Afghanistan.

[kapkomet]

They're cool if they can actually be used - I mean - we could order another 300 F-22s, but what the hell for?

 

 

Peace, man. *SUCKS AIR IN*

 

Seriously, you don't get that? You don't get weapon programs, especially air force weapon programs? Considering, you've got China, Russia, and others developing more technology as we speak?

 

It's ok, though, I see ya'lls point. Nothing will ever happen, and the world is a safe, beautiful place. Dismantle it all and stop the spending. It's unnecessary. We need all that money for social programs so that the redistribution of wealth can continue from the private sector... i.e. the government decides where to put money. Defense spending included, of course.

[Balta1701]

Peace, man. *SUCKS AIR IN*

 

Seriously, you don't get that? You don't get weapon programs, especially air force weapon programs? Considering, you've got China, Russia, and others developing more technology as we speak?

 

It's ok, though, I see ya'lls point. Nothing will ever happen, and the world is a safe, beautiful place. Dismantle it all and stop the spending. It's unnecessary. We need all that money for social programs so that the redistribution of wealth can continue from the private sector... i.e. the government decides where to put money. Defense spending included, of course.

As I've said many times,...the deficit is awful and needs to be cut or we're going bankrupt...but defense spending doesn't count, so you're not allowed to cut it.

 

Anyway...Seriously...the Chinese and Russian air forces shouldn't scare you technology-wise. We're literally 30+ years ahead of either of them before the F-22 even comes out.

 

The only thing that the Chinese or Russians could do to stop our air force is the classic "overwhelm" technique...they throw out 30 fighters for every 1 of ours, and even though they lose 29, they come out on top because they take out our fighter and their planes cost 1/100th as much. This goes for the last generation of fighter planes as well. The F-22 of course is particularly vulnerable to this problem...since it costs so bloody much.

[bmags]

Peace, man. *SUCKS AIR IN*

 

Seriously, you don't get that? You don't get weapon programs, especially air force weapon programs? Considering, you've got China, Russia, and others developing more technology as we speak?

 

It's ok, though, I see ya'lls point. Nothing will ever happen, and the world is a safe, beautiful place. Dismantle it all and stop the spending. It's unnecessary. We need all that money for social programs so that the redistribution of wealth can continue from the private sector... i.e. the government decides where to put money. Defense spending included, of course.

 

yes, scaling back the f-22 program is saying that there is no danger in the world. Russia, China, blah blah blah you will be fighting the cold war until you're cold yourself.

[DukeNukeEm]

The only thing that the Chinese or Russians could do to stop our air force is the classic "overwhelm" technique...they throw out 30 fighters for every 1 of ours, and even though they lose 29, they come out on top because they take out our fighter and their planes cost 1/100th as much. This goes for the last generation of fighter planes as well. The F-22 of course is particularly vulnerable to this problem...since it costs so bloody much.

The USA has more warplanes than the rest of the world combined. I wish the Chinese and Russians a lot of luck going for that strategy. But here's the point: refueling, maintaining and employing the ground crews/pilots for each of those planes costs an absolute ton. When you have 1 plane that can do as much as 10 planes but only requires 1/10th the landing space, fuel and crews in the end you save quite a bit of money. That will offset the R&D costs.

[DukeNukeEm]

yes, scaling back the f-22 program is saying that there is no danger in the world. Russia, China, blah blah blah you will be fighting the cold war until you're cold yourself.

Cold War arms races are much cheaper in both money and lives than shooting wars, Iraq and Afghanistan should have taught us that pretty well. The stronger the US military is the more peace there will be between great powers.

 

I get antsy when I agree with Kap but the world will not look at defense cuts as a peaceful gesture. They'll see it as a sign of weakness and an opening to be more aggressive, first regionally and then globally.

[NorthSideSox72]

The USA has more warplanes than the rest of the world combined. I wish the Chinese and Russians a lot of luck going for that strategy. But here's the point: refueling, maintaining and employing the ground crews/pilots for each of those planes costs an absolute ton. When you have 1 plane that can do as much as 10 planes but only requires 1/10th the landing space, fuel and crews in the end you save quite a bit of money. That will offset the R&D costs.

I highly doubt that.

 

[southsideirish71]

Anyway...Seriously...the Chinese and Russian air forces shouldn't scare you technology-wise. We're literally 30+ years ahead of either of them before the F-22 even comes out.

 

Sure they are a little behind. But 30 years seems a bit much....

 

Russian Sukhoi PAK FA 5th gen fighter craft. Looks a lot like the F22.

 

 

Sure we might not be fighting the Russians, but my guess is that they sell a few of these down the road to some of the countries we might fight.

 

 

[bmags]

Cold War arms races are much cheaper in both money and lives than shooting wars, Iraq and Afghanistan should have taught us that pretty well. The stronger the US military is the more peace there will be between great powers.

 

I get antsy when I agree with Kap but the world will not look at defense cuts as a peaceful gesture. They'll see it as a sign of weakness and an opening to be more aggressive, first regionally and then globally.

