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

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

"Tiger" wrote in message
...

Roger Conroy wrote:

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


"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
On Jun 10, 8:14 pm, Ian B MacLure wrote:




the "have nots" are not in position to threaten the "haves"



Iran Is not hearing you. Hugo Chavez & Putin do not believe you. Nigeria
& Mexico are internally screwed up. Hell just this week a "have not,"
called Israel Said stop the nuke building or we will do it for you to
Iran (a oil have). Sounds like a position to threat to me, And Wall
street agreed, thus the price spike.

Raymond O'Hara wrote:
"Andrew Swallow" wrote in message
...
Raymond O'Hara wrote:
[snip]

or maybe a new barbarian invasion or the south will try to secede again.
OH NO! the sky might fall.
French speaking Quebec may decide to leave.

wars are won by spare parts and what you can replace.
That is long wars.





what other kind are there?

"home before the leaves fall"
popular saying in august 1914


6 Day ones.

Hitler thought he had found a short war strategy.
Churchill had other plans.

Andrew Swallow

"Raymond O'Hara" wrote in
:

[snip]

and you want to spend billions on pure fantasy speculation?
who has anything anywhere near as good as what wer have?
who is building up anything.
its not the 1930s
its not the cold war.
so stop fighting WWII andWWIII, they aren't going to happen as you
imagine.

What Hairy Ray fails to comprehend is that folks with far more
clue than he has have concluded he has **** for brains.

IBM

"Raymond O'Hara" wrote in news:aeudndUYX8-
:

[snip]


Still in a state of denial from the last war I see.

IBM


huh? do you mean WWII? or what?

Pick one. Any one will do for you apparently.

IBM

"Andrew Swallow" wrote in message
...
Raymond O'Hara wrote:
"Andrew Swallow" wrote in message
...
Raymond O'Hara wrote:
[snip]

or maybe a new barbarian invasion or the south will try to secede
again.
OH NO! the sky might fall.
French speaking Quebec may decide to leave.

wars are won by spare parts and what you can replace.
That is long wars.





what other kind are there?

"home before the leaves fall"
popular saying in august 1914
6 Day ones.

Hitler thought he had found a short war strategy.
Churchill had other plans.

Andrew Swallow


it was chamberlain who declared war on hitler.

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

"Tiger" wrote in message
...

Roger Conroy wrote:

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


"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
On Jun 10, 8:14 pm, Ian B MacLure wrote:




the "have nots" are not in position to threaten the "haves"

Iran Is not hearing you. Hugo Chavez & Putin do not believe you. Nigeria &
Mexico are internally screwed up. Hell just this week a "have not," called
Israel Said stop the nuke building or we will do it for you to Iran (a oil
have). Sounds like a position to threat to me, And Wall street agreed,
thus the price spike.



they are have nots? they are 3 of the worlds largest oil producers.
russia and venezuela are all set for water too.
and iran has plenty at the moment.

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

Raymond O'Hara wrote:

"Roger Conroy" wrote in message
.. .


"Tiger" wrote in message
...


Roger Conroy wrote:


"Raymond O'Hara" wrote in message
t...



"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
On Jun 10, 8:14 pm, Ian B MacLure wrote:




the "have nots" are not in position to threaten the "haves"

Iran Is not hearing you. Hugo Chavez & Putin do not believe you. Nigeria & Mexico are internally screwed up. Hell just this week a "have not," called
Israel Said stop the nuke building or we will do it for you to Iran (a oil
have). Sounds like a position to threat to me, And Wall street agreed,
thus the price spike.




they are have nots? they are 3 of the worlds largest oil producers.
russia and venezuela are all set for water too.
and iran has plenty at the moment.


The paragraph "is" discussing Haves. Read again....

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:
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 -



Going back to the start of this " GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER
CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As." We are not exactly facing any Battles of
Britian from anybody or collection of somebodies. The F-22 is a high end
Air superority fighter. Great! And we are going to buy about 180 of
them. At something like $100 Million each. About the price of 4 F-15's.
We never intended for a whole airforce of them. The volume plane is
the F35. Most our allies or enemies don't even have 180 planes in there
whole air force; let alone fighters. You might like to refuel those
F22's? Where are going to get $$$ for tankers? You might like Transport
troops and parts for your F-22's? Where's the money to upgrade your
airlift that has racking up flight time running back & forth to Kabul &
baghdad??? I like the F-22 as well. But we are not spending the whole
DOD budget on it, Hoping to re-fight Eagle-Day.....

"Tiger" wrote in message
...
g lof2 wrote:
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 -



Going back to the start of this " GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER
CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As." We are not exactly facing any Battles of Britian
from anybody or collection of somebodies. The F-22 is a high end Air
superority fighter. Great! And we are going to buy about 180 of them. At
something like $100 Million each. About the price of 4 F-15's. We never
intended for a whole airforce of them. The volume plane is the F35. Most
our allies or enemies don't even have 180 planes in there whole air force;
let alone fighters. You might like to refuel those F22's? Where are going
to get $$$ for tankers? You might like Transport troops and parts for your
F-22's? Where's the money to upgrade your airlift that has racking up
flight time running back & forth to Kabul & baghdad??? I like the F-22 as
well. But we are not spending the whole DOD budget on it, Hoping to
re-fight Eagle-Day.....


Anyone who bases their armaments aquisition programme on CURRENT wars is an
idiot and is doomed to be on the losing side in the NEXT war. Major
equipment is intended to be used for about 20-30 years.
Take the example of the "Teens" generation of US fighter aircraft. They came
off the drawing boards in the 1970's and are now at the end of their useful
life as first world front-line equipment. It really is not acceptable for a
1st world fighter pilot to be flying the same plane that his father did.
"Shock and Awe" only works if you have a clear margin of superiority over
the enemy. Any leader who sends his forces into battle equipped at parity to
the enemy should be shot for gross incompetence.