Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire US Air Force, are we reaching too far?

Wow, just wow. You apparently don't understand scales...

One more thing. I don't like a fair fight.

KC

Should never be such a thing...

And you apparently don't understand economics and completely miss the point. Wow, just wow. The dumbassitude is great with you.

The point is, and it always is WITH EVERYTHING IN LIFE, is can you afford the very best? And in this instance, you can add the question of what is the very best? Because the F-22 is gone. The tooling is destroyed. There will never be another one built. It is water under the bridge. So, have we harmed ourselves with building fewer than 200 of them when we could have built scores more generation 4.5 aircraft?

And given that the F-35 is going to be astronomically expensive as well and appears to be infinitely more troubled, will it ever be procured in numbers needed to make up for the numerical superiority of the enemy.

A single F-22 might be worth ten F-15s but 2,500 F-15s beat 180 F-22s all day.

Well, we already bought the F-22s, and we aren't buying anymore, so it's a mute point. I believe we do need some very high end capability (you never know...) but we don't need an entire Air Force of F-22s. The F-35 is questionable in my mind right now. We could replace F-15E and F-16s with improved variants/sensors and have a tremendous capability at a fraction the cost. But I think that ship has sailed. The big issue I see is we are at a fiscal point where training is being slashed. That is a BIG mistake.

The Air Force appears to be cannibalizing itself to get the F-35 operational.

In addition technological superiority is a huge deterrent. In Iraq, the few capable fighters Saddam had choose to bolt for Iran vs. stand and fight against our superior technology. A similar thing probably occurred in Libya when Kadaffi chose to surrender his nuclear program vs face our air-power.

Now we can put more munitions on target, and break more toys for less money then ever before.

[/quote]

Wow, just wow. You apparently don't understand scales... [/quote]

And you apparently don't understand economics and completely miss the point. Wow, just wow. The dumbassitude is great with you.

The point is, and it always is WITH EVERYTHING IN LIFE, is can you afford the very best? And in this instance, you can add the question of what is the very best? Because the F-22 is gone. The tooling is destroyed. There will never be another one built. It is water under the bridge. So, have we harmed ourselves with building fewer than 200 of them when we could have built scores more generation 4.5 aircraft?

And given that the F-35 is going to be astronomically expensive as well and appears to be infinitely more troubled, will it ever be procured in numbers needed to make up for its numerical superiority.

A single F-22 might be worth ten F-15s but 2,500 F-15s beat 180 F-22s all day.[/quote]

So you are saying sacrifice US Airmen with numbers?

I usually agree with you posts but you bring in economics...how much is a military member's life worth in dollars?

The lack of tooling etc is a Congressional/.gov problem. That doesn't mean we shouldn't equip our military with the very best equipment available.

And you apparently don't understand economics and completely miss the point. Wow, just wow. The dumbassitude is great with you.

The point is, and it always is WITH EVERYTHING IN LIFE, is can you afford the very best? And in this instance, you can add the question of what is the very best? Because the F-22 is gone. The tooling is destroyed. There will never be another one built. It is water under the bridge. So, have we harmed ourselves with building fewer than 200 of them when we could have built scores more generation 4.5 aircraft?

And given that the F-35 is going to be astronomically expensive as well and appears to be infinitely more troubled, will it ever be procured in numbers needed to make up for its numerical superiority.

A single F-22 might be worth ten F-15s but 2,500 F-15s beat 180 F-22s all day.[/quote]

So you are saying sacrifice US Airmen with numbers?

I usually agree with you posts but you bring in economics...how much is a military member's life worth in dollars?

The lack of tooling etc is a Congressional/.gov problem. That doesn't mean we shouldn't equip our military with the very best equipment available. [/quote]

Money doesn't come from a money tree. It comes from tax payers and the federal reserve at interest. You might not like it, but yes, a pilot's life is worth a finite number of dollars. Everything is a balance between the best you can afford and what is needed to accomplish the mission. Always has been and always will be.

By the way, the Air Force has done this before. It is SOP for the Air Force. When they build a new base, the last thing built after they have built the housing, infrastructure, and everything else is the runway. That way, they can go back to Congress and say, "See, you've got to give us more money, we have all this stuff built and no runway."

It is the same thing here. They have deliberately killed off all RD of aircraft that might compete with the F-35, they are prematurely retiring other aircraft, they are nixing needed upgrades, they are cutting personnel and training, all so they can say, "See, we just have to have the F-35 because we don't have anything else at this point."

The golden bullet that downs the worlds best aircraft, might never have been fired if a flock of less able fighters were in the air.

1. Don't assume

2. I see you are you now talking about the F-35

3. Glad to see you have come back to earth after the "dumbassitude" comment.

4. In any economic discussion regarding our country, Constitutionally speaking, our military should receive the very best.

What is the very best, 1500 Tigers or 50,000 Shermans?

You assert that, but do they really?

2500 F-15's require 2500 pilots,

Per flight hour maintance cost on an F-22 are about 68k per hour vs the F-15's 42k per hour. If you figure an average 200 flight hours per pilot per year, your plan cost the tax payers an extra 33 billion per year just in flight hours, not counting initial pilot training, pay, benefits, and facilities cost for the extra 2,320 airframes.

So when you consider the total cost of ownership for the capabilities imparted, your "cheap" F-15's are not looking so cheap any more.

The R&D has already been done.
The delta wing f-16..

..... The wing and rear horizontal control surfaces were replaced with a cranked-arrow delta wing 120% larger than the original wing. Extensive use of carbon fiber composites allowed the savings of 600 lb (270 kg) of weight but the F-16XL was still 2,800 lb (1,300 kg) heavier than the original F-16A.

Less noticeable is that the fuselage was lengthened by 56 in (1.4 m) by the addition of two sections at the joints of the main fuselage sub-assemblies. With the new wing design, the tail section had to be canted up 3�, and the ventral fins removed, to prevent them from striking the pavement during takeoff and landing. However, as the F-16XL exhibits greater stability than the native F-16, these changes were not detrimental to the handling of the aircraft.

These changes resulted in a 25% improvement in maximum lift-to-drag ratio in supersonic flight and 11% in subsonic flight, and a plane that reportedly handled much more smoothly at high speeds and low altitudes. The enlargements increased fuel capacity by 82%. The F-16XL could carry twice the ordnance of the F-16 and deliver it 40% farther. The enlarged wing allowed a total of 27 hardpoints:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16XL

dave

Thanks AS...

Your eloquence is something I should work on....

Neither.

The correct answer is the T-34.

I find it ironic that when it comes to one's own defense of life and property, money is no object.

But when it comes to someone else's life suddenly economics play a role...some of y'all need to read some Kant and understand it.

I don't disagree with all that, but tell Congress. Tell the taxpayer. I figure we don't need that many aircraft anyway. Like I said in another post, there are only two or three potential adversaries in the whole world who couldn't be soundly defeated today with the air force we took to Vietnam.

Why would you say that? Cost is definitely a factor for me. I don't hire private security. I don't have an extensive security system. I don't have a panic room. I don't have a Wilson Custom Combat stashed in every room. Would all that make my life and the lives of my family safer and my property more secure? Undoubtedly, but it is cost prohibitive.

Carry on then...I forgive you for the "dumbassitude" comment