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

On Jun 13, 10:59 am, Airyx wrote:
On Jun 10, 10:11 pm, "Raymond O'Hara"
wrote:

can you envision any scenario in which the U.S. and russia fight?
are we going to invade them? i think we'd notice a huge naval build up for
them to invade us?
do you think they are going to overrun europe?- Hide quoted text -

Sure, Russia has already taken military action in Northern Asia, and
is attempting to re-annex one of their former Soviet states. It is
unlikely that the US would intervene there, but its possible.

A less likely scenario, but a more likely US intervention would around
Russia's on-going conflict with Japan over the Kurile islands.

Other potential adversaries with strong air capabilities are China
(conflicts with India, Vietnam, Phillipeans, Taiwan), and Venezuala
(conflicts will all of their neighbors).

France thought WWII would be fought in much the same way as WWI, slow
stagnated trench warfare. That's what they were prepared for, and
that's why they got their butts kicked.

I'm curious, where has Russia taken miltary action in Northern Asia?
Does Mongolia or China know?

And saying Russia has a conflict with japan over the Kurile Islands is
an exaggeration. That conflict was over 60 years ago.

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:55:07 -0700 (PDT), Airyx
wrote:

On Jun 12, 5:21*pm, "Raymond O'Hara"
wrote:
"Yeff" wrote in message

...

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:42:30 -0400, Raymond O'Hara wrote:

Am I the only one who remembers the preemptive war debate?

which proved to be based on false{made up} intelligence.

Who "made up" the intelligence?

the bu****es and their lakeys.

After a full, democrat-led investigation, it was found that there was
NO False Intelligence.

It was also found that there was no pressure from the Bush
administration to make the existing evidence appear more sinister then
it was, but their intrepentation was provided.

The Senate Armed Forces comittee had the intel presented to them by
unbaised Intel sources, and all of them, (Including Hillary), fully
agreed with its conclusions, and signed-off on the go-ahead for the
invasion.

An even more authoritative review of the Senate Rockefeller committee
language:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060801687.html

The repetitious phrase "supported by the intelligence" is
illustrative.

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

"Dean" wrote in message news:15867593-e4e5-4269-a87d-
And saying Russia has a conflict with japan over the Kurile Islands is
an exaggeration. That conflict was over 60 years ago.


japan would like sakhalin back but a wars worth of want.

"Airyx" wrote in message
...
On Jun 10, 10:11 pm, "Raymond O'Hara"
Other potential adversaries with strong air capabilities are China
(conflicts with India, Vietnam, Phillipeans, Taiwan), and Venezuala
(conflicts will all of their neighbors).


the only scenario we'd get involved in is china/taiwan. and increasingly we
look like we might sell taiwan out even more than we have.

nixon should have made taiwan and china renounce all claims each has on the
other. his great triumph was a sham


we won't intervene in any china/india or china/vietnam affairs. nither india
or VN are historic allies and india was closer to the soviets than us in
the cold war.


venezuela might have oil money but they are not a power. as to their
neighbors, why would they or anybody attac guyana
and the cali cartel is probably better armed and trained than chavez's army.


china is the only real possiblity and they are a long way from being able to
even dream about invading taiwan.


we are the only country with any ability to project power overseas for the
forseeable future.

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:55:07 -0700 (PDT), Airyx
wrote:

On Jun 12, 5:21 pm, "Raymond O'Hara"
wrote:
"Yeff" wrote in message

...

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:42:30 -0400, Raymond O'Hara wrote:

Am I the only one who remembers the preemptive war debate?

which proved to be based on false{made up} intelligence.

Who "made up" the intelligence?

the bu****es and their lakeys.

After a full, democrat-led investigation, it was found that there was
NO False Intelligence.

It was also found that there was no pressure from the Bush
administration to make the existing evidence appear more sinister then
it was, but their intrepentation was provided.

The Senate Armed Forces comittee had the intel presented to them by
unbaised Intel sources, and all of them, (Including Hillary), fully
agreed with its conclusions, and signed-off on the go-ahead for the
invasion.

An even more authoritative review of the Senate Rockefeller committee
language:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060801687.html

The repetitious phrase "supported by the intelligence" is
illustrative.

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



watch this. this is the man you support
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilCWJvRxVJ4

"Dan" wrote in message
...

the maginot reference is to the fact the F-22 will be as big a waste.
ICBMs are quite viable weapons.

Guess what, ICBM has never been used in combat. It is not a deterrent to
some fool with a martyr complex. It is a weapon of last resort, the very
last. More money has been expended on ICBM, IRBM and SLBM than will ever
be expended on F-22. No ICBM, IRBM or SLBM has ever been used for its
intended purpose. They are weapons of mass destruction. No sane person
wants to be the first to use them. They are strategic weapons, F-22 is
tactical.








ICBMs worked perfectly. they were meant to deter an invasion and they did.
maybe you've heard of MAD, it kept the peace for 50 years
they were to counter a real existing threat.
the F-22 doesn't have an adversary and we cn't afford them.and like the
maginot line when he times comes for its use it might turn out
it isn't the right thing to have..

