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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
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..... |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
"Tiger" wrote in message ... 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. Can you ABSOLUTELY, GUARANTEE that no possible future enemy could aquire/develop such technology within the next 30 or so years? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
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 - |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
"g lof2" wrote in message ... 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. ------------------------ Youi mean the vast Tabilan air threat that was sucessfully neutralised after a hard fight? I don't remember that one, perhaps you'll enlighten us... -------------------------- -- 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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:42:02 -0700 (PDT), g lof2 wrote:
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. It's actually a combined effort. AWACS, Rivet Joint, ground radar assets, ground-based intelligence assets, sea-based radar assets... you get the idea. It all goes back to the concept of "First Look, First Kill". If I see you before you see me, the odds favor the fact that you'll be walking home. Modern doctrine isn't to go in and mix it up with the enemy fighters, today's doctrine is to snipe the hostile aircraft out of the sky. If you end up in a furball then you screwed up somewhere along the way. Granted, sometimes you can't anticipate that happening but it's a good rule-of-thumb. Current fighters are snipers, and if I see the enemy first, betting odds say that I win the fight. -- -Jeff B. zoomie at fastmail fm |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
On Jun 12, 5:16*am, Yeff wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:42:02 -0700 (PDT), g lof2 wrote: 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. It's actually a combined effort. *AWACS, Rivet Joint, ground radar assets, ground-based intelligence assets, sea-based radar assets... you get the idea. *It all goes back to the concept of "First Look, First Kill". *If I see you before you see me, the odds favor the fact that you'll be walking home. Modern doctrine isn't to go in and mix it up with the enemy fighters, today's doctrine is to snipe the hostile aircraft out of the sky. *If you end up in a furball then you screwed up somewhere along the way. *Granted, sometimes you can't anticipate that happening but it's a good rule-of-thumb. Current fighters are snipers, and if I see the enemy first, betting odds say that I win the fight. -- -Jeff B. zoomie at fastmail fm Your absolutly right, but you still need the fighter to take the shot. It does you no good to know were the enemy is when you can't do anything about it. The is a limit to manuver warfare, amd avoiding contact only good when your on offense. I your the defence you are force to react to an attack, and that means sending fighters out to protect yourself. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
"Tiger" wrote in message
... 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..... I haven't gotten the impression that the A-10 is going away any time soon... AHS |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
On Jun 11, 1:34 am, "Arved Sandstrom"
wrote: "Tiger" wrote in message ... 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..... I haven't gotten the impression that the A-10 is going away any time soon... AHS I went through a long discussion on this newsgroup advocating a carrier-able version of the A-10 or a new design. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Logger Choice | Jamie Denton | Soaring | 10 | July 6th 07 03:13 PM |
Headset Choice | jad | Piloting | 14 | August 9th 06 07:59 AM |
Which DC Headphone is best choice? | [email protected] | Piloting | 65 | June 27th 06 11:50 PM |
!! HELP GAMERS CHOICE | Dave | Military Aviation | 2 | September 3rd 04 04:48 PM |
!!HELP GAMERS CHOICE | Dave | Soaring | 0 | September 3rd 04 12:01 AM |