In the war on terror...

atm

Mon Feb 20 17:21:29 -0800 2006

manage

Airplanes that cost hundreds of millions of dollars are clearly the means to fight the war on terror. After all, you never know when Al Quaeda might buy its own air force!

Seriously, this is a horrible waste of money. While we splurge on pointless aircraft and battleships and nuclear submarines, our enemies are going to spend a few thousand dollars on home-made explosives and have a devastating effect. The military-industrial complex is such a drain on the U.S... not to mention that the U.S. outspends all other nations combined on the military.

Sorry for the rant, but it needed to be said.

In the war on terror...

rubycodez

Mon Feb 20 17:53:53 -0800 2006

manage

The USA has other enemies than terrorists, for example governents that sponsor, budget for and provide haven for them, and they have armed forces, military-industrial complexes, and other military targets.   If the USA didn't have powerful armed forces, would it be left alone, or would most of the western hemisphere be conquered by one or more eastern powers?  Idealism aside, the equilibrium condition of mankind is NOT democracy and is to NOT to have freedom and rights, and to NOT be allowed freedom of thought, history proves that.

In the war on terror...

President4242

Tue Feb 21 09:57:47 -0800 2006

manage

the USA didn't have powerful armed forces, would it be left alone, or would most of the western hemisphere be conquered by one or more eastern powers?

They will be anyway- by immigration, the great hole in the defense of the western hemisphere.

In the war on terror...

Beryllium Sphere(r)

Mon Feb 20 23:01:39 -0800 2006

manage

On the other hand, the combination of special forces on the ground and high-tech aircraft overhead turned out to be flexible, powerful and decisive in Afghanistan.

US air supremacy is like the old British Empire's naval superiority. It makes everything else possible: supply lines, surveillance, and making it possible for ground forces to do their job without interference from the other side's air force. Not something to be taken for granted.

Granted that spending the price of one of those airplanes cultivating spies and moles would do a lot more good.

In the war on terror...

President4242

Tue Feb 21 09:56:39 -0800 2006

manage

On the other hand, the combination of special forces on the ground and high-tech aircraft overhead turned out to be flexible, powerful and decisive in Afghanistan.

Is this the same Afghanistan which is still churning out dead bodies of US National Guardsmen?

In the war on terror...

Martin Blank

Tue Feb 21 16:52:38 -0800 2006

manage

Churning?

I see no dead Guardsmen since four were killed in a helicopter crash in September 2005.  Before that, I see one in May 2005, one in April, and four in March.  Moving back to 2004, I see one in each of November and September, two in August, and one more in each of May, April, and January.  That makes 18 dead in 25 months, and not all of them were combat-related.

That's not churning.  That's not even a steady stream.

In the war on terror...

President4242

Tue Feb 21 09:55:12 -0800 2006

manage

The problem is more one of a tactical mismatch.  We're thinking 20th/21st century conventional warfare, which uses technology to attempt to limit collateral damage and/or hit very large targets very accurately. 

The enemy on the other hand, are a bunch of medeval or pre-medeval warriors who are concentrating on a type of warfare that produces the most collateral damage for the monetary investment.  In addition to that, they're a bunch of fanatics who are extremely xenophobic and cannot stand the idea of people not worshiping their book and their god- especially not in the holy places mentioned in that book.

I think I agree with Ford Prefect in the Tertiary Phase of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy radio show- they care and we don't.  It doesn't matter what kind of technology we use.  It doesn't matter if we can kill 78 of their tanks to every one of ours lost- because they don't have tanks.  It doesn't matter that we can hit a 3cm square with a GPS smart bomb- when they can kill 40 civilians with a single suicide bomber.  Eventually, unless we find a defense against their tactics, they will win- because they CARE enough to give their lives for the cause- and we don't.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

Spider

Mon Feb 20 22:44:17 -0800 2006

manage

This F-35 is replacing a lot of other combat aircraft. Should make it cheaper to run an air combat force. Do you think the money saved will be put to good use? - unlikely.

It's not replacing as much as you think

Martin Blank

Tue Feb 21 00:21:13 -0800 2006

manage

The 'article' (actually a press release) claims that it will replace "AV-8B Harriers, A-10s, F-16s, F/A-18 Hornets and United Kingdom Harrier GR.7s and Sea Harriers."  It's correct for the Harrier lines in the near-term, but the others are all misleading.  Only the Marines will be phasing out their Hornets in favor of this, while the Navy has switched to Super Hornets, replacing the F-14 (the last Tomcats are due to be retired in the coming months).  The Navy will have some of these to provide stealthy strike capability, IIRC, but they will be replacing the A-6 in a strike capacity.

The F-16 and the A-10 still have decades left on them.  The A-10, in particular, is scheduled for upgrades through 2025 at the minimum.  No matter how stealthy the F-35 may be (and it does do well on that point), only the A-10 is able to reliably survive the low-altitude environment that covers proper close air support where much of the weaponry is still visually aimed.  They tried phasing out the A-10 in favor of the F-16, but the Falcon simply can't handle that many holes.

It's not replacing as much as you think

Tritis

Tue Feb 21 10:25:04 -0800 2006

manage

The A-10 Is as close to a flying tank as you are going to get. Definitely a cool plane. I agree there is no way the F-35 will replace it, ever. The A-10's ability to take massive amounts of damage while dealing out kills to tanks with ~6 rounds of it's massive gattling gun, combined with the fact that is has armor plating, three independent hydraulic systems and two independent engines as well as extra large flight surfaces... It's a low altitude support gun platform that just refuses to stop flying.

It's not replacing as much as you think

Paul Jackson

Wed Feb 22 14:25:06 -0800 2006

manage

To me tanks are loud, slow, clummsy things; where an A10 is a very quiet and nimble machine that flits arround overhead like a barn swallow. By the time you see or hear an A10 from the ground its all ready past, its nearly impossible to swing a rifle arround fast enough to get a futile shot off. The Air force hates the ugly little beasties, but we grunts on the ground sure love'em when they on our side.

It's not replacing as much as you think

bill_mcgonigle

Wed Feb 22 16:25:35 -0800 2006

manage

By the time you see or hear an A10 from the ground its all ready past, its nearly impossible to swing a rifle arround fast enough to get a futile shot off.

If the A10 has scopes like some of the helicopter fleet, if you're the target of the A10 you won't be turning around anyway