View Single Post
Old 04-07-2009 | 07:11 AM
  #28  
rickair7777's Avatar
rickair7777
Prime Minister/Moderator
Veteran: Navy
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 44,931
Likes: 701
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
Default

Originally Posted by ToiletDuck
During previous wars the United States was never dedicated to so many new technologies at one time. Yes there was R&D with high cost per project but there was also a definitive path they wanted to follow. Currently we have newer nuclear subs, newer stealth battleships, newer stealth aircraft, new UAVs, armored troop transpots, tank designs, satellite protection programs, tankers, etc. and that's just what we all know about. I don't feel the end of the F-22 means the end of the US dominance. I am glad that we are looking for more "reliable" means to fight insurgents in 3rd world playgrounds.

They are wanting to shut down one aircraft program. I'm not for it I want the F-22 here but the price tag is a little ridiculous for a day to day fighter, that's just my opinion. If you want to invade a foreign country with a sophisticated sam setup that's what the bombers are for. What's the reliability of the F-22? What's the MX cost on one of those things? Durability is a huge part. An aircraft you have to take apart every few flights in desert environments doesn't help much. The United States is broke and simply needs to be more economical with it's money. Take that $120mil jet then tack on the interest the gov't pays on it to take the loan from the people. The compound that loan to the loans it already has and maybe we'll start to understand why we're so far in debt and not looking like we'll be bouncing back anytime soon. I'd personally like to see a cheaper yet capable aircraft that can be more easily produced in large numbers with perhaps a less amount of bells and whistles. Rugged and reliable.

These arguments about needing the latest technology have been used in the past. Look at the F-4 and how it didn't have guns. Look at the A-10 and B-52 and how long they've outlived their "useful" lifespan. I don't think figters have ever been the deterrents of a nation. I don't see them touted by developing countries near as much as their progresses in missiles, nuclear, and naval capabilities. I'm not saying they don't have a place. Not by any means. I just don't think the end of a program is the end of the country and frankly we still can't afford it. It's that new home we want but can't buy. Maybe the F-35 can change that.

Just my opinion don't shoot me down. I like the involvement of the debate on this one. Everyone has good points. Like I said I love reliability and maybe it's just me but it seems like the more faith you put into all the cutting edge technology the more room there is for it to let you down. I'm still in love with the A-10. It's a perfect example. Our last wars have had major opposition from insurgents. Why spend $120mil on an aircraft to drop a bomb on guys when a $25mil aircraft can do it just the same. (i dunno real A10 cost just kinda figured lol)
Our ability to overwhelm anyone in conventional warfare is based on control of the skies first (and in most cases the ocean too). High-performance stealth aircraft are needed to penetrate and disable advanced (or even not-so-advanced) air defense networks. This then allows all of the lower-cost, lower-stealth aircraft to get in and do their job: enable and support the ground forces.

I think we could get away with a mix of 22's, 35's, and 15's. Despite what someone else said about them being worn out, the F-15 is still in production so we could buy new ones with advanced EASA radars. An F-22/F-35/F-15 mix could probably do the air dominance job...you just send the right package to do the job at hand. The package will include mixed aircraft types in many cases.
Reply