If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
F-35, not F-22, to Protect U.S. Airspace
Dan wrote:
damarkley wrote: Jack Linthicum wrote: On Feb 1, 1:16 am, T.L. Davis wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 06:32:20 -0800 (PST), Mike wrote: ...By 1997 officials had suggested a "four corners" defense, maintaining alert sites in Massachusetts, Oregon, California, and Florida. By September 11, 2001,only 14 interceptor aircraft were sitting alert in the United States. Unbelievable, isn't it? 14 aircraft to protect the entire continental United States... This was what NORAD was reduced to?? Pitiful. What was the defense budget in 2001?? Who got all the money? What if Russia had launched an old style attack with waves of Bears and long range escorts? Just incredible. I had thought that we had all of 16 aircraft available on 9/11. I overestimated. This is what happens when a country becomes grossly overconfident in its own defenses, and it's happened before. At times we are truly "The United States of Amnesia". And the best is too good for America. F-35s are good enough. TL I think the early-warning radar still works. Those waves of Bears are about gone. Total 64 in service, guess 40 would be the most they could muster for waves, 15 hour plus flight time, I think we might be able to handle them. You don't? Yes, there are no more "waves" of Bears. And the number of Blackjacks is almost insignificant. There is no plausible reason for Russia to use those planes in such fashion. I am curious as to what a "ong range escort" would be. Dean "Long range escort" = call girl along for the ride? Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired The Russians do claim to be capitalists, so its possible! |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
F-35, not F-22, to Protect U.S. Airspace
On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 17:33:08 GMT, Arved Sandstrom
wrote: On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 11:01:51 -0600, Dan wrote: [ SNIP ] Not to mention Russia has nothing to gain using bombers instead of ICBM and SLBM if they wish to start something stupid. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired What's your take on the core question? Namely, the adequacy of F-35s for this role? The issues are probably will be: 1) detector coverage, AWACS, ground-based and in the interceptors 2) response time 3) weapons compatibility The job could be done with anything from century series fighters on, the issue with F15's is the aircraft. wearing out, and the lower maintenance associated with newer technology. As potential opponents move into stealth, the money will need to go into detection (and weapons integrated into better detection). Peter Skelton |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
F-35, not F-22, to Protect U.S. Airspace
Peter Skelton wrote in
: [snip] The 14 aircraft do not include those in Alaska and the Canadian Forces aircraft. In other words, they don't include the folks tasked with providing defense against the threat he's ranting about. I think the al-Qanadian contribution might have amounted to maybe 8 aircraft on a good day. They only have some 4 dozen or so in in service. IBM |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Help Us Protect Wickenburg Municipal Airport | Mike[_22_] | Piloting | 0 | September 10th 08 05:39 AM |
Help Us Protect Wickenburg Municipal Airport | [email protected] | Piloting | 1 | September 7th 08 09:46 AM |
Wichita Airspace Question and overlapping airspace | Owen[_4_] | Piloting | 1 | February 14th 07 09:35 PM |
Two airspace classes for one airspace? (KOQU) | John R | Piloting | 8 | June 30th 04 04:46 AM |
String in the middle does not protect you from a spin | Jim | Soaring | 10 | January 30th 04 02:57 PM |