The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - January 9, 2009

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest
Advertisement
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Photo Gallery Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Eagle Over Afghanistan
SYSOP    11/29/2008 12:28:08 AM
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
J3       11/30/2008 11:17:13 AM
Beautiful picture of great airplane, but absolutely the wrong use.  I have never understood why the AF and Navy have insisted on using their best high perforance fighters in Iraq and Afgan.  I mean really, do they really need sidewinder and AMMRAM missles and Mach 2 performance in wars against insurgents which require mostly the very precise delivery of small-yield weapons at any place at any time within two large countries (Iraq and Afg) whenever needed by ground troops?  Do we really need long, multi air refueled, dangerous mission smissions over Afg flown from carriers in the Indian Ocean by F-18s when we have or could easily have in Afg all the land bases we need from which to operate strike aircraft?  In PBS' wonderful piece, Carrier, about the USS Nimitz's cruise in 2005 to Iraq, its air wing did not fire one shot, drop one bomb or fire one missle during the 70 or so days they were in the Persian Gulf.  The result of this foolish policy for the AF and the Navy is that their best aircraft are falling apart in mid air and need to be rebuilt or replaced just as our need for them in Europe v the Russians and the Chinese in the Westpac is growing rapidly and our ability to pay for these things is becoming virtually non existant. The proper policy would have been to quickly convert inexpensive off-the-shelf commercial aircraft to do these strike jobs in Iraq and Afg, just as the Navy is converting the 737 for anti-submarine work.  These planes would have had the range and payload capacity for all the electronics, sensors and large variety of smart weapons needed to do the strike work for which we are now wasting F-15s, -16s and 18s. 
 
Quote    Reply

J3       11/30/2008 11:18:06 AM
Beautiful picture of great airplane, but absolutely the wrong use.  I have never understood why the AF and Navy have insisted on using their best high perforance fighters in Iraq and Afgan.  I mean really, do they really need sidewinder and AMMRAM missles and Mach 2 performance in wars against insurgents which require mostly the very precise delivery of small-yield weapons at any place at any time within two large countries (Iraq and Afg) whenever needed by ground troops?  Do we really need long, multi air refueled, dangerous mission smissions over Afg flown from carriers in the Indian Ocean by F-18s when we have or could easily have in Afg all the land bases we need from which to operate strike aircraft?  In PBS' wonderful piece, Carrier, about the USS Nimitz's cruise in 2005 to Iraq, its air wing did not fire one shot, drop one bomb or fire one missle during the 70 or so days they were in the Persian Gulf.  The result of this foolish policy for the AF and the Navy is that their best aircraft are falling apart in mid air and need to be rebuilt or replaced just as our need for them in Europe v the Russians and the Chinese in the Westpac is growing rapidly and our ability to pay for these things is becoming virtually non existant. The proper policy would have been to quickly convert inexpensive off-the-shelf commercial aircraft to do these strike jobs in Iraq and Afg, just as the Navy is converting the 737 for anti-submarine work.  These planes would have had the range and payload capacity for all the electronics, sensors and large variety of smart weapons needed to do the strike work for which we are now wasting F-15s, -16s and 18s. 
 
Quote    Reply

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy