schooner-blue...
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:59:33 -0700, Zombywoof
wrote:


I saw some footage of one of GM's plants in China a few weeks back and
when I saw the level of automation and the high throughput, my stomach
went into a knot. It won't take much to retool for military production.

But it'll probably take a level of project management and technical
sophistication that isn't available in great quantities in China.

Today, no, but that state of affairs won't last for long.


The factories may be in China but they're designed in the West, and the
skills for designing such a factory, and the management of the processes
used, aren't available to the Chinese in any great quantity.

That's why they're making Blu Ray players and not top of the range
avionics
for export.

The technologies aren't that different.

That'll change. As it is, when Rockwell-Garmin sold em modern GPS
technology back during the Clinton Administration and Boeing did the same
with the ring laser gyro autopilot during the same time frame, that made
me sick too. It buys the Chinese time to get good at things, while
extending the usefulness of weapons that might not otherwise be up to
scratch. Both of those avionics systems went into the Qing-5, a 1958
design for a tactical nuclear strike fighter that was supposed to be able
to do what the early model F-105s could. That plane was utterly obsolete
until we upgraded their NAV/ATTACK systems for them.

I can just imagine what Obama's mob will do when they're elected.

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

"Michael Shirley" wrote in message
newsp.ucwkbqu5ra3qj7@schooner-blue...
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 02:56:13 -0700, William Black
wrote:


"Michael Shirley" wrote in message
newsp.uctgnu05ra3qj7@schooner-blue...
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:59:33 -0700, Zombywoof
wrote:


I saw some footage of one of GM's plants in China a few weeks back and
when I saw the level of automation and the high throughput, my stomach
went into a knot. It won't take much to retool for military production.

But it'll probably take a level of project management and technical
sophistication that isn't available in great quantities in China.

Today, no, but that state of affairs won't last for long.


The factories may be in China but they're designed in the West, and the
skills for designing such a factory, and the management of the processes
used, aren't available to the Chinese in any great quantity.

That's why they're making Blu Ray players and not top of the range
avionics
for export.

The technologies aren't that different.

That'll change. As it is, when Rockwell-Garmin sold em modern GPS
technology back during the Clinton Administration and Boeing did the same
with the ring laser gyro autopilot during the same time frame, that made
me sick too. It buys the Chinese time to get good at things, while
extending the usefulness of weapons that might not otherwise be up to
scratch. Both of those avionics systems went into the Qing-5, a 1958
design for a tactical nuclear strike fighter that was supposed to be able
to do what the early model F-105s could. That plane was utterly obsolete
until we upgraded their NAV/ATTACK systems for them.

It's not the technologies.

They don't actually matter.

It's the project management techniques that allow you to change direction in
a reasonable time frame.

These are skills is very short supply just about everywhere, and look like
remaining so for the next decade or so.

Indian project managers leave India after graduation in droves, mainly to
work in the USA.

Indian companies hire US companies to do this sort of work for them because
they can't recruit any people locally. This leads to the rather odd
situation where Indian engineers leave India for a few months and then
return, but working for a foreign company at foreign wages.

China will get the same problem.

--
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 Jun 17, 10:51*pm, "Michael Shirley" wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 22:08:18 -0700, eatfastnoodle *
wrote:





* * * * Look at their defense agreements, military history and joint *
defense *
programs, to include that nice new port the Peoples Liberation *
Army-Navy's *
building there. China and Pakistan are closer to each other than the US *
*
and Germany was in the Cold War. And if you look closely at that, what *
you *
see is that they're defacto members of SCO. And any professional order *
of *
battle in that coalition will include Pakistan in China's column, not *
ours.

That's because Chinese has been on their side ever since the Pakistani
independence, both countries has undergone major political and
economic changes ever since. Yet no matter who is in charge in
Pakistan, generals, politicians, good guy, bad guy, crooks, whatever,
China always stands with Pakistan in their fight with India. Their
relation is fundamentally in line with their strategic interests.
That's why it's so strong. As for the US, I guess everybody agrees
that in the eyes of US government, Pakistan is nothing more than a
convenient ally at best, a tool I would say. As for average joes, the
image of Pakistan isn't that much better than Taliban.