 

This is absurd. We are spending more on our military than any other country by a lot. A lot a lot. A lot a lot a lot a lot. Cutting back on one plane program doesn't signal to the russians that their opening is there if they start spending 35% more for ten more years to catch up. They don't have that money. And frankly we don't have that money. But we are in conflicts now that don't have a hell of a lot of use for F-22s. And for the foreseeable future, it's going to be these types of conflicts. And these war groups don't give a f*** about our technology or our numbers. So I'd rather have a more efficient military with the trillions we spend on defense, then one that's f***ing great in your fake UN war games.

[SteveB23]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ed-koch/i-ha...r_b_526105.html

 

[Kyyle23]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ed-koch/i-ha...r_b_526105.html

 

 

you have to sign the acknowledgement thread that is sticky posted at the top of the filibuster before you can participate

[SteveB23]

you have to sign the acknowledgement thread that is sticky posted at the top of the filibuster before you can participate

 

 

My bad.

 

Done.

 

[DukeNukeEm]

I highly doubt that.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/aircraft-total.asp

 

This is absurd. We are spending more on our military than any other country by a lot. A lot a lot. A lot a lot a lot a lot. Cutting back on one plane program doesn't signal to the russians that their opening is there if they start spending 35% more for ten more years to catch up. They don't have that money. And frankly we don't have that money. But we are in conflicts now that don't have a hell of a lot of use for F-22s. And for the foreseeable future, it's going to be these types of conflicts. And these war groups don't give a f*** about our technology or our numbers. So I'd rather have a more efficient military with the trillions we spend on defense, then one that's f***ing great in your fake UN war games.

I really dont see how inefficient the F-22 program is, unless you're just starting at the current pricetag without taking into account how much smaller the actual air force we'll have to maintain will be. The reason the foreseeable future doesn't contain wars between power countries is our overwhelming superiority over the rest of them. If you give them an avenue to actually challenge us militarily they'll take advantage of it. Remember 10 years ago wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were not part of the "foreseeable future", but things change rapidly and if you're ill-prepared to combat them you get stuck in quagmires or, even worse, lose.

[bmags]

http://www.globalfirepower.com/aircraft-total.asp

 

 

Remember 10 years ago wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were not part of the "foreseeable future", but things change rapidly and if you're ill-prepared to combat them you get stuck in quagmires or, even worse, lose.

 

Disagree. Completely.

[DukeNukeEm]

You must be a Tralfalmadorian then.

[Jenksismyhero]

http://www.globalfirepower.com/aircraft-total.asp

 

 

I really dont see how inefficient the F-22 program is, unless you're just starting at the current pricetag without taking into account how much smaller the actual air force we'll have to maintain will be. The reason the foreseeable future doesn't contain wars between power countries is our overwhelming superiority over the rest of them. If you give them an avenue to actually challenge us militarily they'll take advantage of it. Remember 10 years ago wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were not part of the "foreseeable future", but things change rapidly and if you're ill-prepared to combat them you get stuck in quagmires or, even worse, lose.

 

You and your "reality." I'll go back to my world where everyone loves each other, regardless of history, and countries deal with each other in logical, unemotional, and reasonable ways. Progressives, mount up!

[Balta1701]

Remember 10 years ago wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were not part of the "foreseeable future", but things change rapidly and if you're ill-prepared to combat them you get stuck in quagmires or, even worse, lose.

This statement only has meaning if you say specifically "Iraq and Afghanistan" and you use a ridiculous level of specificity. A lot of the details were things we were already dealing with. The idea that nation building was a very difficult task and something the U.S. should not be involved in was a major criticism of the Clinton Administration's foreign policy by then candidate Bush. Their examples at the time were Somalia and the campaigns in the Balkans, which as we all know bear striking resemblances to the type of low intensity, guerrilla conflicts we've gotten ourselves involved in. Throw in Lebanon and Panama in that pool as well from the previous decade.

 

Furthermore, I still firmly believe that invading Iraq was on the table the moment Bush clinched the nomination, if not before...it was discussed as a way of securing oil supplies years before that. Somalia and Afghanistan had already been hit by U.S. missiles after terrorist attacks, and the Clinton administration was at least passively exploring ways of rolling back what was growing in Afghanistan. Hell, if you really want to talk about the U.S. getting involved in local conflicts, trying to shore up corrupt governments, and trying to deal with home-grown insurgencies...go back to Vietnam...it's the exact same story.

 

The idea that the type of war that the Bush administration liked getting us involved in was something fundamentally new in military doctrine or history is just wrong.

[DukeNukeEm]

This statement only has meaning if you say specifically "Iraq and Afghanistan" and you use a ridiculous level of specificity. A lot of the details were things we were already dealing with. The idea that nation building was a very difficult task and something the U.S. should not be involved in was a major criticism of the Clinton Administration's foreign policy by then candidate Bush. Their examples at the time were Somalia and the campaigns in the Balkans, which as we all know bear striking resemblances to the type of low intensity, guerrilla conflicts we've gotten ourselves involved in. Throw in Lebanon and Panama in that pool as well from the previous decade.

