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)
Duck, I'll start by agreeing with you on the country beig broke and having to cut back on costs. However, your knowledge and experience are lacking in the overall tactics area. Without air superiority, the bombers cannot sustain a campaign. I understand your point about stealth etc. We have 19 B-2's. As with anything, they are cycled through for mx etc. How many do you think are ready to fight at any given moment? I'll let you guess. We have 90 B-52's. Hardly stealthy, but great dumptrucks. Then we have about 40 B-1's. Not exactly a MX dream. How long in a big conflict (ie Russia, China, etc.) before you can shoot down 150 bombers. Not long with no air supremacy. I agree, some things can and will be used in all conflicts. The rifle, and perhaps airplanes like Buffs and Hogs. However, much like cybercommand, if you don't own the technology, you won't even get the war started before your lights are off and your comm's don't work. The solution is to cut other bull**** programs at the Federal level and spend it where it needs to be spent.