* * * * Yup, that isn't gonna change ever since the Chinese provided weapons *
after the West embargoed them back in the 60's.



One change of approach I would like to say is for the US to give up on
its obsession to stick its noses into other people's business. US used
to be far better a friend during the cold war when Soviet Union used
to send tanks into any of its ally who dared to think about leaving
the Warsaw pact, France kicked American troops out and opened pursued
its own path, US accepted it and worked with France still. *Seriously,
the kind of "Manifest Destiny" attitude ****es off everybody.

* * * * Yup. I think that they do it out of habit. For the most part, not a lot *
of thought goes into our foreign policy at the Government level. Mostly *
it's farmed out to think tanks and Beltway Bandits and a lot of those are *
financed by various tax exempt foundations that front for various moneyed *
interests.

* * * * Your typical politician tends to be ignorant of everything except *
fundraising and media relations. He's overdependant on staff and the staff *
is overdependant on whomever takes them to lunch and gives them some piece *
of research that they're not all that competent to make assessments of.



I'm not an expert on the nitty-gritty details, but please elect
somebody who knows what he's doing and who has at least a little
common sense. WMD issue aside, whether or not the military is
"winning" in Iraq now aside, anybody who has common sense would hope
for the best but plan for the worst even though you are 100% sure the
best case scenario would happen because any sane people would know
that there isn't 100% sure thing. instead, this administration based
its plan on the assumption that US soldiers would be welcomed as
liberators. That's beyond dumb.

* * * * You'll never see it here. Our system selects for the lowest common *
denominator of politician and thus the lowest common denominator is what *
we get. Anybody with real principles or any kind of actual knowledge will *
get filtered out before he can run for city council, let alone Congress or *
the Senate. Structurally, this country is totally incapable of producing *
somebody like Winston Churchill.

* * * * And it gets worse. Most government policy is an outsourced product. That *
worked sort of, in the 50's because the universities were actually *
producing diciplined intellectuals who could apply a little skepticism and *
critically assess information. We're no longer able to produce guys like *
James Schlesinger anymore, because our university systems have lost the *
ability to do that. We ceded the college campuses to the radical left in *
the 60's and 70's and now, as far as producing the technicians who *
actually can create viable policy and administer it goes, they can't. They *
do a remarkably good job of producing fair copies of the New Soviet Man *
though. My youngest is in college now, and she's planning on a career as *
an attorney. When I got a look at what they're demanding that she take as *
core curriculium, I was appalled. A college education these days have *
costs ranging from five to six significant digits and looking at what *
they're being asked to pay for, I can tell you that a modern university *
education in this country is a fraud and things are deteriorating from *
there. Critical thinking skills are out and courses based on the most *
schizoid ideology I've ever seen, predominate.

* * * * The end result is that the formation of policy is in the hands of an *
increasingly incompetent group of people. And the end result of that will *
be that the policies in question will be schizoid, self contradictory, and *
in general, destructive to the continued maintenance of our national *
security.

* * * * My guess is that the future is going to be replete with ever more *
instances of us shooting ourselves in the ass. And anybody who has to *
determine what their relationship is to our government needs to take that *
into account. I'm an American. I've lived here my entire life except for *
some travel as a member of the military. And I can't predict what our *
policy establishment or our politicians will do, simply because they're *
too ignorant to come up with a consistant policy on anything. You have *
some individuals who are competent, but you'll find that Gresham's Law *
applies to government as much as it does anything else-- the bad will *
drive out the good and we're seeing that here.

* * * * So, if anybody's planning on doing anything to preserve Post Renaissance *
Western Civilization in the world, they can expect to do it in spite of *
Washington at least as often as they do because of it.

