Originally Posted by
Kasserine06
...What I was saying is we are investing a lot in stealth technology, and if a new development in the future battlefield makes the stealth technology useless, it is a lost investment. ...
If that unnamed advance marginalizes our latest generation stealth technology, what it would it do to your 1/2-generation improvement F-15? Seems like that would be a complete waste of expenditure. Think about it.
Since you are focused on this increase in enemy capability, are the odds better that the 1/2-generation improved F-15 would be marginalized or that the F-22/F-35 would be? Is it better to spend 50% of the up-front cost on a 25% chance of success over 10 years, or 100% of the up-front cost on a 75% chance of success over 20 years.
There are valid arguments against a pure F-22/F-35 fleet, you aren't making them. Your arguments are actually better used against your own suggested replacement.
Originally Posted by
Kasserine06
I understand that my opinions account for less than yours or others, but when did I attack an expert? I think that is where the bulk of the problem is coming from. I was attacked because I said the F-15 was still a competitive aircraft and I was challenged.
You weren't attacked, Hacker did nothing more than ask you what your experience is - that's a valid question. Your answer could have been "Senior Research Analyst for the RAND corporation" for all we know (had that been accurate). Your answers instead were that you know someone, you read the internet, and you fly simulators. All valid in their own right, but you presented them as equivalent experience to guys like Hacker - not even close.
And the challenging of an opinion does not equal an attack, either. The challenging of opinion is the hallmark of true scientific process, a well-defined and reasoned opinion is also an easily defended opinion.