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 |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
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 |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
"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? |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
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 |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
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? |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
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 |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
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 |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
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...... |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
|
#150
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
"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. |
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 |