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

"Dan" wrote in message
...
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.





you want to spend for a weapon that will never be used or be obsolete when
the time comes.

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

"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.
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.

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




you want to spend for a weapon that will never be used or be obsolete when
the time comes.

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.

Remember Peacekeeper ICBM? It was never used. How many are still on
duty? Remember Titan ICBM? It was never used. How many are still on
duty? You want to spend money on a system that will never be used.

Back to your Maginot reference. Maginot designed a series of forts to
keep the Germans from invading. The French assumed the only country they
would have to fight would be the Germans. They also felt they didn't
have to keep up with the Germans militarily. They had a bigger army and
the faith the U.K. would be there to save them. History proved the Nazis
needn't have worried. The French also had an ongoing ruckus in Indochina.

ICBM is just like the Maginot line in that it will only deter those
who wish to be deterred by it. 9-11 ring a bell?

F-22 can be used offensively without obliterating entire cities. F-22
can carry a variety of weapons that have different effects. ICBM is
limited to thermonuclear weapons. Your suggestion ICBM is more "viable"
is thus disproved.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Raymond O'Hara wrote:
snip
a big main force war isn't going to happen anytime in the next 50 years.

You may be willing to stake your life on that, I'm not. I have
history on my side. Since WW2 there were Korea, Viet Nam and Gulf War
where an air superiority fighter was a requirement. Iraq may not have
had the greatest air force, but they didn't exactly roll over either.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"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.

"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.

Ed Rasimus wrote:
No more
"gomers in the wire" "danger close" "whites of their eyes" stuff. JDAM
from the menopause
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


ROTFL!

What is it they say about old fighter pilots? ;-)


Jeff

On Jun 13, 9:17*am, Zombywoof wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:27:53 -0500, Dan wrote:
The F-15's are aging real badly, but the F-16's are fairing slightly
better. *What came as a real surprise to me was the dumping of the
F-117 (yes I know not a real fighter) so early in its operational
life.

I don't think you can really say the F-117 was "early" in its
operational life. It was a small fleet of subsonic jets that started
life in what, the 1970s and got used hard from 1989 on.

* 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?

Which status quo, us (the US) constantly in-fighting & bickering with
ourselves over the Guns or Butter dilemma? *Yeah I certainly see that
happening for at least the next 10 years, if not more!

True. Personally, I think that the F-22 buy is far too small,
considering all the capability (current and future) that the airframe
has. The F-35 is not going to come along soon enough to supplant the
F-22 and won't be as capable at air dominance and the tactical command-
and-control that the F-22 can do.

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.

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.

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.