"Zombywoof" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:27:53 -0500, Dan wrote:

Raymond O'Hara wrote:
"Dan" wrote in message
...
Actually O'Hara is demonstrating his lack of strategic planning and
making a rather poor analogy. WW2 was an all out war for survival.
There
were a few people thinking about post war projects, but the priority
was
winning the war. Every part of the economy and infrastructure of the
warring parties was dedicated to winning. Iraq and Afghanistan pale in
comparison.




i'm not arguing for the F-22.

You misunderstand, I never said you were.

and there is a lot at stake in tis war. bush has us on the verge of
becoming
the UK in the post war period, a former superpower
broken by the enourmous cost of a war.

You underestimate the U.S. economy that is not now on a war footing.
The U.K. was bankrupted by fighting for her life with every penny she
had. There's a huge difference.

And every penny she could beg, borrow or steal.

nobody is a credible threat.

Maybe not now, but what about 10 years from now?

I do believe that is the 10,000 dollar question.


and a new country is going to magically appear?
in 10 years things will be prettu nuch as they are now. russia and china
still won't have viable navies.
we are 50 years from any possible wars.






you guys want to build "maginot"fighters. to
fight a war long envisioned in europe but whose conditions have changed.
there is no more warsaw pact. russia has no aircraft carriers nor does
china. the idealogical divide of commie/capitalism is gone.
even china has gone capitalist.

Again you misunderstand. I never said anything about a Cold War
scenario nor did I imply such a case. I never specified an enemy.

Currently the "enemy" is an ideology, all the advanced aircraft in the
world aren't going to help you with that one.

any war for resources will involve our european allies as they need
thm too.
so a russian attempt to take over the middle east would be looked
askance at
by them too.

Again you misunderstand what is going on. Have you noticed the
Europeans aren't agreeing on much as it is? Suppose Iran makes good her
threat to take out Israel and gets a few other local countries to join
in? Are you SURE Europe will unite to ensure a flow of oil? If they
sides against Iran it's a sure thing their supply of oil will be shut
off. The U.S. has to consider going it alone.

Hell what "if" they decide to side with Iran?



israel has nukes too.
and yeah europe is going to side against israel, they sit it out, they ain't
got a dog in that fight.

you two are creating fantasy scenarios.

"Typhoon502" wrote in message
news:bfaabc1b-2e05-46d1-902a-
And if you think Russia and China are the only potential threats on
the horizon that the F-22 might be suitable against, you're naive and
blind.


name these threats.
and where do they get their stuff? there is us, russia,the UK and france to
buy from.
who else has the aero-industry and the resources to build a fleet of $100
fighters?.

"Roger Conroy" wrote in message
...

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

"Roger Conroy" wrote in message
...

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

"Roger Conroy" wrote in message
...
we don't have an unlimited budget.
inWWII we concentrated on WWII not WWIII.


By the end of WW2 development of practically all the major weapons
systems of the cold war had at least been started:
Nuclear bombs/warheads, ballistic missiles, intercontinental range
bombers, tactical missiles (ground and air), jet aircraft, "true"
submarines (rather than submersibles), cruise missiles...




all those weapons were for fighting WWII nobody gave a thought about
any cold wars.
we weren't making anything with a the idea of fighting an hypothetical
enemy 30 years in the future in mind.
we weren't building anything that took away from what we were doing.


It looks like you are implying that killing Arab peasants was a major
design criterion for F22 & F35


no. o'm saying it isn't . and therefor wait on them and but what we
actually need and will use

Is that a sentence?

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

we are already at the edge of human abilities.

Why would they be obsolete? Because somebody, somewhere is currently
developing their replacements.
But you reckon it is quite uneccessary to develop new concepts until the
other side actually starts using them against your country.

I have news for you - it easily takes up to to 20 years to move a new
generation of weapon system from "napkin doodle" to front line service.
A young engineer can enter the industry at the start of concept
development and reach retirement before the production line is running
smoothly.
I cite the example of the V22. The Ryan company was one of the first to
work on the concept way back in the early 1960s. So it sometimes stretches
to 40+ years!

The Canadian Arrow fighter first embodied concepts that only became
"standard features" in the US Teens series.

i like F-22s too, they are very cool. but they aren't what we need now.

I absolutely agree - but how do you know they won't be needed in 10, 20,
30 years time? Its too late to start doodling on napkins when the enemy
opens fire.

With that thinking, the US will still have B17s and P51s as front line
equipment. Somebody still has the blueprints stored away, lets restart the
production line tomorrow! After all they are perfectly adequate for wiping
out Arab peasants and as you has so clearly demonstrated there is
absolutely no possibility of your country having to face any other type of
enemy anytime within the next generation at least.




you are like akid in a toy store who wants everything regardless of your
mommt's bydget
and sating we can't afford a fleet of $100,000,000 fighters is not saying
i'm against all defense.
that is typical of your ilk. just make up lies and then attribute them to
others.

"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.