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


The kind of the attitude reminded me of a Survivor episode from the
“social experiment" season (in actuality, they just set up 4 different
tribes: Asian, White, Hispanic and Black), the eventual winner, a
Korean guy, tried to recruit one member of a former White tribe by
blackmailing him using immunity idol (there were two groups, one was
made up of former white tribe members, another was made up of remnants
of former Asian and Hispanic tribes, the white has the numbers, so
they could vote out their biggest target: the Korean guy, in a clever
strategic move designed to keep his immunity idol for late use and
reverse their disadvantage in numbers, the Korean guy just told his
target for recruitment: since I got the immunity idol, when it came to
the actual vote, white group's number wouldn't hurt me, and according
to the rule, if the person who got the most vote had immunity idol,
the person who got the second most vote would go home, which would be
you since I would tell my group to vote for you in unanimity.) Not
sure what he should do, the white guy returned to his group and tried
to hint to his group about the situation by telling them: Yes, he is
the biggest threat, but WHAT IF he has the immunity idol, what should
we do? The other three just told him: no, he has no idol, he again
tried to hint them: but we don't know, WHAT IF.... for multiple times,
his tribe mates just refused to even consider the possibility,
disappointed, that guy decided to jump to the other side, end of
story.

This administration and certain ids on this group are exactly like
these three "tribe mates". Every time you tell them Iraq is costing
America trillions of dollars, causing the dollar to tank, causing all
kinds of economic ills, they will just look at you blankly and repeat
the same line: but we are killing terrorists, it's better to kill them
there than waiting for the mushroom cloud here. They have a laser like
fixation on what this administration tell them to the exclusion of
everything else. They will talk about security, security, security for
a whole year without giving a thought to how to pay for the security,
what will be the negative effect on the economy and how it would
impact constitutionally guaranteed freedom this country is founded
upon. I simply can't understand the mindset. Maybe that's why George
Bush was elected twice, because he has zero doubt about the absolute
correctness of his actions. Maybe lack of consideration for
alternative course actions has become the most important quality
people look for. I dunno.

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:18:15 -0700, eatfastnoodle
wrote:


The kind of the attitude reminded me of a Survivor episode from the
“social experiment" season (in actuality, they just set up 4 different
tribes: Asian, White, Hispanic and Black), the eventual winner, a
Korean guy, tried to recruit one member of a former White tribe by
blackmailing him using immunity idol (there were two groups, one was
made up of former white tribe members, another was made up of remnants
of former Asian and Hispanic tribes, the white has the numbers, so
they could vote out their biggest target: the Korean guy, in a clever
strategic move designed to keep his immunity idol for late use and
reverse their disadvantage in numbers, the Korean guy just told his
target for recruitment: since I got the immunity idol, when it came to
the actual vote, white group's number wouldn't hurt me, and according
to the rule, if the person who got the most vote had immunity idol,
the person who got the second most vote would go home, which would be
you since I would tell my group to vote for you in unanimity.) Not
sure what he should do, the white guy returned to his group and tried
to hint to his group about the situation by telling them: Yes, he is
the biggest threat, but WHAT IF he has the immunity idol, what should
we do? The other three just told him: no, he has no idol, he again
tried to hint them: but we don't know, WHAT IF.... for multiple times,
his tribe mates just refused to even consider the possibility,
disappointed, that guy decided to jump to the other side, end of
story.

Interesting. I've worked hard to avoid watching that program. I never did
like most television anyway. Most people don't do a very good job of
gaming their situations and that situation you describe is a good example
of it. Our schools don't teach people to assess their situations and deal
with tradeoffs and the result is that we wind up with a population that
mostly can't do that.


This administration and certain ids on this group are exactly like
these three "tribe mates". Every time you tell them Iraq is costing
America trillions of dollars, causing the dollar to tank, causing all
kinds of economic ills, they will just look at you blankly and repeat
the same line: but we are killing terrorists, it's better to kill them
there than waiting for the mushroom cloud here. They have a laser like
fixation on what this administration tell them to the exclusion of
everything else. They will talk about security, security, security for
a whole year without giving a thought to how to pay for the security,
what will be the negative effect on the economy and how it would
impact constitutionally guaranteed freedom this country is founded
upon. I simply can't understand the mindset. Maybe that's why George
Bush was elected twice, because he has zero doubt about the absolute
correctness of his actions. Maybe lack of consideration for
alternative course actions has become the most important quality
people look for. I dunno.

