Originally Posted by
LivingInMEM
Kassarine - without enough air superiority fighters or next-generation stealth aircraft that can take out current generation mobile SAMs, you can have all the tankers or airlift you want - but you won't have them long. Do the terms permissive or semi-permissive environment mean anything to you - because that's the only environments those aircraft can fly in.
Unfortunately, we have to plan for all the possibilities from asymmetric to total warfare. We only need so many B-2's because we would only use that asset to strike so many targets. An air superiority fighter, on the other hand, would likely face hundreds of aircraft in a worst-case example. Remember that our Army has been able to operate without worry of enemy air attack since the Korean war, and their continued success depends on that record continuing. The same goes for our logistics tail, also.
It's funny how you seem to be willing to equate 100 B-1's to 100 F-22's, having no consideration of their missions or the how numerous their respective target sets may be.
I never said that 100 B-2s equal 100 F-22s. My point was that we have always had to make choices between capability and cost. In the case of the B-2, the Air Force determined they only needed a few because after the fall of the USSR they could not justify the expense of a large stealth bomber fleet when most of the enemies we would realistically face have small air defense systems. Also, if we went to war with a superpower like China, we would need a large stealth bomber force too. We would also need an even larger ground force, but you don’t hear anyone saying we need to get 2 million more troops ready for combat now.
It would be nice if we could have a military designed for every type of warfare, but we can’t, and we never could. The idea of maintaining a military that can take on every type of enemy possible is not sustainable.
Also, what is with the confrontational attitude? This is a valid debate with equal evidence on both sides. I agree that if we go to war with China right now, I would be wrong and we would desperately need more F-22s. I also agree that sometimes it is better to spend money on an aircraft that is never used because it acts as a deterrent for other countries. Can’t you agree that the F-22 has taken up resources that could be used for more imminent threats? Or that there is a greater chance that the F-22s we have will most likely never be used for the all out total warfare they were designed for?