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

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

again you and dan engage in strawman arguments.
you want us to turn into the UK, a bankrupt country.



I do? You really don't understand the current economy nor do you seem
to comprehend what is actually going on world wide. You don't seem to have
a grasp of potential threats.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

you just bring up fantasy scenarios.

you don't understand the economy.
we can't at the momen affor billions for a plane that does one thing and
one thing that is the least likely threat.
in 30 years most likely UMVs will rule.


Amazing, and you tell me I'm bringing up fantasy scenarios? I'm not
sure why you can tell us with a straight face how the U.S. won't be in
another major war in the next 50 years, UMVs will "rule" in 30 years,
ICBMs are a natural response to an attack against the U.S. and the like,
yet can't see threats can change in the same time frame.

As for the economy, the U.S. wastes more money on pork than it spends
on F-22. I'm not justifying the cost of F-22, but it simply isn't that
big a dent in the U.S. economy.

In any event I doubt you will ever understand what is going on now or
what is likely to occur in the future and I will never understand how
you think it's logical to not replace aging aircraft with newer ones.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Ed Rasimus wrote in
:

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:55:07 -0700 (PDT), Airyx
wrote:

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.

An even more authoritative review of the Senate Rockefeller committee
language:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn.../06/08/AR20080
60801687.html

The repetitious phrase "supported by the intelligence" is
illustrative.

I was wondering when someone was going to point that out.
Funny thing, the usual suspects haven't been crowing about
this report.

IBM

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:55:07 -0700 (PDT), Airyx
wrote:

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.

An even more authoritative review of the Senate Rockefeller committee
language:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060801687.html

The repetitious phrase "supported by the intelligence" is
illustrative.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
www.thunderchief.org

I wonder where all the finest quality "Grade A" bovine excrement that Colin
Powell spouted before the assembled multitudes at the UN - (fully
illustrated with piccies of pioson gas trucks and all, for the benefit of
those who don't read very well) came from?

Zombywoof wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:43:48 -0500, Dan wrote:

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.

Actually they did, they rolled over & play dead or fled. There were
no attempts at any meaningful maintenance of Iraqi airspace by the
Iraqi's.

Well, the 33rd TFW took out 16 Iraqi MiGs that weren't rolling over
or fleeing. They may not have been anywhere near top notch, but those 16
at least did put up a fight.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan wrote:
Zombywoof wrote:

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:43:48 -0500, Dan wrote:

Raymond O'Hara wrote:
snip

Well, the 33rd TFW took out 16 Iraqi MiGs that weren't rolling over or
fleeing. They may not have been anywhere near top notch, but those 16 at
least did put up a fight.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


While not on the O'hara side of the fence, can we aggree more spending
on a f22 means a delay in the F35 program? Also that increasing the
number beyond 183 in the current budget environment means other Air
force programs will robbed to pay for them?

Tiger wrote:
Dan wrote:
Zombywoof wrote:

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:43:48 -0500, Dan wrote:

Raymond O'Hara wrote:
snip

Well, the 33rd TFW took out 16 Iraqi MiGs that weren't rolling over
or fleeing. They may not have been anywhere near top notch, but those
16 at least did put up a fight.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


While not on the O'hara side of the fence, can we aggree more spending
on a f22 means a delay in the F35 program? Also that increasing the
number beyond 183 in the current budget environment means other Air
force programs will robbed to pay for them?

Certainly, with current budget constraints. That's a far cry from
O'Hara's theory of bankrupting the country. He's got his mind made up
and can't comprehend what is really going on around him. His personal
biases block this.

As an aside I wonder if he's ever been in the military.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 09:29:42 -0400, Tiger
wrote:

Dan wrote:
Zombywoof wrote:

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:43:48 -0500, Dan wrote:

Raymond O'Hara wrote:
snip

Well, the 33rd TFW took out 16 Iraqi MiGs that weren't rolling over or
fleeing. They may not have been anywhere near top notch, but those 16 at
least did put up a fight.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


While not on the O'hara side of the fence, can we aggree more spending
on a f22 means a delay in the F35 program? Also that increasing the
number beyond 183 in the current budget environment means other Air
force programs will robbed to pay for them?

Actually no, we can't agree on that. It is apples/oranges. The F-22
progam is in production with almost 20 years of development and
evolution already as sunk costs. The F-35 program is where F-22 was in
1992.

The incremental unit cost for additional F-22s (which are
multi-mission capable now) is not a trade-off against F-35 development
funding and purchase of an aircraft that won't reach full scale
production and deployment for at least five years.

The only thing being "robbed" in these scenarios is increased social
program spending, the result of political pandering, pork-barreling
and earmarking.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
www.thunderchief.org

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 09:29:42 -0400, Tiger
wrote:


Dan wrote:

Zombywoof wrote:


On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:43:48 -0500, Dan wrote:


Raymond O'Hara wrote:
snip

Well, the 33rd TFW took out 16 Iraqi MiGs that weren't rolling over or
fleeing. They may not have been anywhere near top notch, but those 16 at
least did put up a fight.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


While not on the O'hara side of the fence, can we aggree more spending
on a f22 means a delay in the F35 program? Also that increasing the
number beyond 183 in the current budget environment means other Air
force programs will robbed to pay for them?


Actually no, we can't agree on that. It is apples/oranges. The F-22
progam is in production with almost 20 years of development and
evolution already as sunk costs. The F-35 program is where F-22 was in
1992.

The incremental unit cost for additional F-22s (which are
multi-mission capable now) is not a trade-off against F-35 development
funding and purchase of an aircraft that won't reach full scale
production and deployment for at least five years.

The only thing being "robbed" in these scenarios is increased social
program spending, the result of political pandering, pork-barreling
and earmarking.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
www.thunderchief.org

I have doubts Obama will provide even a budget for a slingshot......

In article , raymond-
says...

"Typhoon502" wrote in message
...
On Jun 11, 6:51 am, "Roger Conroy"
wrote:
"Tiger" wrote in message

...





Raymond O'Hara wrote:
"Ian B MacLure" wrote in message
...

"Raymond O'Hara" wrote in
:

we are in two wars now{which we are losing} and you're worried about an
imaginary war against an imaginary opponent.
russia is not a credible threat. and it is decades away from being one.

Losing? Lose to whom? Current events don't seem be anywere close. As for
Russia? They have in the last year expanded their military activity.
They
are flying Bears again, opposed our missile defence plans, and Nato
expansions. Decades may be a bit much.

Russia is not the only possible future technologically advanced enemy -
don't take your eyes of China, or a possible Arab alliance.- Hide quoted
text -

Not to mention Venezuela...

we don't need F-22s to fight venezuela.

You are one of those who believe in fair fights ?

--

"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"

"Ian B MacLure" wrote in message
.. .
Airyx wrote in
:

[snip]

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.

The French have an ancient tradition of preparing for the last
war.

IBM



that's hardly a french only trait.