I agree. They can't examine tradeoffs and the guys who can are getting
into their 80's now. I kinda suspect that Bush's getting into Afghanistan
was more about Hussein's attempt to have his father assassinated after he
left office than it ever was about anything else. And the funny thing was
that Iraq was our defacto ally until April Glaspie set Hussein for a fall.

The people who are fixated on Iraq tend to forget that we propped Hussein
up and quietly supported him in his war against the Iranians as an attempt
to contain the Islamic Revolution-- something that was, until Bush's
father screwed it up, fairly successful as a policy.

Now we've blown our own containment policy, you've got the Mullahs making
a breakout, China's got strong allies on the Persian Gulf and in the
meantime, Bush II is, as always, more about vindicating the regime of his
father, than he is about actually governing this country with an eye
towards it's future. He's literally taking this country and running it
into the ground, and he's not gonna be here when it hits the wall with the
bang that it will either. His family's bought a ninety five thousand acres
of Gran Chaco in Paraguay and that's where he's gonna retire.

I suspect that Paraguay was a second choice too. He had his recently
married daughter, Jenna, down in Buenos Aries playing the debutante and
acting as her father's proxy. My guess is that the Ausdeutche in
Argentina's Lakes District told him that they didn't want him as a
neighbor. Those folks like it quiet and he would have brought a traveling
circus, complete with freakshow with him, so it's off to Gran Chaco he
goes. Kinda sad, Gran Chaco was a kinda nice place.

The saddest thing of all, however, is that no matter who wins the
election, incompetents will rule, and the only new constant we can count
on, is that it'll get far worse long before it gets any better-- if it
ever does.

The writing was on the wall when Hutchisson-Wampoa got control of the
Panama Canal, but the current bunch of decision makers think in terms of
video games, the preceeding bunch thought in terms of Poker, and the old
guys like Schlesinger were mostly Chess Players. And most of em have never
heard of Weiqi, let alone learned how to play it, even though most
cultural constants at conflict resolution resemble the games that people
play-- and the Chinese play Weiqi, (or as the Japanese call it, Go.)

Industrially, we're in decline, logistically, we're broken and
strategically we're hopeless. The whole thing is starting to resemble a
******* cross between the worst aspects of the Austro-Hungarians crossed
with the Ottomans, and that's not something to aspire to, especially since
most of our policy can be best described as Imperial Overreach.

I pity the kids who are Field Grade officers now and who'll be General
Officers in another ten years, because they're inheriting the most screwed
up security picture since John Cantacuzene was Emperor of the Byzantine
Empire-- one which quickly shrunk to the city limits of Constantinople.

History happens, and it's getting set to happen to us and when it does,
it's gonna land with a bang.



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

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:42:42 -0700, William Black
wrote:


That'll change. As it is, when Rockwell-Garmin sold em modern GPS
technology back during the Clinton Administration and Boeing did the
same
with the ring laser gyro autopilot during the same time frame, that made
me sick too. It buys the Chinese time to get good at things, while
extending the usefulness of weapons that might not otherwise be up to
scratch. Both of those avionics systems went into the Qing-5, a 1958
design for a tactical nuclear strike fighter that was supposed to be
able
to do what the early model F-105s could. That plane was utterly obsolete
until we upgraded their NAV/ATTACK systems for them.

It's not the technologies.

They don't actually matter.

They do. At least for guys like me who used to be on the sharp end of
things, and that's a fact.


It's the project management techniques that allow you to change
direction in
a reasonable time frame.

They're learning. The Japanese didn't know either until they started
listening to Deming back in the late forties. And that milleau produced
guys like Akio Morita, who were truly formidible. Care to imagine Morita
managing a defense firm the way that he did Sony?

The Chinese used to send their guys to school here as science and
engineering guys. Now they're studying business courses. Twenty years ago,
you couldn't find one of those guys who understood how to do a business
case, but now, they're picking it right up.


These are skills is very short supply just about everywhere, and look
like
remaining so for the next decade or so.

Depends. They're turning out some great engineers and some of them will
show talent just like Kelly Johnson and Ed Heinemann did. You just watch
the successful ones and promote em when they're right, and keep em in
competition. My guess is that Shenyang and Chengdu have guys who can
manage at least as well as Ben Rich did. It's just a matter of letting em
develop, and the Chinese seem to be doing that.


