With their vaunted "we're better on defense" crapola, one would think that a Republican president should have been the one to crack down on this sort of pork-based defense spending. Rummy, when he was not starting wars with insufficient forces, did manage to kill the Crusader gun and the Comanche helo; at least he got something positive accomplished. He should have done more, a lot more.
Never mind the inferior body armor or lack of Army EW capability or the persistent allegations that the M-4 is a piece of shit, our Congress is busy porking up the DoD budget with F-22s and DDG-1000s and C-17s, because at the end of the day, it is never about buying what the military actually needs.
It never has been.
A blog by a "sucker" and a "loser" who served her country in the Navy.
If you're one of the Covidiots who believe that COVID-19 is "just the flu",
that the 2020 election was stolen, or
especially if you supported the 1/6/21 insurrection,
leave now.
Slava Ukraini!
Sunday, March 8, 2009
10 comments:
House Rules #1, #2 and #6 apply to all comments. Rule #3 also applies to political comments.
In short, don't be a jackass. THIS MEANS YOU!
If you never see your comments posted, see Rule #7.
All comments must be on point and address either the points raised in the blog post or points raised by commenters in response.
Any comments that drift off onto other topics are subject to deletion.
(Please don't feed the trolls.)
中國詞不評論，冒抹除的風險。僅英語。
COMMENT MODERATION IS IN EFFECT UFN. This means that if you are an insulting dick, nobody will ever see it.
Echos of "military industrial complex" keep playing in my head.
ReplyDeleteI think that is now "political-military industrial complex."
ReplyDeleteI do feel we need more F-22s and C-17s. Most of the systems they're replacing have been in use for 30 or 40 years.
ReplyDeleteF-15s aren't going to last forever, and even now the Russian Sukhoi and MiG upgrades are quite the match for them. As for the C-17, the C-141s are gone, the C-5s are old and oversized, and the C-130s don't have the range and speed.
However, I don't forgive the Bushies for saying "support the troops" when they don't provide them the barest of necessities.
We need F-22's? Why do we need a fighter aircraft incapable of flying in a combat zone? Do your homework.
ReplyDeleteckerst - care to elaborate on: "Why do we need a fighter aircraft incapable of flying in a combat zone?"
ReplyDeleteckerst - care to elaborate on: "Why do we need a fighter aircraft incapable of flying in a combat zone?"
ReplyDeleteRainlion, the F-22 is an aerial combat aircraft, it is not designed for "air to mud" missions. Since neither al Qaeda nor the Taliban have an air force, the F-22 is not needed for the ongoing wars and it has not flown any combat missions over either Iraq or Afghanistan.
ReplyDeleteThe Air Farce, by the way, spent a lot of money to convert the B-1 from a nuclear-only role in order to justify keeping them after the AF took a lot of heat for the fact that it was the B-52 which did the heavy lifting during the Persian Gulf War.
In military jargon the F-22 has no multi-role capability. It can only be used in aerial combat. The F-22 is useless against ground or maritime targets.
ReplyDeleteWars may continue to be fought from the air, the US just won't be fighting them in the air. The world's major powers i.e. Russia & China have significantly reduced their air forces. Those minor powers considered potential threats either have an insignificant number of fighters or no air force at all. We can afford to wait until the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter hits in 2012.
Unlike the F-22, The F-35 is "a multi-role aircraft that can perform close air support, tactical bombing, and air defense missions."
At about $100 mill the F-35 is roughly 1/2 the F-22's cost.
-AF
The comments suggesting the F-22 is incapable of carrying air-to-ground munitions are flat-out wrong. It can carry two 1000lb. JDAMs or 8 250lb. SDBs internally. No, it's not a bomb truck like the A-6 or A-7 were and the F-15E, A-10, and F-18 are, but it was never designed to be. That role will be filled with the general purpose F-35.
ReplyDeleteGiven its stealth and speed, the F-22 could easily be used for in the same way the F-117 was used in the first Gulf War: deep, precision strikes into fortified enemy territory. Also, if you recall, the F-117 carried just as many bombs and was highly effective as a first strike weapon. Sneak in, drop accurately, and get out.
And those saying that air combat is a thing of the past needs to look at what China's been up to with its weapons development and procurement programs. All that money we Americans spend at Walmart is translating into indigenous aircraft like the F-10 fighter and AWACS aircraft, and over 400 Russian- and license-built Sukhoi fighters.
I once saw a report that was done in the early `80s; the report tracked the rise in defense budgets over time and the rise in the costs of fighter aircraft. The conclusion was that by 2070, the US could afford to buy one fighter aircraft a year.
ReplyDeleteThe F-22, at 250 million dollars (plus) a copy, is taking us down that road.