 

Furthermore, I still firmly believe that invading Iraq was on the table the moment Bush clinched the nomination, if not before...it was discussed as a way of securing oil supplies years before that. Somalia and Afghanistan had already been hit by U.S. missiles after terrorist attacks, and the Clinton administration was at least passively exploring ways of rolling back what was growing in Afghanistan. Hell, if you really want to talk about the U.S. getting involved in local conflicts, trying to shore up corrupt governments, and trying to deal with home-grown insurgencies...go back to Vietnam...it's the exact same story.

 

The idea that the type of war that the Bush administration liked getting us involved in was something fundamentally new in military doctrine or history is just wrong.

We were definitely getting away from that though. Bush campaigned on stopping nation building and his biggest defense initiative was upgrading the missile shield before 9/11. Either way, Iraq and Afghanistan thoroughly outclass Mogadishu, Panama and the Balkans in scope and length, the conflicts are barely comparable.

[Balta1701]

Bush campaigned on stopping nation building and his biggest defense initiative was upgrading the missile shield before 9/11.

Of course, this was also silly and a handout to defense contractors...and it still doesn't work 10 years later.

 

Anyway...you've just made our point. What would have been more useful in 2000...preparation for wars like Vietnam, the Balkans, Somalia, etc., or spending tens of billions on Missile Defense? Replace the phrase missile defense with "F-22" and you've just unwittingly agreed with us.

[bmags]

We were definitely getting away from that though. Bush campaigned on stopping nation building and his biggest defense initiative was upgrading the missile shield before 9/11. Either way, Iraq and Afghanistan thoroughly outclass Mogadishu, Panama and the Balkans in scope and length, the conflicts are barely comparable.

 

semantics. Fighting urban warfare against small low-level low-paid guerrilla groups has been what we've been looking at for a while now. I'm not talking about the iraq army fight, but the post-war conflicts in iraq and afghanistan are not at all a surprise. People have been harking this shift of money since 1991.

[DukeNukeEm]

Of course, this was also silly and a handout to defense contractors...and it still doesn't work 10 years later.

So why not try and push for a complete overhaul of our ground forces? Why didn't he try to find a new standard combat rifle? Defense contractors would've been ecstatic with any of those. It's all about credible threats, and neither of those countries posed one towards us prior to 9/11. There's nothing saying we cant get it wrong again and find ourselves too busy countering insurgents while China starts trying to expand. The best you can do is cover your ass in as many reasonable scenarios as you can, or elect bmags, who can apparently see it all coming.

Edited April 7, 2010 by DukeNukeEm

[Balta1701]

Again, you're focusing on those 2 countries rather than focusing on the style of warfare. It doesn't matter that Iraq and Afghanistan wound up being the targets, what matters is the style of warfare you're preparing for.

 

And anyway...at what point would you say we have enough F-22's? I'm not arguing we shouldn't have any (although I think that you could make the argument easily for just skipping over this generation of fighters entirely and doing a redesign in 10 years), we already have 300 of the things that aren't doing anything.

[bmags]

So why not try and push for a complete overhaul of our ground forces? Why didn't he try to find a new standard combat rifle? Defense contractors would've been ecstatic with any of those. It's all about credible threats, and neither of those countries posed one towards us prior to 9/11. There's nothing saying we cant get it wrong again and find ourselves too busy countering insurgents while China starts trying to expand. The best you can do is cover your ass in as many reasonable scenarios as you can, or elect bmags, who can apparently see it all coming.

 

are you seriously saying no one saw the middle east as the biggest threat 10 years ago? Give me a f***ing break, Iraq was a huge topic in the debates, and in the clinton administration. Even your mentors Kristol and Friedman wanted Iraq pre 9/11

[DukeNukeEm]

Of course, this was also silly and a handout to defense contractors...and it still doesn't work 10 years later.

 

Anyway...you've just made our point. What would have been more useful in 2000...preparation for wars like Vietnam, the Balkans, Somalia, etc., or spending tens of billions on Missile Defense? Replace the phrase missile defense with "F-22" and you've just unwittingly agreed with us.

By Vietnam I'm guessing you mean proxy war against a country that, as far as we knew, matched our military strength.

[Balta1701]

By Vietnam I'm guessing you mean proxy war against a country that, as far as we knew, matched our military strength.

No, I'm saying a guerrilla campaign on territory we don't control against an enemy with strong internal and external support, regardless of where that support comes from. Afghanistan from the 1980's is yet another great example. You're pretending these conflicts didn't exist.

[DukeNukeEm]

And anyway...at what point would you say we have enough F-22's? I'm not arguing we shouldn't have any (although I think that you could make the argument easily for just skipping over this generation of fighters entirely and doing a redesign in 10 years), we already have 300 of the things that aren't doing anything.

The F-22 will be at its best use sitting around doing nothing. Peace is war, war is peace, etc. etc.