Indian project managers leave India after graduation in droves, mainly
to
work in the USA.

I don't blame em. I used to know this one Indian girl who was a fairly
good engineer. Her theory is that the country turns out so many of them,
because going to college is the only way that they can get away from their
parents. It's something to consider.


Indian companies hire US companies to do this sort of work for them
because
they can't recruit any people locally. This leads to the rather odd
situation where Indian engineers leave India for a few months and then
return, but working for a foreign company at foreign wages.

Yup.

China will get the same problem.

I'm not so sure. The Chinese learn fast and Ford and GM used to have
in-house management training programs that were pretty good.




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

On Jun 18, 2:09*pm, "Michael Shirley" wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:42:42 -0700, William Black *



wrote:
That'll change. As it is, when Rockwell-Garmin sold em modern GPS
technology back during the Clinton Administration and Boeing did the *
same
with the ring laser gyro autopilot during the same time frame, that made
me sick too. It buys the Chinese time to get good at things, while
extending the usefulness of weapons that might not otherwise be up to
scratch. Both of those avionics systems went into the Qing-5, a 1958
design for a tactical nuclear strike fighter that was supposed to be *
able
to do what the early model F-105s could. That plane was utterly obsolete
until we upgraded their NAV/ATTACK systems for them.

It's not the technologies.

They don't actually matter.

* * * * They do. At least for guys like me who used to be on the sharp end of *
things, and that's a fact.



It's the project management techniques that allow you to change *
direction in
a reasonable time frame.

* * * * They're learning. The Japanese didn't know either until they started *
listening to Deming back in the late forties. And that milleau produced *
guys like Akio Morita, who were truly formidible. Care to imagine Morita *
managing a defense firm the way that he did Sony?

* * * * The Chinese used to send their guys to school here as science and *
engineering guys. Now they're studying business courses. Twenty years ago, *
you couldn't find one of those guys who understood how to do a business *
case, but now, they're picking it right up.



These are skills is very short supply just about everywhere, *and look *
like
remaining so for the next decade or so.

* * * * Depends. They're turning out some great engineers and some of them will *
show talent just like Kelly Johnson and Ed Heinemann did. You just watch *
the successful ones and promote em when they're right, and keep em in *
competition. My guess is that Shenyang and Chengdu have guys who can *
manage at least as well as Ben Rich did. It's just a matter of letting em *
develop, and the Chinese seem to be doing that.



Indian project managers leave India after graduation in droves, *mainly *
to
work in the USA.

* * * * I don't blame em. I used to know this one Indian girl who was a fairly *
good engineer. Her theory is that the country turns out so many of them, *
because going to college is the only way that they can get away from their *
parents. It's something to consider.



Indian companies hire US companies to do this sort of work for them *
because
they can't recruit any people locally. *This leads to the rather odd
situation where Indian engineers leave India for a few months and then
return, *but working for a foreign company at foreign wages.

* * * * Yup.



China will get the same problem.

* * * * I'm not so sure. The Chinese learn fast and Ford and GM used to have *
in-house management training programs that were pretty good.



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

Actually, China has huge internal problem to overcome before it can go
out and compete with the US on a global scale. If the US and China
could work something out on Taiwan, I don't think conflict between
China and the US is inevitable. (assuming Korean peninsula doesn't
blow). The thorny issue is always Taiwan, for China, giving up Taiwan
is simply a political impossibility, for the US, allow China to take
over Taiwan would mean the beginning of the end of American dominance
in East Asia. (anybody controls Taiwan would also control Japan's oil
lifeline, if China took over Taiwan, the foundation of American Asian
strategy: US-Japanese alliance would be shaken to its very core).

"Raymond O'Hara" wrote in message
...

