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 |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
Raymond O'Hara wrote:
"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. Your re-writing history. Both sides were looking post war well before Yalta. That's why everybody went hunting for Nazi tech & scienists even before VE day. |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
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. nobody is a credible threat. Maybe not now, but what about 10 years from now? 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. 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. its you who are barking up the wrong strategic tree. you keep looking at it with cold war eyes. Actually you misunderstand me again. For example Red China is developing advanced fighters. The Russians are exporting fighters. What happens if they both supply and train a third party like Iran? There's no immediate Cold War type threat, but will this still be true 10 years from now? Are you prepared to bet your nation's security on that? The Russians have been flying Bear missions similar to those they flew during the Cold War. They may have ideas of becoming a world power again. 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. That's true, tell Congress to foot the bill. you want to blow off the war we are in for a really cool imaginary war with imaginary opponents. On the other hand, you want to be unprepared for a war of a different kind than the U.S. is currently fighting. It's nice to hope there will never be another major war, but if you plan on never having another one you will always be wrong. Look what happened 5 years after the end of WW2 when the U.S. had to fight in Korea. The MiG-15 was a bit of a surprise. 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, OK, let's do as O'Hara says and cease production of F-22 immediately. Now you have to come up with the money to disassemble the production lines, store the equipment for future use and have a year's advance notice before some bad guy decides to take you on. You will need the time to get the lines going again and get new aircraft coming off the end. In the mean time the current F-22 population will decline due to accidents and testing. The F-16 and F-15 population is aging rapidly. Do you really think status quo will stay in effect another 10 years? To not plan for the future is a tad silly, wouldn't you say? Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
"Tiger" wrote in message ... 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. and we might lose too. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
"Andrew Swallow" wrote in message ... 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 and churchill later replaced chamberlain. but it was chamberlain who declared against hitler. after hitler reneged on munich it was easy to not make any more deals, it was obvious they were a waste. any british leader would have refused to deal with hitler, they act like everything was all churchill. the alliwes won WWII despite winnie not because of him. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
"Dan" wrote in message ... 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. nobody is a credible threat. Maybe not now, but what about 10 years from now? are they just going to magically appear in 10 years, full blown, armed to the teeth with ultra-fighters? if we, the worlds most powerful economy need 10 years to get ready so won't they{whomever thy might be}. so who is it? the F-22 has only 2 enemies in sight, china and russia. during the cold war we never found a reason to fight the ruskis. now that its over and all russia's allies are nw on our side i see the chance as even less. 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. right. because there is no credible enemy. it's russia ,china or nobody. hugo chavez can not make venezuela into any kind of threat. 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. its you who are barking up the wrong strategic tree. you keep looking at it with cold war eyes. Actually you misunderstand me again. For example Red China is developing advanced fighters. The Russians are exporting fighters. What happens if they both supply and train a third party like Iran? There's no immediate Cold War type threat, but will this still be true 10 years from now? Are you prepared to bet your nation's security on that? The Russians have been flying Bear missions similar to those they flew during the Cold War. They may have ideas of becoming a world power again. 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. That's true, tell Congress to foot the bill. you want to blow off the war we are in for a really cool imaginary war with imaginary opponents. On the other hand, you want to be unprepared for a war of a different kind than the U.S. is currently fighting. It's nice to hope there will never be another major war, but if you plan on never having another one you will always be wrong. Look what happened 5 years after the end of WW2 when the U.S. had to fight in Korea. The MiG-15 was a bit of a surprise. 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, OK, let's do as O'Hara says and cease production of F-22 immediately. Now you have to come up with the money to disassemble the production lines, store the equipment for future use and have a year's advance notice before some bad guy decides to take you on. You will need the time to get the lines going again and get new aircraft coming off the end. what bad guy? .."i don't know" doesn't justify spending a billion dollars on spec. it won't cast much to mothball the production line, certaily less than buying and maintaining a slew of planes that will be old by the time any threat "might"appear when national survival is at stake and we get serious the F-22 will be fine. but to just break the bank at the expence of today on a longshot "might" makes no sense. anybody we need the F-22 to counter we'll just hit with an ICBMs anyway. maginot fighters. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
"Tiger" wrote in message ... Raymond O'Hara wrote: "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. Your re-writing history. Both sides were looking post war well before Yalta. That's why everybody went hunting for Nazi tech & scienists even before VE day. and they waited post war to build post war. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
Raymond O'Hara wrote:
