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

"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.






Do you remember the debate about whether we should wait to have proof - a
mushroom cloud rising over Israel - or whether we should just stop him
before he had a chance to go nuclear?

Oh, and do you remember when Clinton made regime change in Iraq national
policy? Hey, we did that, too!

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail fm

"Roger Conroy" wrote in message
...

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

"Roger Conroy" wrote in message
...
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.


anybody who ignores the war they are fighting now to worry about a
hypothetical war against an yndetermined enemy at an undetermined future
date will lose the current war and render worries about future wars moot.

nobody has anything in the pipeline either.


Why would "worry[ing] about a hypothetical war against an [u]ndetermined
enemy at an undetermined future date" mean that you would lose the current
war? Fighting a war and preparing for the next one are not mutually
exclusive.





we don't have an unlimited budget.
inWWII we concentrated on WWII not WWIII.

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

"Roger Conroy" wrote in message
...

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

"Roger Conroy" wrote in message
...
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.


anybody who ignores the war they are fighting now to worry about a
hypothetical war against an yndetermined enemy at an undetermined future
date will lose the current war and render worries about future wars
moot.

nobody has anything in the pipeline either.


Why would "worry[ing] about a hypothetical war against an [u]ndetermined
enemy at an undetermined future date" mean that you would lose the
current war? Fighting a war and preparing for the next one are not
mutually exclusive.





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...

"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.

"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

Roger Conroy wrote:
"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



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.

No one can make any better than an educated guess as to what
conflicts may occur 10 years or more into the future. The suggestion
that development and procurement must cease to focus on brush wars is
ludicrous. Recently the U.S. F-15 fleet was grounded due to structural
failures attributable to age. What does O'Hara suggest a war of any kind
be fought with 10 years from now even if the opposition doesn't have
anything more advanced that what is now available? Through normal
attrition how being will the U.S. F-15 and F-16 fleets be? What happens
if the opposition has managed to produce a new fighter type in the few
years prior to that war and the U.S. had stopped procuring and
developing in 2008 because O'Hara says we need to design and procure
only for the present wars?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"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

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

we are already at the edge of human abilities.

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

"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.
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.

nobody is a credible threat. 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.
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.


its you who are barking up the wrong strategic tree. you keep looking at it
with cold war eyes.




No one can make any better than an educated guess as to what conflicts
may occur 10 years or more into the future. The suggestion that
development and procurement must cease to focus on brush wars is
ludicrous. Recently the U.S. F-15 fleet was grounded due to structural
failures attributable to age. What does O'Hara suggest a war of any kind
be fought with 10 years from now even if the opposition doesn't have
anything more advanced that what is now available? Through normal
attrition how being will the U.S. F-15 and F-16 fleets be? What happens if
the opposition has managed to produce a new fighter type in the few years
prior to that war and the U.S. had stopped procuring and developing in
2008 because O'Hara says we need to design and procure only for the
present wars?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired



we need what we need now. you want to blow off the war we are in for a
really cool imaginary war with imaginary opponents.
100 mil for planes we don't need and can't afford is a waste of resources.
we already know how to make f-22s,

Raymond O'Hara wrote:
"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.


Chamberlain then appointed Churchill head of the Royal Navy.

Andrew Swallow

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

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:20:43 -0400, Raymond O'Hara wrote:


we are not going to achieve whatever it is bush was after.

Preempting Sadam before he aquired WMDs? Yeah, we did that. And rather
spectacularly I might add.

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



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




Faulty intel. Also it takes two to dance. Saddam had a chance to give
up. He bluffed and lost.