"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,

High Tech is what the Army wants but they don't want to spend anything for
it in terms of People, Money, Cutting back, etc.. The simple fact still
remains, sooner or later, a boot on the ground must go in and secure things.
At that point, it doesn't matter if you have an AK47 that is decades old,
the newest shiny M-16 variant, the XM-8 or your brand spanking new lazer
rifle. The AK to the Lazer Rifle is just the weapon and it's not such a
huge leap from one to the other nor is it such a leap between the operation
of both. It still requires for the boots on the ground to be there.

tinkerbell never set foot in that kind of situation and still believes John
Wayne movies were taken directly from the history books. Next, he will be
saying all war movies by Chuck Norriss are believable as well.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

"Zombywoof" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 20:16:45 -0700, tankfixer
wrote:

In article , raymond-
says...

"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.

In 1930 Germany was a semi stable democracy that was no danger to her
neighbors.
No one really believe she would be a danger again.
Over the next ten years she build up her airforce and army to the point
that by 1940 she had taken Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, France,
Belgium and the Netherlands.
Back then a fighter or tank could be designed and produced in under a
year.
To suggest that any country can do that now is absurd.

Did you mean CAN or Can't.

Given enough resources an awful lot can be accomplished. We take an
awful long time doing things right now over all sorts of debates over
money.

In another scrape for survival I think the US could do a whole bunch
of things very quickly, although we would have to ramp up a lot of our
manufacturing capability first though, or out-source the actual
building to the Chinese or somebody.

Z, save your breath. tinkerbell will never listen. He's never been
involved in a forced project like we used to have once inawhile and the WWII
folks operated at al times. When you Federalize the US Industry, things
happen extremely fast. Like when GM started to build tanks. As the Line
kept going, they retooled as the last car came by. There were cars and
suddenly, there were tanks rolling out the same door without much of a
hiccup. Ford and Chrysler were doing the same things for the same and
different war materials. It took a matter of days, not months since the
plans to do so were already on hand as well as the tools, equipment and
people.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

"Zombywoof" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:50:55 GMT, "Arved Sandstrom"
wrote:



When analyzed this way, yes, most reasonable folks would agree - these
days
in real-life you do need - minimum - an upgraded A-10 or equivalent to
realistically stand a chance of being survivable, operating in
night/adverse
weather, and being able to use smart weapons.

I'm fairly reasonable and would not agree that upgraded "Close Air
Support" airframe could or even should be "upgraded" into the role of
an "Air Superiority" fighter. At best the A-10 can be used in a
limited air interdiction role. It is absolutely 100% the wrong tool
for the wrong job in the role of "Air Superiority". The A-10 operates
under the "Low & Slow" method of operation which makes it great for
the Close Air Support Mission fro which it was created, but the entire
design of the Airframe means it will never be a "Go-Fast" fighter.

Up until it actually provided its mission effectiveness (killing tanks
dead) during DS/DS the A-10 was headed out of the Active Duty fleet.

In DS1, the main tank killer was the Buff. Today, the F-16, F-18, F-15E and
soon, the F-35 are much more of an affective armor killer than the A-10.
They are less of a target since they are NOT low and slow. The A-10 is
going out because it's running out of airframe time. The reason it hasn't
already is that it's paid for. But the payment begins to come higher and
higher to keep it in service. When the payment to keep it in services is
exceeded by the cost to get rid of it then it's gone. It's getting very,
very close. Whereas, the B-52 costs less to keep in service than it costs
to replace it.


I think what turns most critics' cranks is the sheer obscene cost of the
advanced fighters. The unit cost for A-10's is quoted at roughly US $10-15
million on the sites I found. All I know is that the F-22 unit cost is
somewhere north of US $100 million (the Air Force says $142 million on
their
factsheet but who knows which unit cost that is) and the F-35 unit cost is
also over US $100 million. Neither is as optimized for CAS as the A-10 is
(criticisms of the F-35 in that role include that it is less able than the
A-10 to find ground targets independently, has less survivability, doesn't
persist/loiter nearly as well as the A-10, and doesn't have a Honking Big
Cannon).

I don't think anyone with a clue is saying please bring back the
Skyraider.
But it's a legit complaint to quibble about servicing the ground forces
CAS
needs with super-expensive fighter-bombers.