"Tiger" wrote in message ... 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. and we might lose too. The enemy lacks popular support. The Government is taking military ops independent of the US. Enemy command & control is being eliminated & rated out. Al Sadir's ceasefire is still holding. Infastructure improvements continues to improve way of life. US losses are at record low levels. Oil revenue is helping to stabilise the Government. US planning to drop combat brigades to back to 15 and reduce tours. We are not losing...... |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
Mike Williamson wrote:
Tiger wrote: Hell Right now the Pakistaini's & our Nato allies wish we learn to shoot only the enemy. The Guys in the clouds are ****ing off the friendlies Again based on yesterdays news. According to the news reports I saw on the incident, the Pakistani military was informed before the strikes took place and informed the US that there were no Pakistani forces in the area. It seems from the news stories that there may have been some confusion on the part of the Pakistani military, due to lack of cooperation between the regular army and the Frontier Corps. An investigation has been started, with Afghan and Pakistani participation in order to find out exactly what happened and how it can be prevented in the future Mike Still the PR is bad. Rule #1, don't **** off the locals. There are too many knuckleheads who don't seem to be on the same page. See the story yesterday about the Marines kicking you two dumbasses for throwing puppies of a cliff on YOU TUBE. Or the guy a few weeks back using the koran for target practice? The problem in this case is that we have had one too many airstrikes gone bad. Either hitting civies or other Nato troops. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
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..... |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
Raymond O'Hara wrote:
"Dan" wrote in message ... 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. nobody is a credible threat. Maybe not now, but what about 10 years from now? are they just going to magically appear in 10 years, full blown, armed to the teeth with ultra-fighters? In case you haven't noticed several countries are working on advanced fighters. Some of those countries will export and train. In 10 years a country with high school and college educated manpower could produce a viable air force from an existing military. if we, the worlds most powerful economy need 10 years to get ready so won't they{whomever thy might be}. Who said anything about taking 10 years to get ready? I chose the 10 years as a hypothetical since you insist Iraq and Afghanistan are a template for future wars the U.S. will be involved with. so who is it? the F-22 has only 2 enemies in sight, china and russia. during the cold war we never found a reason to fight the ruskis. now that its over and all russia's allies are nw on our side i see the chance as even less. China and Russia may be the only potential enemies YOU see, but you are thinking of today and Cold War. I don't think that way. For example, sooner or later petroleum will become rather scarce. The U.S. may need to either seize or defend petroleum production. 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. right. because there is no credible enemy. it's russia ,china or nobody. Are you positive about that? hugo chavez can not make venezuela into any kind of threat. Are you sure about that? 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. its you who are barking up the wrong strategic tree. you keep looking at it with cold war eyes. Actually you misunderstand me again. For example Red China is developing advanced fighters. The Russians are exporting fighters. What happens if they both supply and train a third party like Iran? There's no immediate Cold War type threat, but will this still be true 10 years from now? Are you prepared to bet your nation's security on that? The Russians have been flying Bear missions similar to those they flew during the Cold War. They may have ideas of becoming a world power again. 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. That's true, tell Congress to foot the bill. you want to blow off the war we are in for a really cool imaginary war with imaginary opponents. On the other hand, you want to be unprepared for a war of a different kind than the U.S. is currently fighting. It's nice to hope there will never be another major war, but if you plan on never having another one you will always be wrong. Look what happened 5 years after the end of WW2 when the U.S. had to fight in Korea. The MiG-15 was a bit of a surprise. 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, OK, let's do as O'Hara says and cease production of F-22 immediately. Now you have to come up with the money to disassemble the production lines, store the equipment for future use and have a year's advance notice before some bad guy decides to take you on. You will need the time to get the lines going again and get new aircraft coming off the end. what bad guy? Does it matter? Read what I wrote for what I meant. Regardless of whom the bad guy is restarting production from a dead stop isn't an instant event. ."i don't know" doesn't justify spending a billion dollars on spec. it won't cast much to mothball the production line, certaily less than buying and maintaining a slew of planes that will be old by the time any threat "might"appear You are thinking small again. The aircraft assembly lines are only final assembly points. What about all the suppliers of sub-assemblies and parts? The avionics and engine manufacturers would have to be convinced to start production again, contracts would have to be let and so on. It isn't like they assemble Monogram model F-22 kits. when national survival is at stake and we get serious the F-22 will be fine. but to just break the bank at the expence of today on a longshot "might" makes no sense. As I said before, other nations are developing advanced fighters. The U.S. may have to face them someday. anybody we need the F-22 to counter we'll just hit with an ICBMs anyway. Now who is Cold War thinking? After WW2 "conventional" thinking was that nuclear weapons made all others obsolete. Korea changed all that. The U.S. used your theory of "why prepare for the type of war we will never fight again?" MiG-15 was a big surprise to people who thought the North Koreans, just as you now think other countries, wouldn't fly front line aircraft. Granted some MiGs were flown by Soviet pilots, but they trained and supported North Koreans who weren't all that shabby as combat pilots. maginot fighters. Maginot ICBMs? If you are going to use historical comparisons try using a more appropriate one. For the sweet love of humanity try a spell checker. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
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 |