It is of course as much of an issue in Canada as it is elsewhere. There
will
always be a camp that favours planes along the lines of the retired
CF-5/CF-116, others who can stomach prices in the CF-18 range, and any
number who are keen to see F-35's replace the CF-18. I myself just can't
see
something like a CF-35 (or whatever they call it) as being available in
enough numbers to support a CF deployment similar to Afghanistan...what'll
they have, a couple of ac available in theatre at any given time? The
problem for Canada is we cannot easily support two different fleets. Me,
I'd
go with a Saab Gripen NG.

Exactly how long do you think a Fighter can not only be kept in
production, but in any type of viable readiness operational capacity.
There will come a point in time that more of the fleet is down for
repairs then operationally capable. The maintenance costs will also
skyrocket as it gets older & older.

To me the absolute most brilliant part of the F-35 is the number of
countries that will have them in operational use, and if they ever
work out the technology transfer issues -- production. This
could/would mean that a F-35 from Canada operating in a joint theater
could be maintained by & have its spares provided for by any other of
the other nations operating the aircraft and participating in the same
theater of operations. This could/should lead to just one set of
maintenance personnel needing to be in the field in a joint operation.
Hell even the pilots could be interchangeable.

To me everything about the F-35 screams lower production & operating
costs because of commonality across all of an allied Air Fleet. Even
the Carrier version is 80% compatible with the land based version. It
is about time that the members of NATO and other treaties got their
collective act together and started using equipment 100% in common.
While Canada may have the intellectual & production ability to design
& build its own native fighter, the costs would be huge, and the
simple question of "Why?" would have to be asked.
--
"Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites.
Moderation is for monks."

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 02:19:11 -0700, eatfastnoodle
wrote:


Actually, China has huge internal problem to overcome before it can go
out and compete with the US on a global scale. If the US and China
could work something out on Taiwan, I don't think conflict between
China and the US is inevitable. (assuming Korean peninsula doesn't
blow). The thorny issue is always Taiwan, for China, giving up Taiwan
is simply a political impossibility, for the US, allow China to take
over Taiwan would mean the beginning of the end of American dominance
in East Asia. (anybody controls Taiwan would also control Japan's oil
lifeline, if China took over Taiwan, the foundation of American Asian
strategy: US-Japanese alliance would be shaken to its very core).

Very true. I also think that the Chinese are running against a clock that
makes them think that exporting problems on bayonets is easier than
solving them at home. Their water's polluted, their arable land is
shrinking, desertification is growing, they've got a failure of the One
Child Policy and they're overproducing males out of balance with females
as a result. The economic growth curve is outstripping the population
curve and they're starting to see what a paradigm/reality mismatch is all
about as they discover the limitations of a highly centralised government
in a dynamic society where change happens faster than they can get the
reports on what happened yesterday.

If I were on the Standing Committee of the Politburo, that would scare
the living crap out of me. And the number of really big projects like the
Three Gorges Dam that isn't even finished yet but which is starting to
suffer from silting, has got to be causing some panic. Hu Jintao started
out as a civil engineer specializing in water projects and dams and even
with that kind of expert knowledge at the top, the problems are
increasingly insoluable for the guys in Beijing.

So increasingly, external military policies, (something that has always
wound up being ruinous to the Chinese in the end) are looking better and
better, while the local problems become something that they'd just as soon
avoid. So, I think that we're going to see a period of optional
adventurism in Beijing's future and that's bad for us, especially since we
really can't afford a war with those people. Even if our overdependant on
Chinese trade economy would survive it, the fact of the matter is that
neither our industrial base nor our education system will support it.

We need to go tactical defensive/strategic offensive in our actions, and
a lot of that needs to revolve around soft power while being militarily
unprovocative. We don't, in the crude vernacular of our times, need our
politicians to be writing a check with their elephant mouths that our
humming bird asses can't cash.

In short, we need to change the game, because the one we're playing is
gonna get our nose bloodied. All the Chinese need to do in order to win is
simply not lose, and our own best option is not to play.

Lets let Beijing expend their capital, both economic and political for
awhile while we rebuild our industrial base, clean out our universities
and other schools and generally start behaving like we still want to be
around in 2050, by which time the Adventurists in Beijing will have spent
their capital. If they want to have fun trying to police an empire in
Africa, lets let them bleed to death doing it. Things might even improve a
little bit over there.





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